My Jews-for-Jesus friend maintains that Obama is the Antichrist. Does he mean because he is: "the final Head of the last great Empire before the establishment of the millennial kingdom of our Lord?" [Bible Believers Antichrist]
No, he means, he's "truly so arrogant that he reminds me of Hitler Mussulini(sic) and Castro as a true Demagogue."
I shouldn't be surprised: a super-articulate black man might be perceived as "arrogant." In the debates, Obama, tried to make sense of the complicated world we live in. In the last debate, Romney blithered and was ignorant of basic geography. Syria does not have a common border with Iran, and both have their own access to strategic Seas: Syria, the eastern Mediterranean, Iran, the Persian Gulf, one of the world's most strategic straits, as well as the Gulf of Oman, opening out into the Arabian Sea! But Romney accused Iran of taking sides in Syria to gain "its pathway to the sea." Why didn’t the media jump all over this gaffe?
Romney also remade his Middle Eastern foreign policy on the spot--his etch-a-sketch--so that Obama couldn't attack him; suddenly, they were almost exactly the same: on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, and hardly a whimper about Libya and Egypt, either. He was "Moderate Mitt."
Obama did elide, and inflate, but he wasn't lying: he was explaining--to his own advantage--what he'd already done, and why it was working.
Neither dealt with important issues like climate change, or the European financial crisis and Romney was caught out in his ignorance of the Navy--and the rest of the Defense complex, despite campaigning on a huge increase in Defense spending. Where's the media to jump all over him on that?
Fox News said the debate was a tie!
Obama knew what he was talking about, at least, but if Romney isn't the AntiChrist; he's the False Prophet.
Does that make Obama the Antichrist, with his right to blow up or assassinate anyone he deems a threat to the United States? At least it isn't just a personal threat to Obama, or the wealthy, or Democrats, but it's still wrong.
If, then, Obama is the Antichrist, then we must have entered into the end times! But remember: Revelations was written in the late first century, not by John, the Apostle, and evidently the writer saw end-times coming, but in his own era.
Evangelists revel in Revelations, yet so far the end times haven't manifested throughout the ages. Yet so many, in this era, anticipate that they will; they look forward to it.
Romney's election might not be the end of the "last great empire," but he could push it there more rapidly. Obama might delay it, at least--or, if pushed adequately, embark on a less destructive path.
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Reporters and Corruption
Everything is for sale, including our supposedly representative government. What I find almost worse is the market of public information--and what, apparently, is not for sale.
Fox News, the most popular (faux) news channel, is despite its slogan "Fair and balanced," an unabashed propaganda mill that actively disseminates half-truths that become, momentarily, lead stories in the rest of the news.
Supposedly, on the other side, is NPR, which Congressional Republicans and candidate Romney both want to cut off from the public teat. NPR may favor Democrats, you see, because it's just as wishy-washy as they are. It's not hard-line for tax cuts for the wealthy, but it takes no position and attempts to present a 'fair and balanced' presentation of the issue.
NPR listeners are better informed than Fox watchers, or those of MSNBC, but none of the above present serious analyses of an issue, like reasonable rates of taxation. Even on NPR, the tendency is to parrot whatever one side said, and then how the other side responded: a he-said-she-said model that requires of the reporter no thought or research.
Will the Watergate break-in, and the investigations that issued from it, be our last really serious and effective investigative journalism?
Fewer and fewer news bureaus have reporters on the ground, either around the nation, or around the world. A worker-police massacre in South Africa is reported on by a journalist in Nairobi, 1780 miles away. If something happens in Minnesota, the reporter may be sent in from Chicago.
And more and more reporters only report: recording what the official, and/or his opponent say, without any reflection like: What the hell is "legitimate rape?" Or, damn, is that how contraception works: "the woman's body" somehow knows how to get rid of it--no abortion needed? Should I report that Congressman Akin don't know nothin'?
Maybe Akin made even the laziest reporters sit up and realize: they can't just report; they've got to base their reporting on facts.
Maybe. If extremists--who seem to be overwhelmingly on the right during this period--keep on attempting to present fiction as fact and fact as fiction, ever more wildly, maybe a more responsible information system will emerge. I hope it will finally allow most people to really know what's going on, and why it affects them.
On the optimistic side: people do help each other, and given a choice, most people will lend a helping hand when needed. Factual and analytic reporting would help people.
On the negative: fear is probably our most powerful emotion, and the one-percent, ably represented by Fox and Limbaugh, are backed by much more money, because our moneyed Roman Senators only want more money, and think in zero-sum terms: if they pay workers more, or protect us more from their pollution (pay their own external costs), they'll get less. Their strategy: keep'em scared and angry.
Will fear and anger work?
Fox News, the most popular (faux) news channel, is despite its slogan "Fair and balanced," an unabashed propaganda mill that actively disseminates half-truths that become, momentarily, lead stories in the rest of the news.
Supposedly, on the other side, is NPR, which Congressional Republicans and candidate Romney both want to cut off from the public teat. NPR may favor Democrats, you see, because it's just as wishy-washy as they are. It's not hard-line for tax cuts for the wealthy, but it takes no position and attempts to present a 'fair and balanced' presentation of the issue.
NPR listeners are better informed than Fox watchers, or those of MSNBC, but none of the above present serious analyses of an issue, like reasonable rates of taxation. Even on NPR, the tendency is to parrot whatever one side said, and then how the other side responded: a he-said-she-said model that requires of the reporter no thought or research.
Will the Watergate break-in, and the investigations that issued from it, be our last really serious and effective investigative journalism?
Fewer and fewer news bureaus have reporters on the ground, either around the nation, or around the world. A worker-police massacre in South Africa is reported on by a journalist in Nairobi, 1780 miles away. If something happens in Minnesota, the reporter may be sent in from Chicago.
And more and more reporters only report: recording what the official, and/or his opponent say, without any reflection like: What the hell is "legitimate rape?" Or, damn, is that how contraception works: "the woman's body" somehow knows how to get rid of it--no abortion needed? Should I report that Congressman Akin don't know nothin'?
Maybe Akin made even the laziest reporters sit up and realize: they can't just report; they've got to base their reporting on facts.
Maybe. If extremists--who seem to be overwhelmingly on the right during this period--keep on attempting to present fiction as fact and fact as fiction, ever more wildly, maybe a more responsible information system will emerge. I hope it will finally allow most people to really know what's going on, and why it affects them.
On the optimistic side: people do help each other, and given a choice, most people will lend a helping hand when needed. Factual and analytic reporting would help people.
On the negative: fear is probably our most powerful emotion, and the one-percent, ably represented by Fox and Limbaugh, are backed by much more money, because our moneyed Roman Senators only want more money, and think in zero-sum terms: if they pay workers more, or protect us more from their pollution (pay their own external costs), they'll get less. Their strategy: keep'em scared and angry.
Will fear and anger work?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Timorous Democrats
Republicans appear, with the help of Cato, Fox "News" and Limbaugh, to have created a whole new (fictional) world, one in which austerity and government lay offs create jobs, in which governments never create jobs, but "job creators" like Willard Romney do. It's an ideological system dependent on economic theories already proved more effective at amassing deficits, not jobs: the Laffer Curve and supply side fiscal policy. They state that taxes should be cut (even more) on the wealthy, and raised for everyone else, to stimulate the "job creators" already flush with cash, while gutting government services to those in need--to get them back to work!
Why are Democrats so timorous in response? They're terrified of the money (and media) against them, so they try to compromise just enough to get money on their side, to survive. That strategy was best embodied in Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council, a temporarily successful attempt to drive the Democratic Party to the center. It was Bill's genius to recognize that he could use some of the moneyed to gain support for a party that had a broader appeal, but was short on cash. Unfortunately, Wall Street was his main source of funds. Obama, too. That means no populist response, except rhetorically, to the bank and housing collapse and timid attempts to alleviate the worst effects. Obama may actually believe what he's saying, but he knows, or has learned, that nothing can be done, unless those who control the purse allow it.
Citizens United made the moneyed even more powerful, those I call Roman Senators here; they can now use their capital to buy the kind of government they want, which is why there will be piles of corporate money on both sides of the aisle.
In order to counter the money, only the largest and best-managed mass organizations could possibly have an impact. But the only ones on the progressive side not beholden to moneyed interests are labor unions. Before Reagan, they were powerful, although often crippled by graft and sclerosis. Since Reagan, they've been increasingly emasculated. The Scott Walkers in the states have been trying to destroy the only part of American unions that still had much clout: the public employee unions.
Paradoxically, such political abuse may have sparked popular outrage: the protests and recall election drives in Wisconsin, the repeal of Kasich's anti-union law, and finally, the Occupy movement.
The Occupiers may have had some effect on Obama's rhetoric, and may tip some Congressional races. In my district (Senator Gillibrand's former district), a dedicated progressive/Occupy sympathizer, Joel Tyner, is energetically campaigning to run against our Tea Party Congressman. He has enthusiasm, but neither money, nor organization (Gillibrand had both). Joel's problems illustrate how difficult it is to overcome elites bent on imperial overreach.
Move to Amend would repeal Citizens United; that would be only a first step to getting money out of politics.
Why are Democrats so timorous in response? They're terrified of the money (and media) against them, so they try to compromise just enough to get money on their side, to survive. That strategy was best embodied in Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council, a temporarily successful attempt to drive the Democratic Party to the center. It was Bill's genius to recognize that he could use some of the moneyed to gain support for a party that had a broader appeal, but was short on cash. Unfortunately, Wall Street was his main source of funds. Obama, too. That means no populist response, except rhetorically, to the bank and housing collapse and timid attempts to alleviate the worst effects. Obama may actually believe what he's saying, but he knows, or has learned, that nothing can be done, unless those who control the purse allow it.
Citizens United made the moneyed even more powerful, those I call Roman Senators here; they can now use their capital to buy the kind of government they want, which is why there will be piles of corporate money on both sides of the aisle.
In order to counter the money, only the largest and best-managed mass organizations could possibly have an impact. But the only ones on the progressive side not beholden to moneyed interests are labor unions. Before Reagan, they were powerful, although often crippled by graft and sclerosis. Since Reagan, they've been increasingly emasculated. The Scott Walkers in the states have been trying to destroy the only part of American unions that still had much clout: the public employee unions.
Paradoxically, such political abuse may have sparked popular outrage: the protests and recall election drives in Wisconsin, the repeal of Kasich's anti-union law, and finally, the Occupy movement.
The Occupiers may have had some effect on Obama's rhetoric, and may tip some Congressional races. In my district (Senator Gillibrand's former district), a dedicated progressive/Occupy sympathizer, Joel Tyner, is energetically campaigning to run against our Tea Party Congressman. He has enthusiasm, but neither money, nor organization (Gillibrand had both). Joel's problems illustrate how difficult it is to overcome elites bent on imperial overreach.
Move to Amend would repeal Citizens United; that would be only a first step to getting money out of politics.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
An Awful Anniversary
Ten years ago today the US invaded Afghanistan: it's the longest war in our history, and in some ways, the worst. I think, in terms of outcomes, Afghanistan will rank as the worst, for us, for the Afghans.
The US will not win this war; if the best-case scenario prevails, the US will withdraw in a negotiated settlement (now in the works); the Taliban will re-enter Afghan politics with some caveats, like abjuring violence. They would be a strong presence, but perhaps not dominant, because the Taliban can't win the war, either--unless it goes on for another ten years.
But think of the cost for this minimal settlement! Afghanistan has so far cost us $352.9 billion; over 1000 American combatants killed, over 2,000 foreign troops and perhaps 25,000 Afghan civilians. But war isn't just about people getting killed; it disrupts society, people's lives are ripped apart, their families stressed, or driven to starvation, their homes destroyed, their jobs gone, infrastructure annihilated. War is about some people losing a lot, even if they survive. In Afghanistan, American forces, setting up forward bases, appropriate peasant land and start building. Whether, there are internal politics involved (determining whose land is taken), those people have had their livelihoods, and their whole social identity, taken from them.
In Turkey, people like that did our dirty laundry (I was in the Army, there, in 1962).
But to the brass, ten years isn't so momentous. They have already leaked hints they expect to be in Afghanistan until 2020, or later. From Woodward's reporting--how the military boxed Obama in on Afghanistan--it looks as if, for the military, continuous war is what they aim for; and they'll work to get it. Either we fight in Afghanistan, or we'll have to find another war. It's not that hard, with media outlets like Fox News and WaPo.
For the military brass, war, war all the time, is a good thing. Promotions come faster, budgets keep growing, their power increases, and they have an easier time keeping the troops happy--as long as not too many are being killed. Easier in wartime? We have a professional military. During wars, all of them fare better than in peacetime in terms of pay and benefits. Of course, during war, those below the rank of colonel can get shot at, or blown up, or forced to endure inferior living conditions. But even privates now get balanced meals and hot showers most of the time.
It's why the poor enlist: a steady, if somewhat risky, job. Like Roman Legionnaires.
But civilians pay the bills: between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.
Actually, we borrow it from the Chinese!
The US will not win this war; if the best-case scenario prevails, the US will withdraw in a negotiated settlement (now in the works); the Taliban will re-enter Afghan politics with some caveats, like abjuring violence. They would be a strong presence, but perhaps not dominant, because the Taliban can't win the war, either--unless it goes on for another ten years.
But think of the cost for this minimal settlement! Afghanistan has so far cost us $352.9 billion; over 1000 American combatants killed, over 2,000 foreign troops and perhaps 25,000 Afghan civilians. But war isn't just about people getting killed; it disrupts society, people's lives are ripped apart, their families stressed, or driven to starvation, their homes destroyed, their jobs gone, infrastructure annihilated. War is about some people losing a lot, even if they survive. In Afghanistan, American forces, setting up forward bases, appropriate peasant land and start building. Whether, there are internal politics involved (determining whose land is taken), those people have had their livelihoods, and their whole social identity, taken from them.
In Turkey, people like that did our dirty laundry (I was in the Army, there, in 1962).
But to the brass, ten years isn't so momentous. They have already leaked hints they expect to be in Afghanistan until 2020, or later. From Woodward's reporting--how the military boxed Obama in on Afghanistan--it looks as if, for the military, continuous war is what they aim for; and they'll work to get it. Either we fight in Afghanistan, or we'll have to find another war. It's not that hard, with media outlets like Fox News and WaPo.
For the military brass, war, war all the time, is a good thing. Promotions come faster, budgets keep growing, their power increases, and they have an easier time keeping the troops happy--as long as not too many are being killed. Easier in wartime? We have a professional military. During wars, all of them fare better than in peacetime in terms of pay and benefits. Of course, during war, those below the rank of colonel can get shot at, or blown up, or forced to endure inferior living conditions. But even privates now get balanced meals and hot showers most of the time.
It's why the poor enlist: a steady, if somewhat risky, job. Like Roman Legionnaires.
But civilians pay the bills: between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.
Actually, we borrow it from the Chinese!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)