A little over 18 years ago I was at home doing some interior decorating and had the television on. I was watching live as tanks were pumping tear gas into a large compound and starting to knock down the walls when all of a sudden, fires ignited all over the place. Within seconds, the entire place was an inferno. Within minutes, I was absolutely stunned to hear reporters questioning whether the National Guard actions had caused the fire. Anyone with any knowledge of how fires start and spread could see that, with the extensive size of the compound, the conflagration would have needed many starting points and a great deal of accellerant to get going that quickly. Considering how it was clearly impossible or even remotely logical for several beseigers to sneak into the various buildings, plant accellerant, start the fires and sneak out again without being seen by any of the well-armed inhabitants, it made absolutely no sense to even raise the question of whether, accidentally or deliberately, they could have been started by any action other than that of the Branch Davidians. Yet here were reporters suggesting that the fires could easily have been started by carelessness or even deliberate action by the very people who were trying to rescue the children inside.
I was stunned because for the first time in my life, I had actually witnessed the media creating and twisting news rather than honestly reporting it. By raising the question of how the fire had started and presenting the possibility as if it had equal merit with the very obvious truth, the reporters opened the conspiracy floodgates which remain open to this day. It is arguable that their words also paved the path to Oklahoma City and Columbine.
Whether it is Obama's birthplace, evolution, climate change or death panels, the media has become more interested in promoting controversy than in reporting the facts. Statements like "Some scientists believe...", when "some" is the 96% of scientists that are not in the pay of large corporations who stand to benefit from doubt, are not honest and allow people who do not know much or anything about a subject to assume that there is not an overwhelming preponderance of evidence on one side.
It is one thing to see this behavior from professional "opinionists" but something else entirely when delivered by people who hold positions that should be above the fray. More and more of what passes for news is a discussion of what other reporters or news anchors or newspapers or pundits have said. Less and less do we see actual facts about real events.
Ed Murrow, you were so right.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
I'm back! And just in time.
I had an interesting conversation the other day with a fairly staunch Republican but it turned out that we were able to agree on a surprising amount. Having an open discussion while carefully navigating the Charybdis of polarization, I found myself clarifying some points in my own mind.
I've always told people that if they don't understand something, explain it to your dog. By the time the dog understands it, you'll understand it. In this case, I hasten to clarify, my discussion was not with a dog but it was with someone who holds very different views on most things political.
The essence of my thoughts was as follows:
1. I believe that it is the purpose of government to provide a safe haven for its people. This should include an opportunity to provide for the family, safety from threats both foreign and domestic, access to quality healthcare, a quality infrastructure (roads, clean air and water, etc.) and the opportunity to better self and family.
2. I believe that the current state of politics in the US has come down to two parties that are both wholly dependent on the Corporate state. Every single politician from the President to the local dog-catcher is elected based on the donations of corporate sponsors. Re-election is therefore dependent on their keeping those sponsors happy.
3. I believe that the difference between the party platforms has far too little impact on how decisions are made. By definition, most politicians are well-heeled. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a poor man to be elected to high office. That being said, I consider myself a Democrat because they at least purport to believe in #1 above. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that making the rich richer does not improve the quality of life for most people.
4. I believe that those same corporations, or rather the upper echelons of power in them, in order to ensure their continued increase in power and wealth, use every means at their disposal to convince the very people who suffer most by their actions that they are acting in their best interest. Religion, national security, xenophobia, racism, conspiracy theories, welfare recipients - all are used to convince people that only by increasing the wealth of the very rich can we survive as a nation.
Now. Imagine for a moment that #2 and #3 were not true. What if the government undertook to actually level the playing field? Here are some things that just might happen:
1. The government could initiate a huge national infrastructure re-furbishment program - roads, sewers, bridges, trash clean-up - all the things that are currently collapsing of old age. The welfare program could be changed so that everyone would have to actually contribute to the program if they want to continue to receive government support. Unless you are physically or mentally incapable of contributing, you have to. Immediately, the welfare population is drastically reduced and the country benefits. For those who are not fit enough to do physical labor, there are a million other tasks that need doing: delivering meals to the elderly, picking up trash etc.
2. Taxes could be increased on the wealthy. Not by Use Taxes, which proportionately hurt those who have to spend their entire income to survive. Not by a Flat Tax, which guarantees the rich will walk away with the cream. Rather, by providing a sliding scale so that those whose income comes mainly through the work of others would pay proportionately more. Also, we could just get rid of the loopholes that allow the rich and the corporations to shuffle their wealth around and avoid paying anything close to their fair share.
3. We could remove all unnatural benefits associated with outsourcing jobs overseas, at least until US unemployment reaches a sensible level. Even then, if there are not enough workers here, companies will not need subsidies to oursource, they will do it through necessity.
4. Here's the big one. Capitalism has one rule. It is the primary purpose of a public company to make as much money as possible for its shareholders. This is the justification for cutting quality, for asset stripping, for buying up successful companies and milking them as cash-cows, and for buying the government to provide subsidies and loopholes. It's time to change that rule. I'm all for profit but it shouldn't be based on this quarter's numbers. It should be based on a 5, 10 or even 20 year plan that allows for investment (and possibly less or even no profit now) so that true growth will follow later.
OK, enough for this post. I'm sure I'll have more to say soon!
/eclectos..
I've always told people that if they don't understand something, explain it to your dog. By the time the dog understands it, you'll understand it. In this case, I hasten to clarify, my discussion was not with a dog but it was with someone who holds very different views on most things political.
The essence of my thoughts was as follows:
1. I believe that it is the purpose of government to provide a safe haven for its people. This should include an opportunity to provide for the family, safety from threats both foreign and domestic, access to quality healthcare, a quality infrastructure (roads, clean air and water, etc.) and the opportunity to better self and family.
2. I believe that the current state of politics in the US has come down to two parties that are both wholly dependent on the Corporate state. Every single politician from the President to the local dog-catcher is elected based on the donations of corporate sponsors. Re-election is therefore dependent on their keeping those sponsors happy.
3. I believe that the difference between the party platforms has far too little impact on how decisions are made. By definition, most politicians are well-heeled. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a poor man to be elected to high office. That being said, I consider myself a Democrat because they at least purport to believe in #1 above. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that making the rich richer does not improve the quality of life for most people.
4. I believe that those same corporations, or rather the upper echelons of power in them, in order to ensure their continued increase in power and wealth, use every means at their disposal to convince the very people who suffer most by their actions that they are acting in their best interest. Religion, national security, xenophobia, racism, conspiracy theories, welfare recipients - all are used to convince people that only by increasing the wealth of the very rich can we survive as a nation.
Now. Imagine for a moment that #2 and #3 were not true. What if the government undertook to actually level the playing field? Here are some things that just might happen:
1. The government could initiate a huge national infrastructure re-furbishment program - roads, sewers, bridges, trash clean-up - all the things that are currently collapsing of old age. The welfare program could be changed so that everyone would have to actually contribute to the program if they want to continue to receive government support. Unless you are physically or mentally incapable of contributing, you have to. Immediately, the welfare population is drastically reduced and the country benefits. For those who are not fit enough to do physical labor, there are a million other tasks that need doing: delivering meals to the elderly, picking up trash etc.
2. Taxes could be increased on the wealthy. Not by Use Taxes, which proportionately hurt those who have to spend their entire income to survive. Not by a Flat Tax, which guarantees the rich will walk away with the cream. Rather, by providing a sliding scale so that those whose income comes mainly through the work of others would pay proportionately more. Also, we could just get rid of the loopholes that allow the rich and the corporations to shuffle their wealth around and avoid paying anything close to their fair share.
3. We could remove all unnatural benefits associated with outsourcing jobs overseas, at least until US unemployment reaches a sensible level. Even then, if there are not enough workers here, companies will not need subsidies to oursource, they will do it through necessity.
4. Here's the big one. Capitalism has one rule. It is the primary purpose of a public company to make as much money as possible for its shareholders. This is the justification for cutting quality, for asset stripping, for buying up successful companies and milking them as cash-cows, and for buying the government to provide subsidies and loopholes. It's time to change that rule. I'm all for profit but it shouldn't be based on this quarter's numbers. It should be based on a 5, 10 or even 20 year plan that allows for investment (and possibly less or even no profit now) so that true growth will follow later.
OK, enough for this post. I'm sure I'll have more to say soon!
/eclectos..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)