Does anyone else find it strange that people who are against gay marriage for religious reasons tend to always compare it to the horror of intrafamily marriages, yet they also believe in Creationism, which suggests that the entire human race was spawned by interbreeding?
Every time I hear the infinitely obnoxious "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" I feel compelled to point out that Adam and Eve's kids fucked each other.
(P.S. I'm aware that certain Christian denominations believe that Cain, Abel, and Seth's wives were given to them by God.)
Random Thought
While still shitting on the Constitution...
... Republicans decide to wipe their asses with the environment. The Senate voted 51-49 to open Alaska wildlife refuge for oil drilling.
During several hours of Senate debate Tuesday, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.,
said that even at peak production the refuge would account for less than 2.5
percent of U.S. oil needs. “How in the world can this be the centerpiece of
our energy policy?” asked Durbin, arguing that more conservation and more fuel efficient automobiles would save more oil than the Alaska refuge would produce.
John Kerry said that even if the refuge were to supply 1 million barrels of oil a day, at its peak expected production, the United States would remain heavily dependent on foreign oil unless there were serious efforts to reduce consumption.
Once again, Durbin and Kerry stand out as members of the very small
Democrats-with-Balls Club.
51-49 - Gee, is that a mandate?
Signs of Life
I’m tempted just to bray, “Too little too late!” but any sign of an opposition to this ridiculous black hole for American dollars has to be worth something:
The House debate over a $81.4 billion spending package for war is providing Democrats a platform to assail President Bush's handling of Iraq.Good fucking cripes. $590 million for an embassy? I mean, how about our deficit? How about fixing all the shit we blew up for the Iraqis before we start building posh accommodations for Negroponte?
"Why are we writing another check for a mission that's been so badly botched?" asked Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, an anti-war Democrat who has proposed withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. "Who's being held responsible for the misuse of the money we've already approved?"
In spite of criticism of the administration's post-invasion strategy and what Democrats called lapses in accountability by the White House, the House was poised to give Bush much of what he wanted for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Swift passage of the package with bipartisan support is expected in the House, possibly as early as Wednesday. The Senate won't craft its version until next month.
However, the president won't get $590 million to build a U.S. embassy in Baghdad. On Tuesday, the House approved an amendment - on a 258-170 vote - that bars money in the spending package from being used for embassy security, construction and maintenance.
Look, when I complain about how much we’re spending, I don’t want it to sound like I resent having the spend the money to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure. I don’t—we broke it and we need to put it back in working order. What I mind is crap like the CPA losing track of $9 billion, and Halliburton fleecing us all over the place, including in Kuwait andAfghanistan. The problem here is a complete lack of accountability, which finally some Dems are starting to bitch and moan about:
While debating the bill, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, criticized what he called the administration's failure to account for war costs and its lack of a coherent strategy for success in Iraq.Can we add $10 back in to get a leash for ol’ President Spendy McSpenderson?
"This is far from a perfect way of running Operation Iraqi Freedom," Skelton said.
Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said, "The full cost of this war is being revealed a little bit at a time on the installment plan."
The House bill, which would provide $76.8 billion for defense-related expenses, is roughly $500 million less than the president's request.
One bright spot:
On Tuesday, the House added $100 million to the bill for Sudan relief through an amendment sponsored by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.It’s about time.
Imagine how much more we might have been able to do with that missing $9 billion.
Funny Math
John Aravosis asks a mighty fine question about the Washington Post’s headline, Narrow Majority Says War Not Worth It:
OK, I'm not a math specialist but how is 53% to 47% a narrow majority when all we heard in November was mandate, mandate, mandate after a 51% to 48% victory for Bush? The Post is increasingly a shadow of its former self.To be fair, they’re just trying to win the race to bottom.
Odd Question of the Day
Oddjob posed our question of the day today:
In a game of Fahrenheit 451, as earlier referenced, which book would you memorize for posterity?
And—what the heck, let’s do both—which would you cast in the pyre?
For the record, I memorized A Tale of Two Cities for posterity and cast The Unbearable Lightness of Being into the pyre. Mr. Shakes memorized Anna Karenina and cast in the Bible.
Were I to re-choose my pyre-worthy book now, with more distance from the drudgery that was Unbearable Lightness, I would probably go with something else. I don’t totally disagree with Mr. Shakes’ choice, although, upon consideration, I think we might want to keep the Bible, as it may be the only evidence we have that Jesus was in fact not a queer-hating, war profiteering, social Darwinist and Blessed Savior of the industrial-military complex, since modern Christianity seems to have somehow mixed him up with a robber baron.
Short of anything more creative, I’d gleefully throw any book written by a GOP media shill onto the flames.
Question of the Day
What's the best Beltway movie of all time?
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, All the President's Men, The Manchurian Candidate, The American President, My Fellow Americans, Primary Colors, Dave...? Whaddaya think?
Hysteria Lane
Recently, I had a rather long back-and-forth email exchange with one of those infamous “big male bloggers who doesn’t link to women enough,” and one of the things he asked me was why Ezra’s got a good rep on women when others don’t. (I don’t know if he’s got a good rep with “women” or not; all I know is that he’s got a good rep with me, because he invites women guest bloggers—not just me—and takes his lumps when I tease him about using me to get his estrogen Boy Scout badge.) My response was that it seemed Ezra made an effort to seek out women bloggers without the otherwise perfunctory saying-something-insulting-to-women-and-having-10,000-of-them-(rightfully)-scream-bloody-murder scenario, which seems to be the only impetus to pay the remotest attention to women bloggers for most of his cohorts.
But the truth is, it is something more than that—Ezra’s just not as sexist. To wit: recently, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer celebrated the reopening of the infamous M&M bar, the revelry for which yielded some great images of the unpretentious governor.
Ezra and Kos both ran the image and their assessments of Schweitzer—Ezra a few days ago, and Kos today. Ezra:
Over at Sirota's place, we get this excellent pic of [Montana Gov.] Brian Schweitzer publicly downing a shot of scotch in celebration of a reopening bar. Looks like fun, not to mention great PR. I've never understood the politician's obsession with ribbon-cutting ceremonies and Rotary Club dinners. It's not that these things shouldn't be attended, but so far as the visibility they bring, headline-hungry congresscritters can really do better. After all, post-Reagan, post-Bush, post-Clinton, post-television, there's no doubt that Americans like their politicians possessing a high "jes' folks" factor, as in that guy's "jes' folks". Speechifying at a brand new grocery store doesn't really play into that. Downing scotch at bar openings does. Some pols understand this, with Guiliani top among them, and Clinton not far behind. Most don't. Not sure why that is though, not only isn't it tough to divine (act like a movie star), but it seems like a hell of a lot more fun.When I read this the other day, I thought it was a nice little post. And I agreed with it. Politicians who have fun with their constituents are a rare, but often wonderful, breed. (In fact, public figures of any sort enjoy the same appreciation for mixing with “regular people. Princess Di was revered for her common touch more than anything else—that she was the most beloved royal and the first one to touch an AIDS patient is not a coincidence; Andy Kaufman is remembered still for having taken an entire Carnegie Hall audience out for milk and cookies.) Ezra hit that point well—and without making it gender-specific. Contrast that with Kos’ post today, which left me cross and offended. Kos:
Sure, I spend a lot of time talking about a first-term governor of Montana, but I think there's lots of lessons to be learned from this corner of the country. And the guy is entertaining, no doubt about it.A real guy being a real guy? As opposed to what? A girlie man? Or worse—an actual woman?! Come on. How does Kos write this stuff without thinking that it’s going to be offensive? I expect this kind of nonsense from the other side, from Governor Gropenator and Bill O’Reilly. I don’t want to hear it from the biggest lefty blogger, who would no doubt dismiss me as just another hysterical women who reads too much into everything.
[…]
Over the top? No doubt. But man, that's some great images of a real guy being a real guy. A genuine version of Bush's fake ranch.
For the more intellectually nuanced amongst us, there's something here for you too -- this bar was declared the "ideal bar" by Jack Kerouac.
But what if I downed a shot of Scotch for a photo-op? Would that make my opinions worth hearing?
Another Straw Man Bites the Dust
Well, whaddaya know? Charges that the judge who ruled California’s ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional is just another one of those gosh-dern liberal activist judges might have trouble sticking. As it turns out, Judge Richard Kramer is:
a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.Yowza. Too bad for you, homobigots. Your straw man of the liberal activist judge who cares more about promoting gay marriage than a fair interpretation of the law just came tumbling down. Judge Kramer, possibly one of the last reasonable conservatives in the country, just kicked your prejudiced, whiny, hollering asses to the curb—and your “liberal activist judge” mantra, too.
As an aside, Judge Kramer also just seems like a generally interesting guy:
While he said he sought out a judgeship so that he could spend more time with his wife and daughter, he said he spent his first months as a criminal court judge reading the Penal Code cover to cover and driving through crime-ridden neighborhoods in San Francisco to get a sense of what was happening in the community.Huh. What a concept.
"It's all fascinating to me," he told the Daily Journal. "What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity."
And as an aside, of which I was reminded by Judge Kramer’s wise reference to the humanity of law, you’ll recall the Freepers who are worried that all hell will break loose because of this ruling, that it will open the door for “cats to marry chairs” and “ferrets to marry toilet bowls.” The leap from two men or two women who love one another to marriage with non-sentient things is indicative of a very real and very ugly contempt for even the most basic humanity of gays and lesbians.
I find all kinds of reasons to be disgusted by such an attitude, but the one thing I find most repellent about it is that you find this view most frequently among those who also revile Darwinism because they believe the concept of having evolved from apes devalues human existence. So make no mistake—when a Freeper compares a homosexual to a chair or a toilet bowl, it’s not just mindless hyperbole. It’s a calculated attempt to reinforce the dehumanization of lesbians and gays in the eyes of other like-minded human superiorists.
And that, my friends, is why sexuality- and gender-politics will never be considered “secondary” political issues on this blog.
The Ides of March
Four years ago today, Mr. Shakes and I "met" for the first time, in a forum not so very different from this one.
It was all because of an Oscar Wilde quote. To paraphrase, There's no such thing as good or evil, only the interesting and the tedious. In a matter of days (three, I think), Mr. Shakes asked me, "Fancy a game of Fahrenheit 451? Which book would you memorize for posterity, and which would you throw onto the pyre?" I was, of course, hooked.
Both of us are bookish, nerdy, LotR types, as anyone who's spent more than 10 seconds around here has surely discerned, and each of us had spent a lifetime having a love affair with books before we met, and so it was probably no coincidence that books played a big part in our relationship as it developed. We emailed back and forth about the books we'd both read and loved. (A Tale of Two Cities, if I recall correctly, was the first book we discovered for which we were both equally mad.) We recommended other books we loved to one another, and reported back with our reviews. We both bought Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, and read it at the same time, sending each other long email messages with our respective thoughts about the ideas within.
After two months, I had a birthday, and I received a package from Mr. Shakes. It was a beat-up copy of one of his favorite books, Flashman. I thought he had remembered my affinity for used books and picked up a second-hand copy for me; it was only when I opened it and saw the signed inscription from the author that I realized it was his own copy that he had sent.
Perhaps the strangest incident, and make of it what you will, was my inclusion of an Omar Khayyám quatrain in an email to Mr. Shakes, who responded by telling me to keep my eyes on my mailbox. The next day, a package arrived from Britain, containing The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, with one dog-earned page. On that page was the exact same quatrain I had emailed, with no knowledge that he had sent the book with the marked passage nearly a week earlier.
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness—
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!
When we were separated by 4000 miles, miserable and pouting about it, we used to talk about how all we wanted was to sit on a comfy sofa, each at one end, with our legs stretched toward one another, sharing an afghan and reading our books. We can do that anytime we want now—and it’s every bit as good as I’d imagined.
It’s been a great four years, Mr. Shakes. I’m looking forward to all the rest with you. Thanks, babe.
Action Item
Sister reader J.J. tipped me off to this article, which, I have to say, made for some very disturbing reading. The Illinois State House Judiciary Committee on Civil Law has approved a bill that would define a “person” as including:
every infant member of the species Homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
The legislation would amend the "Statute on Statutes," the section of Illinois law that defines basic words used throughout the state's law books, terms such as "month," "highway" and "person."
"Born alive" is described as any human who has been completely expelled or extracted from the mother and who has a heartbeat or muscle movement, whether or not the umbilical cord is still connected and regardless of whether the expulsion was a result of a natural birth, cesarean section or abortion.
By including "born alive infants" in the definition of "person," the babies now enjoy the protection of every state law that applies to "people," including laws on murder.
Although there was an amendment stating that the definition of “born alive” wouldn’t be construed as to be applicable to existing state and federal abortion laws, supporters of the law include the Concerned Women for America, Illinois Citizens for Life, the Illinois Federation for Right to Life (IFRL), and the Catholic Conference of Illinois, all anti-choice groups. In fact, Dawn Behnke, an attorney who lobbies on behalf of the IFRL, said:
What it does is support the legal principle that infants that are born alive, regardless of their stage of development or the circumstances of their birth, are persons and deserve protection under the law.
That doesn’t sound to me like the anti-choice groups have much regard for the amendment which exists ostensibly to protect abortion rights. Not so coincidentally:
Abortion foes have sought legislation for years in response to a rare form of abortion where babies sometimes survive and live outside the womb, if only for a short time.
All is not lost:
HB984 must still win approval from the full House and Senate before the governor can consider whether to sign it into law.
Contact Illinois Governor Blagojevich and let him know that you trust he will not undermine women’s rights by signing this bill into law in Illinois.
(Thanks, J.J.)
I Love L.A.
Actually, I think L.A. is kind of a shithole*, but tonight, I love all of California:
A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.For a truly grim peek into the minds of Freepers on the issue, see the collection of quotes Pam has put together. My two favorites are:
In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.
I am currently a judge (at a fourth grade science fair), and I say that sodomites cannot be married.LOL!!! Awesome credentials, are they not?
And:
Marriage should be open to unions between cats and chairs, children and grandparents, ferrets and toilet bowls.For what would a ferret and a toilet bowl register, do you think? I don’t know if there are any household items specifically appropriate for a ferret-toilet bowl union. Looks like Martha got out of jail just in time!
*No offense, L.A.-ers. I live in a shithole, too.
Good Evening, Shakers
Sorry again for the light posting. I'm working on a project that's taking up a lot of my time, but all will be revealed in short order. :-)
Let's make our question of the day:
If you could subject any one member of the Bush administration to a policy with which they are intimately associated, who would it be and which policy? Torture Alberto Gonzales? Put Bush in poverty? Send Margaret Spellings to teach at a drastically underfunded inner city school for a year? What'll it be?
Movie Time
Rox and Majikthise are offering their lists of the top 10 best films of the Oughts, in response to DJW’s post. I would have to think about this a very long time before I could come up with the 10 best, and by the time I was done thinking, I’d have seen 10 more movies and would have to start over again. So instead, here are 10 films I’ve really liked in the Oughts (not necessarily the best films, but the ones I’ve most enjoyed and have found myself watching more than once, in no particular order):
1. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (I know that’s a cheat, but I’ve only got 10!)
2. Hedwig and the Angry Inch (One of my favorite all-time films.)
3. Ghost World (On the DVD, one of the special features is the whole dance number from the Bollywood flick Thora Birch’s character is watching near the beginning. I am embarrassed to admit Mr. Shakes and I have put that in and danced around to it on more than one or two occasions. It’s great music!)
4. Spider-Man 2 (I liked the first one, too, but the second one was even better.)
5. American Splendor (Paul Giamatti rules.)
6. Garden State (Lovely, lovely, lovely.)
7. Punch-Drunk Love. (I adore anything by P.T. Anderson—Magnolia is my favorite—and PDL was no exception. It’s one of those that people either love or hate; I love it.)
8. Lost in Translation. (Ditto on the love it or hate it; I’m a huge fan of this one, too. I love Bill Murray more than words can describe—always have.)
9. Unbreakable. (Love it to pieces. Adore Sam Jackson. Adore Bruce Willis, even though he’s a stinking Republican. Adore M. Night Shyamalan. Flawless.)
10. Love Actually. (For many reasons, but mainly because Colin Firth reminds me so much of Mr. Shakes—awkward, a little uptight, witty, sweet, too smart to function.)
I can’t believe I’ve run out of spaces already. Runners-up: Man on Fire, 21 Grams, The Royal Tenenbaums, About a Boy, Before Sunset, About Schmidt, Matrix Reloaded, Kill Bill (more Vol 1 than Vol 2), Sideways, Napoleon Dynamite, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Rundown. Yeah, you heard me right—The Rundown. I love The Rock, okay?
I’m sure everyone will remind me of many great films I’ve forgotten. Go for it.
Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish
Pam’s got the lowdown on how even we hillbilly Hoosiers won’t tolerate the anti-gay vitriol spewed by the likes of sorry-excuse-for-a-human Fred Phelps and his demonic little minions.
My favorite line:
Phelps said America’s tolerance is sending it “to hell in a fornicator’s hand basket.”The only person I can think of that might still carry a hand-basket is Rip Taylor. You know—for the confetti.
I’m not sure how much fornicating he does these days, though.
Tick, tick, tick...
Oh, please please let this be the beginning of the end for the insult to our government that is the egregiously offensvie Tom DeLay. John Aravosis reports:
The Washington Post is reporting that Democrats smell blood in the water and Republicans are finally getting worried that Tom DeLay's endless ethical violations and refusal to clean up his act despite years of political embarrassment may finally be making him vulnerable to serious problems.Oh, how I look forward to the beautiful day,
"With some members increasingly concerned that DeLay had left himself vulnerable to attack, several Republican aides and lobbyists said for the first time that they are worried about whether he will survive and what the consequences could be for the party's image," says the Washington Post.
Could the deLay in kicking his butt out finally be over?
That marks the end of his powerful sway,
When he’s found guilty as charged and taken away,
And the House can commence without further DeLay…
Bipartisan Bayh
Even though I’m still muttering profanities under my breath about his vote for the bankruptcy bill, Hoosier Dem Senator Evan Bayh has just introduced a bill that actually intelligently addresses a trade issue that needs a policy update. David Sirota sums it up nicely:
I agree with Sirota that there’s no incentive for me to save a few bucks in exchange for hurting American workers. (Nor, as it often the case, in exchange for the mistreatment or exploitation of foreign workers.)There is a lot of nasty debate between free traders and fair traders these days, especially with news of the U.S.'s record-breaking trade deficits. but it is nice to see that at least some Members of Congress are trying to find common ground on the issue. Check out this press release from Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Evan Bayh (D-IN). As it notes, while massive government subsidies are illegal under current trade law because they create unfair advantages, "current trade law does not allow the U.S. to enforce these laws on countries that traditionally operate under a state-controlled economy." The Bayh-Collins bill would "update the law to take into account the fact that many of these countries, like China, now allow their manufacturing industries to operate as relatively free markets engaged in international trade."
Blogger Matt Yglesias, who I usually agree with on stuff, uses an unfair stereotype, claims this bill is "anti-trade" and then says he's against it because he wants to buy cheap goods. What he seems to ignore - or just not care about - is the unfair disadvantage foreign subsidies create for American workers and businesses. The fact is, the very least our trade system requires is a fair playing field.He also goes on to say that "unfairly cheap goods and services are exactly the kind of goods and services I want to be buying." He's allowed to have an opinion, of course, but I disagree - I don't want to be buying goods made artificially cheap because dictatorial regimes like China and others abuse trade law and subsidize these products in order to usurp economic power and put American workers out on the street.
This is real progress - members of both political parties, and even some free-trade Democrats, are finally starting to realize that the trade playing field needs to be made fair for American workers. Sure, this isn't a panacea for all the problems that come with free trade, and the free-trade vs. fair trade debate will continue, but this is a very good step.
Recently, Robert Reich wrote a column for the New York Times, in which he addressed the sometime conflict between our values and our consumer habits. In part, he wrote:
[T]he choices we make in the market don't fully reflect our values as workers or as citizens. I didn't want our community bookstore in Cambridge, Mass., to close (as it did last fall) yet I still bought lots of books from Amazon.com. In addition, we may not see the larger bargain when our own job or community isn't directly at stake. I don't like what's happening to airline workers, but I still try for the cheapest fare I can get.And that’s exactly the point that gets missed when one allows a bargain basement price to trump everything that went into that tasty pricing. Your inner consumer might be telling you how good it feels, but the worker in you should know better.
The only way for the workers or citizens in us to trump the consumers in us is through laws and regulations that make our purchases a social choice as well as a personal one. A requirement that companies with more than 50 employees offer their workers affordable health insurance, for example, might increase slightly the price of their goods and services. My inner consumer won't like that very much, but the worker in me thinks it a fair price to pay. Same with an increase in the minimum wage or a change in labor laws making it easier for employees to organize and negotiate better terms.
Light Posting Today
Sorry for the light posting today. I'm busy working on other stuff today, including admiring the amazing job Mr. Shakes is doing painting the house. Goodbye nasty blue weirdness left by previous owner; hello burnt almond. (Which I must say, looks spectacular with the hardwood floors Mr. Shakes put in.)
In the meantime, here's the question of the day:
If you were to choose anywhere to live outside of America, which country would it be and why?
Shillsville
From Mr. Bush, it’s such a thrill
I float as the clouds on air do,
I enjoy being a shill!
When Rove says I’m cute and funny
And a reporter of the finest skill,
I just lap it up like honey,
I enjoy being a shill!
I flip when McClellan sends me pre-packaged
News reports to make their case,
I go on the air with no shame and
With a pound and a half of cream upon my face!
I’m strictly a useless hack’s hack
And my future I hope will be
To sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom’s sack
Where I’ll be enjoyed like a whore from gay Paris!
When I have a brand new video
From Mr. Bush, it’s such a thrill
I float as the clouds on air do,
I enjoy being a shill!
(with apologies to Oscar Hammerstein)
Can you blame me that, upon finding out, via Pam, that more faux news has been shilled out by Bush and the vast, fetid wasteland of indolent uselessness that passes as our media, I was inspired to song? Of course you can’t. The scheme is an exquisite muse, and generous, too, in her willingness to just keep on giving. Its audacity, its bravado, is stunning. Forget Chicago’s ghost-payrolling scandals; this is the true embodiment of the American dream—the ultimate in getting paid for doing absolutely nothing.
"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.Gulp! said America. That was tasty! May I have another?
To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.Critics excluded, eh? Wait a minute, aren’t dissenting viewpoints supposed to be given equal airtime? Oh, that’s right. The Fairness Doctrine was crumpled up into a little ball, devoured by Reagan, and shat out into the Oval Toilet back in the ’80s.
This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.
Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.
Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.
Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.
The article offers example after example of this technique, including quotes from a television reporter who had no idea she was reporting on a segment for which interviews were conducted by State Department contractors. The administration got a hell of a lot of mileage out of its first-term PR budget of over $250 million.
The audacity of the administration, the complicity of the networks, and the unquestioning complacency of the American public have come together in an impressive triad of noxious disregard for honesty. The contempt which has been shown on all sides for the realities of the world in which we live has allowed a bubble to form, filled with disinformation, manipulation, and apathy, in which far too many Americans are only too happy to live in blissful ignorance. Meanwhile, anyone who might seek to discern and report the most basic of facts is summarily dismissed as a crackpot, tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. How utterly, perfectly convenient for those who have nothing to gain and everything to lose from too close a look at the truth.
Let the propaganda machine roll.
More on the Bankruptcy Bill
Another inevitable consequence of the bankruptcy bill, as noted by Seeing the Forest’s Dave Johnson, is that it will deter entrepreneurship. Starting a new small business generally necessitates incurring a significant amount of personal financial risk, and this new legislation makes such risk even riskier.
Tangentially, entrepreneurship is one of the reasons I have always supported socialized healthcare. In a country like Britain, for example, you don’t have to worry about health insurance. Starting your own company doesn’t mean losing insurance from an employer, nor designating some of the start-up costs for employee coverage. Imagine being able to start your own business without worrying about medical coverage. The rising costs of healthcare and health insurance in America, however, is making it increasingly difficult to start one’s own business. Coupled with making financial risk even more unappealing, owning a business becomes a much tougher proposition in America than elsewhere.
Because new small businesses generate new jobs, disincentivizing starting such businesses are unwise, as it could also have a grave effect on job growth. Poor job growth, higher unemployment, fewer people covered under employer-sponsored healthcare plans and hence dependent on social programs or burdened with high medical bills, more possible bankruptcies… It’s an economic nightmare waiting to happen.
