Political Blogs, News & Views

A Clear and Present Danger to Freedom and Democracy: The News?

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our free RSS newsfeed. Thank you for visiting!

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Those who study American history know that there was a lot of early opposition to our original Constitution, based largely on the fact that it did not contain adequate protections and guarantees for civil liberties.

To address these concerns, the Bill of Rights, which begin with the farthest reaching guarantee of civil liberties in the First Amendment, was introduced for ratification by the states in 1789.

In other words, our founding fathers realized that after just winning our Independence in a costly fight for our civil liberties from English rule, it was vital to our nation’s future that we constitute protections for those very same liberties and protections for our houses of worship and the free exchange of information by news and other publication means from government intrusion.

The notion that a free society depends upon a free and impartial exchange of information and ideas was their belief, and throughout any history book we can see the truth in that belief. Citizens who have been conquered and oppressed have little to no access to free information exchange and candid news journalism. Citizens who live free do. It’s that simple.

The reasoning is easy. If Citizens are free to congregate and exchange information and ideas without government control, then government officials must always fear the outcomes of those gatherings and exchanges. Elected officials must work hard to remain favorable, or risk their positions. But when government controls the flow of information, that fear is removed and politicians are free to act in whatever manner they please without repercussion or consequence.

Sadly, the one thing our founding fathers never envisioned nor safeguarded against was the idea that one day a small handful of people from the private sector would gain overwhelming control over all of the news and periodicals, giving these never-elected few the power to shape and change our country almost at will, and with no reasoning beyond bottom-line profit margins by simply controlling the flow of information to the citizenry.

But that is what we have today. Through mega-mergers and acquisitions, the vast majority of all information being reported, and the slants with which it is getting reported in America, all comes down from the desktop of a small number of people who can freely base their decisions on corporation profits over accuracy or integrity, and with nearly no fear of consequence or repercussion.

There are a ton of debates and arguments to be had on various points of this topic, it is far reaching, but there is no denying that corporate control over news and information exchange has already had a devastating hand in altering our country’s course.

There was a time when most Americans, regardless of political party affiliations, agreed that the federal government was like having an unruly teenage child. You couldn’t just abandon it on the streets when it acted up, so you had to remain diligent and aware of what it was doing and punish it when appropriate. — Anyone remember “trust, but verify”? As in trust your 17 year old son that he’s going to a friend’s to study, but verify that he’s not driving straight to the Keg party at the neighborhood park.

Yet today heated debates rage on because people have become ensconced in false positions of attacking or defending the very existence and role of our federal government on countless issues that should never have been part of it’s domain, such as who sleeps with whom and what ceremonies can or can not be performed in any local church.

Where and when did this happen? I don’t know for sure, it’s hard to pinpoint any single moment or incident, but why it happened is the real question we should be asking; and the answer is fairly obvious: the federal government holds regulatory power over corporate America, so for corporations the easiest way to gain leverage against elected officials would be to buy up the media outlets and gain control over the flow of information to the constituents of those elected officials. Suddenly politicians need to please Corporate masters in order to reach voters with their message.

As a child in the 1970’s I can remember the rivers around Pittsburgh flooding every 2 or 3 years after the spring thaw would come. Back then the local news reporting was always focused mostly on how the floods affected people, typically the poorer residents of low-lying areas who saw their homes and meager possessions washed away with the waters and had no insurance to rely on for getting through the disasters. I remember this because I was among them in those years. Our family home was on the edge of the Ohio river, just feet above the normal crest level. Luckily, the river never quite rose to our house in my time their, but it did wash out the street our house was on numerous times.

In recent years I’ve noticed, we still have those spring floods, though not quite as frequently and usually less disastrous because we’ve become better at managing the water flows over the years, but when the rivers do flood today, it isn’t the human tragedy that’s being reported on like I remember from my childhood as much as it is the affect the floods will have on businesses and yes, even daily parking in the city.

From telling the truths of the human tragedy among the poor who could only afford housing in flood prone areas where insurance companies won’t offer flooding insurance, to blurbs on how dozens of suburbanites who drive to the city for their job will see their normal parking spots displaced…that’s one instance of how the approach to reporting coverage has been altered.

It’s a serious shift in how the same type of stories are covered today from just a few years ago, and due to a slow moving shift has been almost unnoticeable unless you’re looking for it, but then it’s plain to see.

And it brings up a vital question to my position, have we as a people become less caring about the hardships and sufferings of our neighbors so as to steer the reporting away from telling stories from that humane perspective? Or, have bottom-line influences driven the coverage away from the human tolls to give more importance to the business community?

And if you think I’m just spouting off baseless conspiracy theories about Corporate America trying to control and reshape the free exchange of information, take a look at what’s happening online recently. Major battles are taking place between information producers and web site owners and services over where information can and can’t be shared; not to mention which information is being shared and with whom.

Just today I read about a subsidiary arm of News Corp, Rupert Murdoch’s baby, blocking 3rd party sites from even linking to information on their own web sites. This isn’t an issue over intellectual property rights or even advertising profits, it isn’t a case of News Corp protecting their content, it’s News Corp wanting so much control over what information people get and when, that they don’t even want others to point to their content and tell surfers online to go to News Corp’s site to read it. That’s “control freaking” with a capital “F.U.” to the very freedoms that the First Amendment–which News Corp often hides behind–was written to protect.

I don’t want this to seem like I’ve set out to specifically bash News Corp or Murdoch in any way, the chilling state of journalism and honest investigative reporting is equally poor and jaded across the board. CNN, MSNBC, print news, the list goes on and on…all owned by large corporations that have a bottom-line interest in swaying public opinion on everything from politics to sports teams and everything in between. How far they’ll go in using their ability to shape public opinion isn’t the point nor the question, but should the publishers of news hold such conflicts of interest to begin with is.

The bottom line is that the free exchange of information and ideas has become a bottom-line business controlled by a select few in Corporate America, and that represents a clear and present danger to our democracy. Owning a news outlet, print or broadcast, is no longer about fulfilling the service to keep a well-informed public, the news has become a tool for the elite to wield against the public, and at times against government as well, when it’s in their own special interests.

I’m not suggesting that news publication should be a not-for-profit business model, and I certainly don’t think it should be controlled by government, but for the first 125+ years of our nation information and news wasn’t under the control of mega-corporations either, and those were some pretty productive times in our history, so I’m just asking isn’t there some middle ground that would serve the public good; and isn’t there anybody (outside of Comedy Central) willing to take on that role today?

Related articles elsewhere online:

• News Corp is foolish to block linking (guardian.co.uk)
• Free Press Lays Down the Astroturf (and Exposes the Fake Grassroots) (takepart.com)

Technorati Tags: 4th estate, First Amendment, freedom and democracy, news

Posted in Media | 1 Comment »

Cherry-picking Smaller Government?

You can’t claim to be for small government if you support legislation which increases the size or scope of government, period.

I had a nice conversation today with one of my more conservative friends, centered around the Health Care Reform Bill that’s being tossed about the Senate over the weekend.

And while he and I rarely see eye-to-eye on many issues, he’s slightly further right than I can get to on most things, I was surprised to see that we agreed on one point in the conversation–that amendments like House approved Stupak-Pitts which seek to restrict access to currently legal medical procedures based on selective positions of morality–do not belong.

It’s not that my friend is pro-abortion, to be honest, I’m not pro-abortion either. I’m not even sure there is a such thing??? But I am for minimal government involvement in people’s personal and private lives, and fully against the legislation of selective moralities.

I’m all for those who wish to promote a culture of life that honestly persuades a pregnant woman to sincerely evaluate every alternative available to her prior to even considering an abortion. I believe in “well informed” decisions and that’s the only way to make one. But I oppose legislation that is based on the moral opinions of some, which is why I oppose legislation that would ban or outlaw abortion entirely; and I certainly oppose shady little amendments being tossed into major legislation which would also act to place the government between an individual and their doctor on medical decisions.

I never thought my friend would be on the same page as me about this though, and was shocked to find he is.

Like me, he agrees that changing people’s habits and choices by changing their thought processes and perspectives is the right path for the pro-life movement. That legislating the act of abortion ultimately does nothing to address the actual issue. It’s like treating a broken bone with a couple shots of rum, sure you may feel a little better in the short term, but when the rum wears off you’ve still got a broken bone.

If you want to change the way people think, you’ve got to do it in candid debate and discussion, not by legislation or shady tag-on amendments. Otherwise, we Americans are a persnickety bunch, and will revolt when we feel forced into a corner unfairly.

It appears that Senators Nelson and Hatch intend to introduce additional abortion restrictions to the Health Care Reform Bill as early as Monday or Tuesday, and from multiple sources it looks like the sane and rational members of the Senate may be several votes short of stopping them.

That will be a sad thing for all Americans I think, but especially so for conservatives, because it will mean their champions in Washington D.C. are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and willing to increase government’s size and role to invade and interfere in our private lives in an unprecedented manner.

It may not seem so bad right now, when the increase in government is to thwart an activity that most conservatives oppose anyway, but how will those same conservatives feel if some legislators used the same tactics to outlaw private and home schooling–under the guise of “fair and equal education for all”–down the road? Will conservatives feel then that shady tag-along legislating based on selective opinions is okay? That’s the problem with ringing a bell, once done you can’t un-ring it.

More related articles:

• Section 1803: Senate Health Care Bill Makes Planned Parenthood Quasi-Government Agency? (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• Health Care Bill Gets House Approval, Abortion Funding Battle Shifts to Senate (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• What Democrats Signed On To Re: Abortion (alan.com)
• Modest step in the reform journey shows the idiocy of our political system (thehealthcareblog.com)
• What the Stupak-Pitts Coathanger Amendment Does (dailykos.com)

Related Video

Sen. Durbin: Where Is The Republican Health Care Plan?

Sen. Dick Durbin today [December 05, 2009] addressed Republican requests to “slow down” with respect to the debate on the Senate health care reform bill.

Technorati Tags: Abortion, Health care, Pro-life, United States Senate

Posted in U.S. Senate | No Comments »

All Democrats In The Room, Please Gather On The Same Page

Forget about Health Care Reform. My experience with Washington Watching (not nearly as fun as Girl Watching by the way), but after seeing even the gifted orator, President Obama, stumble repeatedly while trying to present the case to live audiences my experience tells me that true Health Care Reform is now dead in the water.

I have a feeling what we’re going to watch play out over the next few months now is just a dragged out, futile attempt to find some politically face-saving method for the administration and supporters in congress to bow out gracefully.

Unfortunately, real Health Care Reform won’t be falling to articulate arguments made during healthy national debate and discussions; and it isn’t falling to make way for any better ideas or plans brought forward by opponents…No, true Health Care Reform will go away for one single, sadly disgusting reason–because Democrats lack the ability to get–or stand–together on the same page.

If there’s any upside, it’s that the Americans who put Democrats in charge of bringing change will likely grow tired of their inability to act much faster than it took to grow weary of the abuses and hypocrisies suffered under the last Republican reign.

So, within just one or two short election cycles the Democrats will be back in their familiar, more comfortable minority where they can hide their dysfunctional nature behind cries of “It’s not our fault, the Republicans are in charge”… oh, happy days!

Technorati Tags: Democrats, health care reform

Posted in Democrats | No Comments »

Idiocracy, We Are Here!

I love a good debate. I prefer an America with 2 strong parties holding opposing views, because I believe it makes us stronger and keeps us centered.

But in the Health Care Reform–or is that Insurance Coverage Reform now?–discussions, the debate seems to have turned into insane banter and bickering between the uninformed and the uninspired. Sadly, democrats are leading the uninspired charge this time.

I knew we were in trouble when I saw the video (it’s all over the web) of one angry man screaming at a U.S. Representative that he “didn’t want the government’s hands on his medicare”.

The fact that this guy obviously missed the memo on who pays for and manages medicare wasn’t the troubling factor, I’m used to impassioned zealots spewing meaningless rants.

It’s the fact that every major news network I’ve seen has now played that clip not as evidence that these rants and oppositions are from the uninformed, but rather as evidence that “normal people” are overwhelmingly siding against the proposed reforms.

Then today I found a great piece that covered a publishing by Investor’s Business Daily (NOTE: the story has since been changed to remove the silly implication, but accounts of it are all over the web) which spoke ill of the reform plans, making it’s case by saying that the rationing of any government controlled public option would lead to such dire examples as [from the original publishing]:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Perhaps someone at IBD should have asked their underworked fact checker where Stephen Hawking was from.

As you might be aware, he’s from the UK, has lived there all his life, and credits the National Health Service there for giving him the opportunity to live as long and productively as he has:

“I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS, I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

The sad truth is, under our current system in America, Hawking is probably accurate in saying he wouldn’t have survived because the odds are good that he would have been dropped from any commercial policy he did have (as many Americans who thought they were covered by good insurance have been) and ultimately would have been left to sub-standard on-going care via Emergency Room visits rather than closely monitored care with a primary Doctor who knew his history and could judge  his continued symptoms and progressions better.

That’s not to suggest our ER’s are sub-standard in any way. They’re not. But they are designed for emergency care, not on-going treatment and care. But, for the uninsured, they are often the only option available in our system, and when used improperly, and well intended care can turn into an ultimate disaster for the patient. It’s also a much heavier burden on tax-payers than paying for proper continual care with the right providers would be, but opponents to reform never want to acknowledge that.

But this writing isn’t to debate the health care reform issue, it’s to point out that we’re losing our common sense and manners in this country.

I’m not that old, just entering middle-age in fact, but when I grew up we were taught to be mindful and respectful of others.

We were taught that points were never made by being louder than your opponent, but rather by being smarter and more informed than they were.

If you didn’t like what your government was doing, or planning to do, you have a voice, but it is supposed to be your inside voice you use.

That every man (or woman) of good character will make a stand for what they believe in, but when you decide to make your stand for something, you ‘ought to know what the hell you’re standing for, or against, before shooting your mouth off. Otherwise you just get caught with your britches down.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Oops! Once again right-wingers WRONG about healthcare. This time Investor’s Business Daily blew their right-wing smoke up their own a** (iflizwerequeen.com)
• UK Health System Hits Back at US Critics (abcnews.go.com)
• Stephen Hawking Sets the Record Straight (dailykos.com)
• Britain Defends Its National Health Service (mydd.com)

Technorati Tags: bad manners, dumb ideas, health care reform

Posted in Near Misses | 1 Comment »

American Death Squads?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney

Current and former government officials have apparently confirmed that the CIA had developed plans to create and deploy small, specialized teams overseas on specific missions to kill terrorists.

It was also made clear by CIA Director Leon Panetta, that these plans had been hidden from lawmakers on the command of former Vice President Cheney.

I think there are 3 major, but separate questions that rise from all of this.

1. Do official “Death Squads” conform to the core values and ideals that the United States has always stood for?
2. If the answer to #1 above is no, or “probably not” (as it was most often in my own unscientific polling of friends and family), just how big of a deal is that then? Personally, I feel these teams of assassins are completely adverse to the principals our nation was founded on, yet at the end of the day I’m not sure I’d care about that if they returned home with Osama Bin Laden’s head in a duffel bag. I certainly would congratulate the individual members of that specific team, no doubt about it. Does this mean I’m not true to my beliefs in the founding principals of our nation, or does it simply reflect that we live in a world where there’s little room for absolutes, and sometimes “acceptable” does lay between right and wrong based on the circumstances?
3. And finally, how and why does the Vice President get away with concealing such planning from the entire legislative body, including the members of our Military and Intelligence Committees who specifically have clearance to be briefed on exactly this kind of thing, in order to prevent the Constitution from being abandoned.

My commentary within the questions says enough about my own thoughts on them, what I’d really like to know is how other Americans and readers from around the world view them?

Related articles by Zemanta

• CIA sought to activate assassination teams, sources say (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Insiders say strike force was secret plan CIA hid (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• The Right Reason to Shut Down the CIA’s Bin Laden Assassination Program (usnews.com)
• C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders (nytimes.com)

Technorati Tags: death squads, dick cheney, terrorists

Posted in War on Terror | 1 Comment »