The Distance Between Influence and Integrity

They’re household names: Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Geraldo Rivera. It’s undeniable that Limbaugh and Drudge have become media giants exerting substantial influence on American politics and journalism, and Geraldo has made his own contributions.

Earlier this week, I compared (without irony) Limbaugh’s influence to that of three of America’s most renownded media figures: editor Horace Greeley (of “Go West, young man” fame,) publisher William Randolph Hearst (the subject of Citizen Kane,) and Walter Cronkite. Rush’s influence has taken on a life of its own; his opinion is news in an of itself. Despite being a relative recluse, through his voice and “ditto-cam” image, Rush has been all over the mainstream media during this election cycle—not as a newsman, but as a newsmaker.

But Rush has some competition. In the wake of Drudge breaking the story that Prince Harry has been fighting in Afghanistan, Great Britain’s Telegraph is calling Matt “the most powerful journalist in the world.” Where Limbaugh draws 20 million a week, the DrudgeReport gets 20 million visits a day. After the British press had kept the Prince’s secret deployment a secret for ten weeks, Drudge ran the story, forcing the Brits to bring Harry back home.

I admire both Limbaugh and Drudge for their accomplishments, but there are a couple of distinctions that should be made.

First, neither is a journalist. Limbaugh is equal parts commentator and entertainer; Drudge is primarily an editor/publisher, but also a gossip peddler in the tradition of Walter Winchel and Hedda Hopper. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell nailed it last week when she described the Drudge Report as ”news and gossip.” It was a little-known self-styled gossip columnist named Drudge, after all, who who broke the Monica Lewinsky story after Newsweek had spiked it. Drudge broke it, but the affair and attempted coverup were uncovered by investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, not Drudge.

Second, influence and integrity are two very different things. Limbaugh has no scruples whatsoever when it comes to demonizing liberalism; he regularly accuses liberals of wanting to see more American soldiers killed in Iraq, for example. And after years of cheerleading for the War on Drugs and ridiculing “dope-smoking hippies,” Rush’s longstanding  narcotics addiction revealed the deepest kind of hypocrisy.

But in exposing Prince Harry’s whereabouts, Drudge put lives, and potentially a mission, in jeopardy. It’s one thing to act as a gadfly countering the biases of the mainstream media. It’s quite another to undermine a military operation.

Which brings me to Geraldo. Once a serious network investigative reporter, Rivera took the low road when he left ABC to host a daytime TV talk show a bit closer to Jerry Springer’s than to Phil Donahue’s. That infamous brawl between white supremacists and black activists (which Geraldo seems proud of!) was tabloid television at its ugliest.

But Geraldo reached his lowest point in 2003, when he revealed the position and plans of American troops in Iraq, leading the Pentagon to give his employer, Fox News, an ultimatum: yank him out of Iraq, or we will.

When Katie Couric took over the CBS Evening News, she chose to invite Rush Limbaugh to appear where Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow once sat. The Drudge Report is now a must-read for a whole new generation of American journalists. 

And Geraldo is still employed by Fox News.

Either American journalism has lowered its standards considerably, or Geraldo has raised his. You decide.

Newsprism

William F. Buckley—The Greatest of a Generation

American conservatism has lost its most brilliant and stalwart public intellectual. William F. Buckley died this morning at his home, following his wife, who died last year, and his dear friend Van Galbraith, who died last month.

Mr. Buckley’s National Review had this to say this morning about the legacy of its founder and editor:

If ever an institution were the lengthened shadow of one man, this publication is his. So we hope it will not be thought immodest for us to say that Buckley has had more of an impact on the political life of this country — and a better one — than some of our presidents. He created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement.

Celebrating Mr. Buckley’s unwavering opposition to an ascendent liberalism, NR notes:

When Buckley started National Review — in 1955, at the age of 29 — it was not at all obvious that anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets would all be able to take shelter under the same tent. Nor was it obvious that all of these groups, even gathered together, would be able to prevail over what seemed at the time to be an inexorable collectivist tide.

Though ruthless and relentless in his advocacy of conservative principles, Mr. Buckley was by temperament a true gentleman. I can think of no better tribute to this man than to point you to the gracious eulogies he published for two of his most bitter ideological (though not personal) enemies, Arthur Schlesinger and Norman Mailer, both of whom passed away last year.

Bon voyage, Bill. Happy sailing up there.

William F. Buckley’s archive at National Review

Has Rush Limbaugh Been Sucked Into the Mainstream Media?

In his bestseller See, I Told You So, Rush Limbaugh says that his job is really pretty simple: to draw the largest radio audience he can. That’s typical Limbaugh faux humility.

Rush knows full well that he’s become a major figure in both American media and politics. That became undeniable last week during the dust-up between The New York Times and John McCain over The Times story hinting that the Senator had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. Not only was Rush’s response to the story covered on talk radio and cable news networks, where the 24-hour news cycle cries for content at any cost, but also on the broadcast network news and in daily newspapers across the country, where editorial standards remain high.

The question is, has Rush been sucked into the mainstream media, the “drive-bys” he so relentlessly attacks?

There’s no denying Limbaugh’s stature in the media; his radio audience alone approaches 20 million listeners per week, plus he publishes some of the best political satire around at The Limbaugh Letter, his books were both bestsellers, and politicos and media critics quote and analyze him ad nauseum.

Maybe five media figures in American history have exerted such an influence over the American public: Horace Greeley, who fostered various social reforms and played a key role in putting an end to slavery; William Randolph Hearst, who is often credited with helping to start the Spanish-American War; Walter Cronkite, who is often credited with ending the Vietnam War (Lyndon Johnson responded to Cronkite’s famous commentary on the futility of that war by saying, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”); Walter Lippmann, who advised five presidents and wrote some of the best works ever on mass media and the relationship between journalism and civil society; and William F. Buckley, who did more than anyone in the 20th Century to keep conservatism alive as a vital and much-needed counterweight to liberalism.

What fascinates many about Rush is that his persona is so multi-faceted, and that his commentary is so deep and funny at the same time. Few on the left or the right quite “get” the man or his schtick. The left, for instance, tends to take him at face value–a shallow, bigoted, knee-jerk conservative. The right, on the other hand, tends to do exactly the same thing!

If you take either the man or his words at face value, you’re missing the point. Rush appeals to so many precisely because he can be interpreted in so many ways. Shallow liberals and shallow conservatives can drink at the surface of his reservoir of knowledge and wit, responding with spite and glee, respectively. More nuanced thinkers can chuckle at his put-on excesses: the feigned bravado, the innuendo, the hyperbole, the intentionally over-the-top tweaking of liberals. The irreverant mind can marvel at his satirical skills, the linguistic at his language skills, the mnemonic at his uncanny memory, and the holistic at his ability to connect the dots of our national conversation.

Rush deosn’t mean for us to take him seriously; he does expect us to take conservatism seriously. That’s the genius of Limbaugh: he’s a virtuoso entertainer and satirist, but at the same time, an unwavering advocate for conservative philosophy. He is to pop culture conservatism what George Will is to intellectual conservatism.

To answer the question above, has Rush been coopted by the mainstream media?

Not even close. In fact, he’s laughing at the drive-bys for taking him so seriously…laughing all the way to his place of worship—the bank.

Newsprism.com

Horse Race in Home Stretch

Two weeks ago, in a post entitled “Prediction: Obama Victory in November,” I wrote this:

The liberal media seem to be having their cake and eating it, too, by tacitly anointing Obama as the Democratic nominee, while at the same time pretending–largely in the interest of ratings and circulation–that he and Hillary Clinton are neck-and-neck in the race.

Since then, Obama has consolidated his lead, and Clinton has launched a two-pronged strategy aimed at derailing him. First, she’s been attacking him on multiple fronts: inexperience, campaign tactics, plagiarism, and, apparently, even fashion. Second, she’s been accusing journalists of treating her unfairly compared to Obama, with whom (she claims) they’re infatuated.

A simple question: if Hillary Clinton had won eleven straight primaries and caucuses, would the press still be treating Obama as a contender? Or would they be treating Clinton as the presumptive nominee and turning their backs on Obama? If anything, Hillary has been treated with unwarranted deference, or, as Maureen Dowd puts it, with “utter open-mindedness.”

Obama is pulling away as this race heads into the home stretch, yet Hillary is being treated as if the race is headed for a photo finish.

Mrs. Clinton should stop whining.

Make that, whinnying.

Newsprism.com

Ralph Nader—Spoiler, or Just Spoiled?

Democrats are groaning and Republicans are grinning after Ralph Nader announced his latest quixotic run for the presidency on “Meet the Press” (transcript) Sunday. Nader is widely credited with having swung the 2000 election, in which he was the Green Party candidate, in favor of George W. Bush.

MSNBC describes Nader’s run as a “third party bid”–and therein lies the rub. What third party? The only party Nader represents is his own birthday party. Neither his campaign website nor the MSNBC story so much as mention a third party (though the Nader website does currently include an adorable photo of Mr. Nader circa 1935; he’ll celebrate his 74th birthday tomorrow.)

The Los Angeles Times opines that Nader’s run benefits voters who are disaffected from the two major parties, noting that “More choices among candidates mean more opportunities for you to make your views known in an election.”

The two-party duopoly that dominates American politics has a number of shortcomings. The most problematic is that alternative philosophies don’t get aired; the duopoly inevitably shrinks the debate towards the center. Also, dividing a nation of 300,000,000 into just two factions results in some mighty strange bedfellows; socialists in bed with Reagan Democrats on the left, and libertarians with social conservatives on the right. And the duopoly leads to some distorted binary thinking that makes every issue a black-and-white, either/or confrontation; either pro-choice or pro-life on abortion, either anti-war or pro-war on Iraq, either Chicken Little or complete denial on global warming.

To vote for a third party candidate has merit in that it erodes the duopoly. I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate, Michael Badnarik, in 2004 knowing that he didn’t have a snowball’s chance, but I also knew that my vote might enable more Libertarian candidates to get on the ballot in future elections. (For the record, Badnarek garnered nearly as many votes as Nader, who ran as an independent in ‘04, but only a small fraction of the media coverage. Go figure.)

If Ralph Nader were representing a legitimate third party, his candidacy would be and should be welcome. But if Nader is merely representing Nader (or his own ego, as satirist Andy Borowitz points out,) his run is little more than tilting at windmills.

At least we know who Nader’s runningmate should be: Sancho Panza.

Newsprism.com

Ask Not for Whom the Gong Tolls

Hillary Clinton ramped up her rhetoric over the weekend after seeming to end the debate in Austin, Texas, on a note of reconciliation and, some presumed, resignation.

The question on many minds this morning: when will Mrs. Clinton bow out? I’m guessing it’ll take one of those long, long hooks used to drag people off the Vaudeville stage and The Gong Show.

In columns published today, Jonathan Alter of the left and Robert Novak of the right both address Clinton’s impending departure from the race. In “Hillary Should Get Out Now,” Alter makes a compelling case: Mrs. Clinton can either stubbornly outstay her welcome, or bow out gracefully in a way that would help the Democratic Party and her future electability. In “Someone in the Democratic Party needs to tell Hillary it’s over,” Novak characteristically relies on cold, hard logic: she can’t beat Obama, she can’t beat McCain, and by hanging on she’s hurting Obama’s chance to beat McCain. Plus, Novak notes, the $5 million dollar loan she made to her own campaign came from a joint account, bringing into play all of her and her husband’s financial dealings (the Clintons have yet to make their tax returns public…)

Maybe it’s just the desparation of a campaign in its last throes, but Hillary has been hitting Obama hard on the issue of plagiarism. The problem for Hillary is that the quote in question actually included phrases so well-known that there’s no need to attribute them: “I have a dream,” “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” and “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” In addition, the fact that Deval Patrick had used these same quotes in the same way is irrelevant; Patrick not only works on Obama’s campaign, but gave the Senator permission to use the passage.

Ask not for whom the gong tolls; it tolls for Hillary.

Newsprism.com

Those Arkansaw Bumkins or, A Gremlin In His Goober (satire)

Lessons Learned from Presidents Past

Is George Bush’s surge in Iraq working? Is the Iraq War winnable? Should we have invaded Iraq in the first place?

In columns published in The Washington Post last week, liberal Michael Kinsley and conservative Charles Krauthammer paint very different pictures of the situation in Iraq. Kinsley’s “Defining Victory Downward” states it bluntly: the surge has not succeeded in achieving its stated goals, and the ill-conceived war is winnable only if you define winning in the most generous of terms. Krauthammer’s “Democrats Dug In For Retreat” is just as blunt: the surge is the centerpiece of considerable progress in Iraq, where the US can achieve crucial foreign policy goals if only liberal Democrats like Kinsley don’t succeed in derailing that progress.

Somewhere between Kinsley and Krauthammer lies the truth, and the tragedy, of this war. Kinsley and the left are correct in believing we never should have invaded Iraq; Krauthammer and the right are correct in believing we can and must win there.

Invading Iraq has led to hundreds of thousands of casualties, millions of refugees, an empowered Iran, a destabilized Middle East, a discredited America, and an inflamed Muslim world more prone to extremism. But leaving Iraq prematurely would be at least as disastrous, and immoral, as invading prematurely was: more casualties, more refugees, greater Iranian influence, a more destabilized region, and a discredited America even more vulnerable to terrorism.

George Bush combines the worst attributes of two presidents with global ambitions, namely, the humanist idealism of Woodrow Wilson and the nationalist bellicosity of Teddy Roosevelt.

If only President Bush’s world-changing ambitions had been tempered by realism and humility.

When leaving office, two more presidents made clear what their experience in the office had taught them. George Washington warned against foreign entanglements, and Thomas Jefferson against unseemly concentrations of power in the hands of one man.

Newsprism.com

Is Warrantless Wiretapping Warranted?

Congress and the White House are engaged in an ongoing struggle over the Executive Branch’s authority to perform surveillance without a search warrant. At stake: the Fourth Amendment and separation of powers on the one hand, and national security on the other.

Federal judges have already ruled warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional, though the case has yet to reach the Supreme Court, which has thus far refused to hear lawsuits challenging the wiretaps.

Congress allowed Bush’s wiretap program to go forward on a temporary basis last year, but that loophole has now lapsed, leading to the current showdown.

There is precedent for suspending Constitutional rights during time of war: President Roosevelt interned tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II, and President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, for example. President Bush has suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned American citizens indefinitely without benefit of counsel–which leads to a crucial question:

Is the War on Terror analogous to WWII or the Civil War?

Of course not. Compare the death tolls: 7431 and counting in the War on Terror, over 400,000 in WWII, over 600,000 in the Civil War. Compare the stakes: the possibility of occasional attacks on American targets vs. world domination by totalitarian dictators vs. the sundering of the American nation. Compare the enemy: a loosely organized band of radical jihadists vs. Axis Powers controlling huge swaths of Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Pacific vs. a determined Confederacy led by Robert E. Lee, a military genius rivaling Napoleon and Alexander.

The president has used the 9/11 attacks to take power from Congress, the courts, and the people. He already has an adequately cooperative Congress, a sympathetic Supreme Court, and the tools–including FISA–to protect us without weakening the Constitution or our civil liberties.

The Bill of Rights couldn’t be more clear:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The FISA Court already gives the president the authority to delay getting a warrant for three days and to hold court in secret. He’s already suspended habeas corpus, circumvented the Geneva Conventions, signed hundreds of signing statements undermining the separation of powers, and invaded Iraq without a declaration of war.

Are warrantless wiretaps warranted?

Hardly.

Newsprism.com

Old Gray Lady Lifts Her Skirt

The New York Times is running a front-page story about an alleged affair between Senator John McCain and a lobbyist three decades his junior. The story is attributed to anonymous sources. This is just the kind of smear we expect from blatantly partisan and brazenly personalistic sources like WorldNetDaily, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter on the right, or DemocraticUnderground and HuffingtonPost on the left.

But The Times, the so-called “Old Gray Lady,” the gold standard in American journalism? Senator McCain is answering these charges as I write, and the New York tabloids have already begun running sensationalist headlines. You can also expect to hear the story repeated ad nauseum on talk radio (left and right) today. The New Republic has an interesting take on the writing of the story and the timing of its publication.

Undue influence and conflicts of interest are, of course, fair game, but nine-year-old sexual rumors clearly are not. This is yellow journalism, tabloid journalism, and not worthy of The Times.

Pat Buchanan’s latest column lays out the case even-handedly, noting that the McCain campaign called the Times story “a hit-and-run smear,” which echoes but doesn’t plagiarize the metaphor Rush Limbaugh uses to bash such behavior in the liberal press, which he regularly calls the drive-by media.

I’ve taken some flak for putting The New York Times so far to the left at my political news portal, Newsprism.com. In my defense, while many aging drivers choose UPS-style routes with only right turns, lately the Old Gray Lady has been looking more like a NASCAR race: all left turns.

Newsprism.com

An Obamination and the Reddish-Brown Scare

Anyone with a username and a password could log onto YouTube, or onto any blog or discussion board, and post something like this:

In 1990, I had gay sex with Joseph Farah, the evangelical Christian founder, editor, and CEO of WorldNetDaily, in the back of a Chevy conversion van  in Sacramento, California, while he smoked “ice” methamphetamine and I snorted powder methamphetamine provided by Mr. Farah. Later, we repeated our sins in a hotel room.

My story has been ignored by the media, prompting me to make this confession here, on my blog, on the Internet. I’m willing to take a polygraph test to prove the validity of my story, as long as WhiteHouse.com agrees to pay me $10,000 for taking the test, as they’ve done for one Larry Sinclair, who had an encounter similar to mine in 1999.

I am also filing a federal lawsuit against Mr. Farah and will be representing myself in federal court.

Mr. Farah recently published a headline story at WorldNetDaily detailing almost exactly those same accusations made against Barack Obama by one Larry Sinclair. All I did was substitute meth for coke and a Chevy van for a limousine.

Mr. Farah also published a story accusing Obama’s foreign policy advisors and financial backers of “providing international assistance to the terrorist group (Hamas)…and support(ing) appeasing jihadists.” In addition, Mr. Farah published a story accusing Obama’s pastor of “suggest(ing) white America had the 9/11 attacks coming” and of praising a Muslim leader “who has described whites as ‘blue-eyed devils’ and Jews as ‘bloodsuckers.’”

More to the point, Mr. Farah published an article that mentions “the level of devotion Sen. Barack Obama has to Islam” and quotes a blogger named “Ric,” who suggests that Obama’s church is racist, puts Africa and Africans above God, and promotes communism. That’s right–communism. You might call it a Reddish-Brown Scare.

There you have it. Based on his behavior and associations, Barack Obama is guilty of being a Muslim-loving, white- and Jew-hating, drug-using, terrorist-supporting, communist-sympathizing, jihadist-appeasing Sodomite who thinks the US deserved to be attacked on 9/11. If someone with a YouTube account or ”a blogger named ‘Ric’” says such things on the Internet, reputable news sites are certainly free to publish them without damaging their integrity.

The WorldNetDaily story featuring YouTuber Larry Sinclair ended dramatically: ”Calls placed to the Obama campaign were not returned.”

Why would Senator Obama return calls to an organization that had already smeared him, his advisors, his pastor, and his church? And where does a zealot like Farah get off criticizing another man’s church in the first place?

Calls placed to Mr. Farah were not returned.

Newsprism.com

I Am Rubber, You’re a Fascist

It’s common to read leftist bloggers accusing conservatives (like Ann “Paris Hitler” Coulter) of being fascists. To call that accusation an overstatement would be an understatement.

But now a provocatively-titled new book by conservative Jonah Goldberg of National Review has turned the tables. Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is giving liberals fits of anger, and conservatives fits of laughter. Goldberg’s book traces a number of similarities, and a few affinities, between American progressivism and fascism. He insists, not too convincingly, that he’s not equating the two, but merely pointing out those similarities and affinities.

Thomas Sowell of townhall.com and Vox Day of WorldNetDaily.com both rise to the bait and swallow Goldberg’s thesis hook, line and sinker: of course, they say, liberals are fascists (especially “Hitlery” Clinton!) It’s hard to blame them, considering that the accusation of fascism has been almost exclusively launched by liberals towards conservatives. Not surprisingly, reactions on the left have been less than generous, combining scorn with ridicule, as in this response by Alternet’s Brad Reed. Goldberg, meanwhile, is laughing all the way to the bank.

The bigger point has nothing to do with whether liberals or conservatives are more fascist. Fascists in our government or media, assuming there are any, are exceedingly rare and deep undercover. Besides, there are certain elements of fascism evident on both sides–liberals tend toward statist control of corporations, for example, and conservatives toward nationalism and militarism.

The bigger point has to do with how low our political discourse has sunk, and how profitable it can be to get down there in the gutter.

Benito and Barnum would both be proud.

Newsprism.com 

Conservatism at the Crossroads

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, conservatism seemed not merely on the ascendency, but approaching supremacy over liberalism. The nation was enduring a new sense of vulnerability, and the need for a strong military called unequivocally for conservative leadership. With Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats looked destined for a long period in the minority.

What happened? A scant six years later, Democrats control the House, have a slight majority in the Senate, and seem poised to take back the White House.

In “The Road to a GOP Minority,” George Will blames the Republicans’ lack of fiscal restraint and legislative ethics. Not only has a federal government dominated by Republicans run up the budget deficit and the national debt substantially, it’s done so with literally thousands of highly questionable earmarks added to bills totally unrelated to the earmarks. The infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” which has become symbolic of pork barrel spending, is just one example.

With over 10,000 such earmarks last year alone, and with similar numbers in previous years, it’s no wonder we’ve witnessed a slew of ethical scandals involving lobbyists and selfishly-motivated legislation. Jack Abramoff (Inmate #27593-112 at Maryland’s Cumberland Federal Correction Institution) is the poster boy for such scandals; his lobbying activites have helped land literally dozens of legislators and government employees, nearly all of them Republican, in hot water.

One of the fundamental tenets of conservatism is a small federal government staying out of the private lives of its citizens and practicing fiscal restraint. American conservatism puts the individual above the society; this means both that individual freedom must be sacrosanct, and that the individual is responsible for his or her own life. How, then, did the party of conservatism manage to take a federal budget that had been balanced by Bill Clinton and in six short years run up budget deficits approaching half a trillion dollars? And how did the party of conservatism manage to nearly double the national debt?

Some would simplistically reply, “9/11,” but that is not a sufficient answer. The fact is that Republicans have been spending like drunken Democrats, often in their own self interest, and sometimes in ways that defy logic and ethics. Some “conservative” legislators have lined their own pockets with lobbyist money, others have left government for lucrative careers in the lobbying industry (which has enjoyed an unprecedented expansion under the Bush Administration), and many have enriched their cronies with perfectly legal, yet perfectly corrupt, legislation. There has also been some well-intentioned legislation, like the prescription drug bill that has helped millions of retirees afford medication; but even that boondoggle defies conservative philosophy. (The Heritage Foundation documents this fiscal irresponsibility as well as anyone.)

David Brooks suggests a new road for conservatism that he dubs “Fresh Start Conservatism.” His basic idea is to better prepare individuals to compete in a rapidly evolving global economy. How? Through education. Starting with early childhood education and running on through adult re-education, Brooks envisions a federal focus on teaching people to fish, not giving them fish.

Many in the movement believe that conservatism is at a crossroads, and that the future of the nation may hang in the balance, especially if a Democrat wins the White House in November. Some, including John McCain, would have the party of conservatism turn slightly to the left, continuing the leftward momentum of Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” Others, including Rush Limbaugh and his progeny in the right wing media–Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage–favor a sharper turn to the right (hence their distaste for McCain.) Few thoughtful conservatives favor staying on the current path.

There may well be a fourth choice at this crossroads: turn around. Go back. Return to the original principles of the Founding Fathers; return to individual freedom and individual responsibilty, to small government and fiscal restraint, to creating a better nation by enabling an enlightening the individual citizen.

Newsprism.com

Bill of Re-writes

The First Amendment–Under New Management with More Locations to Serve You
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and just a few laws abridging the freedoms of speech and of the press; and maybe one or two little ones abridging the rights to peaceably assemble and petition the Government.

The Second Amendment–Absolutely, Positively, 100% Guaranteed* (*some restrictions apply)
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, except for people who oppose the infringement of their right to keep and bear Arms.

The Third Amendment–Only $19.95 with Free Continental Breakfast
No Soldier shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the Owner, but in a manner to be prescribed by law once all the discount motels are full.

The Fourth Amendment–Now with Lubrication for Easier Insertion
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects (excluding their wombs, genitals, brains, blood, lungs, anuses, closets, phones, and computers) against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, and particularly describing the place to be searched and destroyed, and the persons or things to be seized and devoured.

The Fifth Amendment–Flexible Coverage for Uncertain Times
No person shall be held to answer for a crime unless on an indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases involving public danger or public relations; nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or private property without due process of law, except in times of actual, cultural, or rhetorical war.

The Sixth Amendment–No Money? No Credit? No Problem
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; and to purchase just as much Justice as he or she can afford.

The Seventh Amendment–Kiss Lady Liberty’s Scales and Place Your Bet
In suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, even if some fool wants millions for spilling hot coffee in her own lap.

The Eighth Amendment-Because Too Much Is Never Enough
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, except by the military, and on reality television.

The Ninth Amendment–Your Donation May Be Tax Deductible
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, unless the people really, truly, honest-to-God don’t care.

The Tenth Amendment–Self Serve Only. Some Assembly Required.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; but only if the people hunker down and fight like hell!

Newsprism.com

Faith and Skepticism in Environmental Politics

Tip O’Neill wrote that “all politics is local.” Pat Buchanan disagrees, saying instead that “all politics is tribal.“ One issue that defies both men’s logic is global climate change.

Climate change has the potential to be the most consequential issue humans have ever faced; it also has the potential to be the greatest “Chicken Little” story ever told. The only thing we know for sure is that no one knows for sure.

It’s worth addressing the difference between the two poles of thought on this issue. On the left, Al Gore, backed by the liberal media, is leading a movement based on the presumption that “the scientific debate is over.” On the right, Rush Limbaugh, in concert with much of the conservative media, is far and away the most outspoken and influential figure declaring the whole thing a “hoax.” Both Gore and Limbaugh, and any who blindly follow them, pretend to know what can’t be known.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has a stake in exaggerating the severity of the problem, claims in its latest report to be 90% certain that climate change is manmade. The IPCC accepts what’s at the heart of science: skepticism.

Ideology doesn’t tolerate skepticism. Ideology, like religion, is based on faith. Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily, which tends to confuse ideology and religion, absolutely disputes global climate change based on God’s promise to Noah that He’d never again punish mankind with a flood. Limbaugh, who disingenuously calls global warming a (leftist) ”religion,” has argued on his radio program that “God wouldn’t let that happen.” Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter glibly ridicule the very idea of global climate change, as if they alone have perfect insight into the ways of Nature.

Considering the stakes, namely the health and prosperity of future generations, it defies both logic and morality to dismiss global climate change out of hand. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter worship at the altar of the free market, making a fetish out of the Invisible Hand and aggressively defending that over-reaching ideology. Their attitudes and tactics on this issue are arrogant and reckless.

Al Gore and the extremist end of the environmental movement match the arrogance and absolutism of the right wing faithful. Defying the skepticism inherent in the scientific method, they pretend that global warming is irrefutably manmade with irrefutably severe consequences. But the science simply isn’t settled; how could it be, when global climate change theory hasn’t been around long enough to measure climate accurately, and the laboratory consists of the entire planet, atmosphere and all, along with fluctuations in the sun?

There are a few on the right who acknowledge the growing scientific consensus on climate change. Bill O’Reilly accepts climate change as highly likely; George Will accepts that likelihood, but suggests that there’s nothing we can do about it; and George Bush, after spending six years calling for more research (which he then suppressed,) has come around on the issue just in time to help salvage his legacy.

At least two of the world’s most powerful corporations–General Electric and British Petroleum–are certain enough to have made climate change a central aspect of their business models.

The liberal media want to have it both ways. They regularly report on climate change in a decidedly unskeptical way, but at the same time, they don’t portray the issue as being any more consequential than Anna Nicole’s overdose or the endless speculation on the fate of Natalee Holloway (not to mention Britney, Paris, the bleached Lindsay, and Jon Benet…if it’s blonde, it’s news.) If they truly believe what Al Gore peddles, then global climate change should lead the news most every day. Then again, if Al Gore truly believes what Al Gore peddles, he shouldn’t be consuming energy every year worth more than what the average family earns in a year.

There’s one thing the diehards both left and right share, and that’s a deep and abiding faith–faith in the gullibility of their respective constituencies.

Newsprism.com

Prediction: Obama Landslide in November

Barack Obama is inspirational and transformational without being confrontational. My gut tells me that he’ll defeat Hillary Clinton handily before the Democratic Convention, and that he’ll then defeat John McCain handily in an historic election.

One reason is his natural charisma, that charming halo that’s been missing in American politics since Kennedy and Reagan were swept into the White House. Another is his skill at public speaking, which probably surpasses that of either JFK or Ronaldus Magnus. A third is his command of the issues, which belies his lack of experience.

These three reasons coalesce around an overriding consideration: history. Obama has the potential to restore our reputation around the world, to effectively erase the stain left by George Bush’s heavy-handed imperiousness. Obama could also unite the country by rejecting the politics of division, including the identity politics he pointedly rejects, in favor of inclusiveness and collegiality. And then there’s the potential election of our first non-white president. The nation’s demographic makeup, the implosion of the Republican Party, and the sentiments of most independent voters all favor Obama; the times they are a-changin’. To many, he’s the right man at the right moment.

The liberal media seem to be having their cake and eating it, too, by tacitly anointing Obama as the Democratic nominee, while at the same time pretending–largely in the interest of ratings and circulation–that he and Hillary Clinton are neck-and-neck in the race. The conservative media, meanwhile, are girding their loins for battle, realizing that it will take a concerted (and more than likely underhanded) effort to bring him down. Look for right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and their allies in print (Bill Kristol chief among them) to launch a smear campaign commensurate with the power of its target. The more substantive conservative voices–George Will, Peggy Noonan, Pat Buchanan–won’t join in the smearing.

I can see one major obstacle in Obama’s way. Up until now, he’s been able to craft a message vague enough to appeal to a wide swath of the electorate. Who isn’t for hope? And after seven plus years of the Bush debacle, who isn’t for change? Once Hillary steps aside (or, more likely, is pushed aside,) Obama will be challenged by McCain to be more specific in both policy and philosophy.

Obama has to walk a tightrope between the better angels of our nature and the devil in the details.

Newsprism.com

Squeal like a pig

Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest that have been tried.” Like making sausage, democracy is an ugly, sometimes bloody process that can lead to indigestion and heart disease.

A free press is, of course, vital to sausage making. Before the muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair published his expose’ “The Jungle” in 1906, sausage makers bragged that every part of a pig made its way to the dinner table “except the squeal.” Within six months, the Meat Inspection Act was passed, and our colons have been kept pristine ever since. Chalk one up to fine politicians responsive to the fictions of a free press.

Sinclair also wrote a scathing expose’ of that free press, “The Brass Check.” Inexplicably, he couldn’t find a press to publish the work. As a result, while our colons have been kept pristine by vigilant government regulation, our minds, lacking regulation, are still clogged with every part of the proverbial pig, especially the squeals.

It is to the squeals of our fine politicians and of the journalists who cover them that this blog is devoted.

Newsprism.com

PrestonColeman.com