attorneybutler.net

LIBERAL DOMINATION OF THE MEDIA?

An alleged Liberal domination of the media has been a core belief of many Conservatives for decades.  Indeed, it is one of the main principles of Ann Coulter's conspiracy theory that goes so far as to classify all Liberals as traitors.  ("Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.")

In my own limited experience,  I have not seen this media dominance. If anything, there are more Conservative media darlings right now, and I get Conservative viewpoints thrust at me from multiple directions at a rate that overwhelms anything that might be classified as Liberal.

I use Facebook mainly to collect information and political opinion.  I will "friend" or become a "fan" of virtually anyone or anything that will make me a more informed citizen.  I do have some standards in this regard, however.  Readers of this site might be surprised to learn that I have declined to join the "MI for Removing Republican Hon. Robert Young from the Mich. Sup. Court" group on Facebook, though I have been invited.  I am not a fan of Justice Robert Young of the Michigan Supreme Court (Google lists 86 references to him on this site), but this group trivializes the seriousness of the issues involved.  "Superficial Reason No. 1 for getting rid of Robert Young: When was the last time you met a man who regularly wears bow-ties that could relate to the plight of the common man? Answer: Never."  I don't think Justice Young is losing any sleep or donating his bow ties to Goodwill based on that.  (By the way, it doesn't help when the group's creator has a profile picture that shows him raising a martini glass to his lips.)  Heaven protect us from those who profess to be our friends.  By the way, I do have an answer to that question:  The late Judge William Leo Cahalan, Wayne County Circuit Court, so there.

But I digress.  On Facebook, Conservative posts outnumber Liberal posts 10-1.  That is a "conservative" estimate. LOL, as they say on Facebook.  Saul Azunis, the Republican Party, Conservative candidates for public office, the Federalist Society, etc. virtually drown the Facebook service with their various opinions.  On the other hand, the tide of Liberal posts is scarcely sufficient to get one's ankles wet.

While noting the huge discrepancy on Facebook, i didn't  really think much of it.  However, reading a recent article that listed the Conservatives that most influenced American Politics.  There was a similar list of Liberals.

The top 7 Conservatives:

1. Dick Cheney-former VP
2. Rush Limbaugh-radio talk show host
3. Matt Drudge-internet site owner, the Drudge Report
4. Sarah Palin-former VP candidate and current Fox News something or other
5. Robert Gates-US Defense Secretary
6. Glenn Beck-TV talk show host
7. Roger Ailes-President Fox News Channel

Some scary names there.  But, note, the number of media types included.  Only two, Cheney and Gates, are not currently in the media business.

On the Liberal side:

1. Barack Obama-President
2. Hilary Clinton-Secretary of State
3. Nancy Pelosi-Speaker of the House
4. Bill Clinton-Former US President
5. Rahm Emanuel-President's Chief of Staff
6. Al Gore-Former VP-
7. Oprah Winfrey-TV talk show host

Only one media type on this list. 

One might argue that certainly an incumbent Democratic administration would vault its Liberal officeholders into the "most influential" list.  I considered that.  However, two of the top seven Liberals are former, not current officeholders.  And Former President George Bush was listed number 12 on the list of Conservatives, which was up from 21 when the list was last compiled in 2007, when Mr. Bush was President.

So, I am not persuaded by the Liberal media bias theory, past or present, and certainly not future.  In the recent US Supreme Court case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission will fundamentally alter the media landscape.  In that case the Supreme Court found that corporations should not be restricted from spending unlimited amounts on political commercials because to limit that spending would violate the First Amendment.  Maybe it won't be too long before the we have the US Chamber of Commerce News Channel.  With Ann Coulter as President?

WIT ON FACEBOOK, FORSOOTH!

There is an overwhelming volume of chaff on Facebook ("Love Sunsets.  Hate Work.  Love You.  Hate You.  Toilet's plugged.  So's my nose.  Poke me.  Poke You.  LOL.  FU.  Republicans Suck.  Democrats Suck.  Sez You.  Oh, Yeah?  I Love Glenn Beck--this person needs analysis.  :).  :(.  I'm sad.  So, what?  Charlie Chaplin had large feet.")  (The last parenthesis--not this one, the other one, well both actually, were meant as actual punctuation marks, not displays of deeply felt emotion.)---This one, too. 

You get the idea.  Many people feel compelled to post every time two neurons accidentally brush by each other in their otherwise sparsely settled penthouse levels.  So, it is refreshing and rare to see some real wit on the old wall, news feed, live feed or whatever they call it.

I have the honor to be a Facebook "friend" of Elayne Boosler, the only comedi-person I have ever paid money to see perform live.  Here are a couple of genuinely funny posts from January 11, 2010:

"News Roundup: "McCain Aide: Palin Believed Candidacy Was 'God's Plan'." And God is good, which is why his plan was that she lose."

"Harry Reid thought Obama could get elected because he wasn't "too dark" and "didn't have a negro dialect". He also supported Joe Lieberman because he wasn't too cheap, and Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell because he never made it rain. But he didn't like Olympia Snowe cause she throws like a girl."

Now, Sarah Palin may be funnier than Elayne.  However, I give Elayne more credit. She works on her material, whereas Sarah is more of an idiot savant of comedy.  Now that she has been hired to do commentary on Fox News, they may have to rename the Network "Comedy Right".

Former Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Azunis posted something funny on Facebook today as well.  Saul posts so often his fingers must bleed.  Anyway, he has started a "mini-series" of sorts on a list of the 100 most influential conservatives.  A separate post on each one ought to keeps Saul busy for about 5 hours, based on his usual  posting rates.

While I consider myself an independent (conservative on some things, liberal on others), I got the same feeling looking at Saul's list as I did when I looked at the recent Detroit Free Press article naming the Detroit Lions 2000-2009 "All Decade Team".  Now that's funny.

BIRTHDAY OF RICHARD M. NIXON

US President Richard M. Nixon was born on this date in 1913.  He died in 1994.

I need not go into the unfortunate fact that  President Nixon will be remembered primarily for being the only President to resign from office.

I set forth here one of Mr. Nixon's memorable quotes:  "When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." 

I post that quote, not because it is easy and safe to take pot shots at Richard Nixon.  I think the quote is particularly relevant because it reflects an attitude that is not peculiar to Mr. Nixon.  I think many in positions of power, not only political, believe that authority alone validates any action taken in its name. 

It is for this reason that individuals must watch carefully those in authority, and be vigilant in the protection of their liberties.

SELECTIVE OUTRAGE

As I write this piece, former Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Azunis has posted to his Facebook account 11 times in 5 hours (many times commenting on his own posts).  Saul may not realize that the sheer volume of his "All Republicans are good, all Democrats are evil" rants is the best argument against any of them being read.  If there is a rumor that a Democrat was parked in a space with an expired meter, Saul will post it as the latest (for about five minutes) example of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of all Democrats, everywhere.

Now, my chief problem with Saul is his total lack of objectivity.  Take for instance, the recent, horrible story of 4 Washington policemen killed by one Maurice Clemmons.  It appears Mr. Clemmons had a long criminal record, and was in fact serving a 108 year sentence for 7 month crime spree which occurred when he was 16.  In 2000, Mike Huckabee, then Republican Governor of Arkansas, commuted the sentence to make Clemmons eligible for parole immediately.  He had served 11 years at that point.

Mr. Huckabee, a 2012 presidential hopeful, issued a statement after the officers' murders taking responsibility in the events that resulted in Clemmons release.  I have read the statement, and if there is anything like an admission of responsibility in it, it is well concealed amid the blame he casts on many others.

I don't know much about Mike Huckabee and I assume he didn't and couldn't take a lot of time with each clemency petition that came before him.  I also assume that there is indeed plenty of blame to go around in this affair. 

But one thing I do know, there is not a mention of this episode and Mike Huckabee's role in it on Saul's Facebook or Twitter account, nor on his blog.  And believe me, this is not because Saul ignores current events or that he was busy during the Thanksgiving holiday.  What I also know, is that if the governor that commuted Clemmons sentence had been a Democrat, Saul would have crashed his various computer accounts and sites with accusations of Democrats being soft on crime.

The silence from Saul on this tragic affair is deafening.  More important to ignore the shortcomings of our party's darlings than to seek and tell the truth.

That's Saul, folks.

Cartoon by Steve Benson

 

 

FEDERAL MAMMOGRAM REPORT AND HEALTH CARE RATIONING

Early last month (November, 2009), an independent government appointed panel recommended changes in previous breast cancer screening practices.  The group stated that women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year.  Mammograms are one of the most commonly ordered medical tests, by the way.  The panel cited evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefit.  

Well, as a son, husband and father of two daughters, it would take some pretty compelling evidence to persuade me that any potential harm would outweigh the benefits of early detection.

Be that as it may, for the moment.  The recommendations came out amid the on-going health care reform debate.  The report was the harbinger of government health care rationing said some opponents, as indicated in this letter to the editor from the November 21 New Jersey Star Ledger: 

"Palin got it right

A few months ago, former governor Sarah Palin told us about "death panels" hidden in the proposed health care legislation. Now, a government panel comes out and tells us that women shouldn’t start mammograms until they are 50 years old instead of 40. After 50, they should have mammograms every other year instead of every year. They shouldn’t examine their own breasts for lumps, perhaps because if they find something that doesn’t feel right, they might visit their doctor and drive up the cost of health care.

The American Cancer Society disagrees with this finding. If this new study is adopted, it’s a death sentence for thousands of women every year. Perhaps it will be your wife, mother, sister or daughter, or even you. Whose looking out for you? It isn’t the government."

This argument may have some superficial appeal, and when Sarah Palin's name comes up, the term "superficiality" is sure to follow.  It is a little ironic that the many of the same folks who warn us about impending government health care rationing are the same people who seek to reduce health care costs by "tort reform" legislation.  Why?  Because doctors are performing too many unnecessary medical tests, fearing malpractice suits.  What is an unnecessary medical test?  It may soon be a routine mammogram.

Cries for tort reform legislation have come long before the current health care reform bill.  And will come long after the current legislative battle is over.  Even if the current bill passes with severe tort reform provisions.  Calls for more tort reform are as inevitable as death and taxes.

As to health care rationing, we have that already.  From the government in the form of the FDA, that tells us what medications we can have, for instance.  But more basically, current health care rationing comes from private insurers, when they decide what they will or won't pay for.  If the current health care bill was withdrawn from Congressional consideration today, and all talk about "death panels", "public options", and "rationing" went away, the mammogram recommendations would still be important.  Why?  Because they would serve as a basis for private insurers to deny payment for routine yearly mammograms for older women, and for any mammograms for women under 50. 

Remember, insurance companies only make money by paying out less in benefits than they make in premium payments.  Now that is a great incentive to ration health care, isn't it?

This cartoon by Matt Davies puts it nicely:

 

SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING-INTERVIEWS WITH SUPPORTERS

Another good, low key piece from New Left Media.

To quote from the video's notes on YouTube (the writing errors are from the original):

On November 20, 2009, Sarah Palin visited Columbus, OH as part of her book signing tour for "Going Rogue." When her supporters were asked broad questions about why they why they thought she should be president, the responses were vague: She's "real." She'll "stick up for America."

THERE ARE UNINFORMED OBAMA SUPPORTERS, TOO
It has been said in comments that we would find similarly talking point-driven, substance-less supporters at an Obama rally, and we agree. But no politician has emerged on the national stage as undefined and unqualified as Sarah Palin, and her public persona--which is anti-intellectual by definition--discourages substance. Instead, we get winking. One could hardly imagine her giving a complex speech about race in America, or speaking eloquently about our country's relations with Islam. Not just because she couldn't write such a speech (Obama has speech-writers, of course) but because she wouldn't--such necessarily academic discussion is antithetical to the persona she's created for herself and that her supporters have come to love.

CHERRY-PICKING
As for accusations of cherry picking, which are commonly thrown at interview-based videos, it simply isn't what we did. We interviewed only a few more people than ended up in the video, not hundreds, and what was cut was done for time purposes. The people were selected at random--some offered to be interviewed--and we were only there for about 90 mins (it gets dark early and fast in Ohio right now). What didn't make it into the video was just more footage of people talking generically or about taxes/spending, drilling, and abortion, and we constructed blocks in the piece to represent those issues. Of course the piece was edited to be entertaining (this is YouTube, after all, where the currency is cat videos) but we don't believe we misrepresented the attitudes of the people at that signing in any way.

THE ENGLISH POET WILLIAM BLAKE, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS

November 28, marked the birthdate of the English poet William Blake (1757-1827).  One of the quotes for which he is famous, is relevant to politics as well as religion:

"Both read the Bible day and night, but thou read black where I read white."

The same day I came upon that quote, I was sent this political cartoon by Mike Luckovich, which is in much the same vein:

 

THE QUINTESSENTIAL POLITICAL CARTOON

This cartoon, by Clay Bennett,  precisely describes partisan politics in this country.  Though it portrays a conversation between a Republican and President Obama, it applies equally to any attempted dialog between any two people belonging to opposing parties, and can, with little alteration, be used in any local, state or national political arena or era.

"No, it can't."

"Oh, yes it can."

PROBLEMS WITH 24/7 MEDIA

Face it, we are not always at our best, most attractive and wittiest, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week.

While I have many problems with partisan politics, I do sympathize with politicians in that, with constant media, microphone and camera coverage, they will all look or sound stupid at some (usually multiple times).

For instance, one blog runs this picture of Sarah Palin every time they she has done or said something stupid. 

They run that picture a great deal.  By the way, when I watched Sarah Palin talk about the Ft. Hood shootings, it suddenly struck me.  That interview would have sounded the same if John McCain had selected Kelly Ripa as his running mate in 2008.  Yike.

This is a Republican themed post, so as further proof of my point, I offer this clip:
 

Though I am not a big George Bush fan, I feel for the guy here.  It is easy to forget the correct wording.  (Is it "Starve a cold, feed a fever, or feed a cold starve a fever, starve a cold, feed a cold?")

But, the camera does sometimes capture an unguarded moment and makes it great.  Again, we have a Republican, Ronald Reagan.  I love this:

So, give a politician a break--but not too often.

PARTISANSHIP TAKES MANY FORMS-JESSE JACKSON

Political partisanship and posturing has certainly been mainstays of the on-going health  care reform debate. However, yesterday the Rev. Jesse Jackson introduced a new wrinkle into what had been the usual Democrat v Republican bickering.

You see, Representative Artur Davis, a Democrat from Alabama had voted against the health care reform bill that recently passed the House.  This prompted Jesse Jackson to remark, “You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man.”  Representative Davis is black, as you may have guessed.

Whatever my views on health care reform, I commend Representative Davis for considering himself an American first, rather than a man, a black man, or a Democrat.

Mr. Davis responded with class to Rev. Jackson's insult.  He stated, “One of the reasons that I like and admire Rev. Jesse Jackson is that 21 years ago he inspired the idea that a black politician would not be judged simply as a black leader,” Davis’s statement said. “The best way to honor Rev. Jackson’s legacy is to decline to engage in an argument with him that begins and ends with race.”  Awesome.

To this Rev. Jackson replied that he did not call anybody by name when making his statement.  As Rep. Davis was the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted against the health care bill, one wonders what could have prompted Mr. Jackson to make such a statement, if it was not about Mr. Davis.  Better for Rev. Jackson to have stood behind his original stupid remark rather than try to deflect it with a truly classic stupid response.

In America we have struggled to make all people free and equal and to protect their right to be independent in thought and in action.  But is independent thought and action wanted in politics?  Hardly.