As predicted: anti-Gore coalition gears up

Well, it didn't take long. I despise Matt Drudge, but I drop by his Website daily to see how the right-wing shill is spinning the news according to RNC standards. This morning, as I was making my morning rounds on the Internet, this was the headline on Drudge's site. Of course, it's an oversimplification of what Gore really means. The headline on Drudge linked to a Time excerpt of Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason, which comes out next Tuesday.

Here's a portion of the excerpt:

Not long before our nation launched the invasion of Iraq, our longest-serving Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor and said: "This chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate."

Why was the Senate silent?

In describing the empty chamber the way he did, Byrd invited a specific version of the same general question millions of us have been asking: "Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?" The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.

A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: "What has happened to our country?" People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it.

To take another example, for the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.

It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.

American democracy is now in danger—not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die. I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas.

It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong. In 2001, I had hoped it was an aberration when polls showed that three-quarters of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on Sept. 11. More than five years later, however, nearly half of the American public still believes Saddam was connected to the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just an unfortunate excess—an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. Now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time: the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial, the Laci Peterson tragedy and the Chandra Levy tragedy, Britney and KFed, Lindsay and Paris and Nicole.

While American television watchers were collectively devoting 100 million hours of their lives each week to these and other similar stories, our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness. For example, hardly anyone now disagrees that the choice to invade Iraq was a grievous mistake. Yet, incredibly, all of the evidence and arguments necessary to have made the right decision were available at the time and in hindsight are glaringly obvious.

[Snip]

The potential for manipulating mass opinions and feelings initially discovered by commercial advertisers is now being even more aggressively exploited by a new generation of media Machiavellis. The combination of ever more sophisticated public opinion sampling techniques and the increasing use of powerful computers to parse and subdivide the American people according to "psychographic" categories that identify their susceptibility to individually tailored appeals has further magnified the power of propagandistic electronic messaging that has created a harsh new reality for the functioning of our democracy.

As a result, our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out. In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

And what if an individual citizen or group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But too often they are not allowed to do even that. MoveOn.org tried to buy an ad for the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast to express opposition to Bush's economic policy, which was then being debated by Congress. CBS told MoveOn that "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, CBS, having refused the MoveOn ad, began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the president's controversial proposal. So MoveOn complained, and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporarily, I mean it was removed until the White House complained, and CBS immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the MoveOn ad.

(Note that the highlighted, bold entries in the above passages are mine, and not in the original.) The rest of the Time excerpt is Here.

Now, you be the judge - is Al Gore really saying, as Drudge implies with his headline on his Website, that "American Democracy is now in danger"? What he is saying, as explained in the excerpt above, is that our idea or brand of democracy is in danger. AND IT IS.

The MoveOn example above I find particularly disturbing and outrageous. It's one of an infinite number of examples that one can find where the White House manipulates the mass media in this country. In part, we have Ronald Reagan to thank for that. His suspension of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 has allowed corporate-owned networks to air their political views, to the detriment of the marketplace of ideas, which traditionally allowed people to hear opposing views and weigh political decisions.

Now, media conglomerates are free to express political views (and advertisements) that align with their corporate interests. I'm going to be blogging much more about the Fairness Doctrine in the near future - I don't have enough time to adequately cover it now.

Gore's example of how a significant portion of the population still believes that Iraq is connected to 9-11 is pretty telling as well. (Somewhere, Karl Rove is clapping his hands with glee.) This administration willfully lies, then denies that it's done so. Iraq is the best example of it. Lie, lie, lie, until you start to believe it is the mantra of Bush's cabal. They'll even answer the question about Iraq having anything to with 9-11 with a "no," but in the same sentence they'll bring up 9-11 anyway. And many people are falling for it.

The War in Iraq is in many ways a PR and marketing effort. It's about manipulating public opinion to maintain support of the war. Since that support is evaporating, Bush is merely turning the war into a Democrat vs. Republican ideological war. Republicans are treating withdraw from Iraq as a defeat for the party. Maybe it would be, and maybe it wouldn't, but the overwhelming concern should be the lives of American troops and American interests. But those things don't matter to this administration.

I think that's part of what Al Gore means. I'm really looking forward to his book, but I'm anticipating the right's reaction to his book even more. I'm sure Sean Hannity already has a special planned. I sure hope so.

There's lots of Gore on Time's Website. Another piece, The Last Temptation of Al Gore, talks about Gore's potential presidential candidacy next year, which unfortunately is looking less and less likely. A brief excerpt of the excerpt:

"It happens all the time," says Tipper Gore. "Everybody wants to take him for a walk in the woods. He won't go. He's not doing it!" But even Tipper—so happy and relieved to see her husband freed up after 30 years in politics—knows better than to say never: "If the feeling came over him and he had to do it, of course I'd be with him." Perhaps that feeling never comes over him. Maybe Obama or Clinton or John Edwards achieves bulletproof inevitability and Gore never sees his opening. But if it does come, if at some point in the next five months or so the leader stumbles and the party has one of its periodic crises of faith, then he will have to decide once and for all whether to take a final shot at reaching his life's dream. It's the Last Temptation of Gore, and it's one reason he has been so careful not to rule out a presidential bid. Is it far-fetched to think that his grass-roots climate campaign could yet turn into a presidential one? As the recovering politician himself says, "You always have to worry about a relapse."

I have a great amount of respect and admiration for Gore's work and activism, but I still say that he could make the greatest amount of difference by running for president (and winning). Polls still show him with significant public support, as an undeclared candidate.

Run, Al. Please.

So long April - I'm happy you're going

April 30 is such a crappy day in history - my car accident today just makes it a little more so for me personally.

Sixty two years ago today, nearly 20 feet below the fighting, death and mayhem on the streets of Berlin, Adolf Hitler killed himself, along with his wife of mere hours, Eva Braun, in the Führerbunker. (Above, is a 2005 picture of the site of the Hitler's bunker.)

Unfortunately, the more I read about World War II, the more some dates just stick in my mind, and April 30 has always been one of them. Maybe it should be just a bit of a happier day, memory wise, because Hitler finally ended his unspeakable horror on the German people, and most of Europe. (At left is the first Time Magazine cover after Hitler's death.)

I'm constantly decrying the use of analogies with Nazi Germany, but after thinking about this for a long time, I've come to the conclusion that there's a rational explanation for it - Nazi Germany one of humankind's darkest hours, so any war or genocide is going to be compared to it.

I still think it's overused, but, to a certain extent, I understand it.

Today also marks the fall of Saigon, the capitol of South Vietnam. I just can't help compare Vietnam and Iraq - both civil wars, the difficulty in Americans figuring out who the enemy is, and politicians from both political parties not wanting to admit defeat. In the meantime, the situation grows worse, and more people die. For nothing.

I can't tell you how sad and sorry it is to me that my generation is now having its own Vietnam. I really would have thought that the baby boomers, whose generation fought that war, would have learned the lessons of a stupid, misguided, unjust war, which was started on false pretenses (The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and WMDs). Of course, I don't include the current leadership of this administration, which doesn't know thing one about combat. Most importantly, both are civil wars, which we have no business being a part of.

I really hope this madness and killing end soon.

It's now up to Bush to determine how long this will go on, and it will go on until the neocons in Congress turn on him.

What are they waiting for?

Time Magazine gets one right

I have been a harsh critic of Time Magazine on more than a few occasions, but the mag certainly got the cover right in this week's issue, its first since the Virginia Tech Massacre last week.

Thus far, I've only had time to briefly peruse the issue, but I'll get to it in a day or two. But, from what I've seen and read, so far, so good - there are a number of longer pieces that pay tribute to the victims in a respectful way.

Bravo, Time.

A guy can dream, can't he?

Okay, I really don't wish death on Paris Hilton, but I do wish that she'd go away.

I read on some gossip Website this week that she has Herpes. I don't know if it's true, but the fact that it's believable says a lot, doesn't it?

Time's redesign has some seeing red

This week, Time Magazine unveils a redesign of its cover as well as the internal presentation of the news weekly. I haven't had much, ahem, time to read this week's issue yet, but I have put some thought into this week's cover photograph.

I received my copy (above) of this week's issue in the mail on Saturday. The cover caught my eye - it's a striking example of the pitfalls and ethics involved with "Photoshopping" a picture in the digital age.

Already, President Reagan's son, Michael, is decrying the use of his father with an artificial tear on the cover. While I can see Michael's point and sensitivity that it's in poor taste, my outrage doesn't match his.

This is simply a picture that has been altered for dramatic effect, and I gather that most people will know this when they look at it. Maybe in the digital age, I've just become so used to this sort of thing that it doesn't get my attention as much anymore. I'm not sure, but I just don't see what the big deal is here.

And, most importantly from an ethical point of view, Time didn't present it as an original picture, although I find the way they credited the photograph sort of weird. The table of contents lists it this way: "On the cover: Photograph by David Hume Kennerly; Tear by Tim O'Brien."

Anyway, Repubes have many, many more important things to worry about than how their folk hero (I will never not laugh typing that, by the way), Ronald Reagan, is depicted on the cover of Time Magazine.

Just dreaming...

Just a cheerful thought for your Monday. Hey, we can all dream, can't we?

Incidentally, and I know I sound like some nitpicking whiner, but I can't stand Bush's wave when he's boarding or disembarking aircraft, or even his dumb thumbs up. I don't know why, I just do. It probably has to do with that smirk that he's forever wearing when he's doing it.

Republican euphemism 101

An article in Time had me seething today as I browsed my latest issue while watching football.

It's a little fluff piece intended to promote a new book by Republican pollster Frank Luntz entitled Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. In the piece, Luntz opines that locution can decide elections.

He might be right, but what a sad commentary on the state of politics in this country. I'm so disgusted with PR gimmicks like this being so prevalent in our politics.

To wit, the article details how Luntz successfully promoted "death tax" for "estate tax," "climate change" for "global warming," and "scholarships" for "vouchers."

Death tax and climate change especially rankle me. I particularly get a kick out of everyday people who get behind Republican attempts to abolish the estate tax, a tax which affects every millionaire in this country, but for most Americans, the tax has no effect. Sorry, I'm not for making rich Americans even richer, on the back of my hard work. If some spoiled rich kid stands to inherit $55 million, it's unearned income, just as if he won the lottery, no matter how PR hacks like Luntz spin it, and no matter what name they give it.

Climate change? Yea, right - it's global warming, people. Our atmosphere's temperature and CO2 content are both rising dramatically, and to give it a title like the seasons are changing is simple minded and stupid.

However, no PR euphemism riles me more than troop surge. The White House doesn't call it what it really is - a troop increase with no end to this war in sight. The only thing that surges every time I hear Tony Snowjob say "troop surge" is my anger.

The Time piece gave a sample of Luntz's brilliance in his book (undesirable words in orange, italicized passages are from the Time piece):

Listening: So much for the listening tours that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made famous. Voters are in a results mood. "Too passive," Luntz instructs. "'Getting it done' is more active.'"

Patently absurd. Politicians need to do a lot more listening to voters and a lot less listening to strategists and pollsters. I don't think I've ever written anything on this blog that is more wishful thinking than that.

Globalization: The word "frightens older workers," Luntz warns, since they translate it as losing U.S. jobs to other countries. A more palatable way to convey the idea: "free market economy."

One theory I've come up with is that globalization frightens older workers because of strategists and pollsters like Luntz who put out so much misinformation during political campaigns.

Eavesdropping: It doesn't say antiterrorism. It says "people listening in on their neighbor's personal conversation," says Luntz. "Electronic intercepts" is "more scientific and justifiable."

What a crock. Eavesdropping is eavesdropping. The overwhelming concern that every single American ought to have about the NSA's capabilities is this: Who guards the guards? What's to stop a Nixonian administration (and this administration is in many ways worse than that debacle) listening in on conversations of political opponents? It's been done before, and you can be damn well sure it'll happen again.

Even more damning is the fact that the NSA wiretapping program was proposed before 9-11. Yes, you read that right - before 9-11. I've read many accounts of this.

Tort Reform: Republicans love this term, but to Luntz is either makes your eyes glaze over or suggests a French pastry. He advises tort bashers to use the snappier "lawsuit abuse."

This one makes my blood boil. The GOP's idea of tort reform goes something like this: take away a jury's ability to award pain and suffering damages greater than $250,000, and put more money in the pockets of insurance companies and big business, both of whom have been screwing over (and getting rich off of) the working class since the beginning of time.

I can't let this one go without offering up a few examples and another side order of anger, because there is so much misinformation out there, and a lot of rhetoric.

I used to know someone who lost her baby because a doctor did not properly diagnose pre-eclampsia, which almost her, and it did kill her baby. The doctor was found liable, and she won about $1.2 million from her doctor's insurance company in pain and suffering alone. Trust me, there isn't a day that goes by where she didn't wish she had her baby, and she would give all of that money back to have her baby back.

It's personally offensive that a president who's enjoyed a life of privilege since birth is now after people who win pain and suffering damages in lawsuits. Our president is a man who would certainly have never been president were it not for his last name. He certainly would have not been able to put together a group of businesspeople to buy the Texas Rangers. In other words, other people can't be given money as a result of their suffering, but I can get rich because of Daddy. Real classy, Mr. President.

Quick sidebar: The president has shown this type of hypocrisy before, specifically about tort reform. I'll never forget Bush's smirk during the '04 presidential debates, and his snide remark that Kerry's solution to tort reform "is to put a trial lawyer in charge of reform" (a reference to Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards, previously a successful trial lawyer). Any president who was appointed president by the Supreme Court as a result of his lawyer's arguments has zero credibility when it comes to criticizing lawyers. Like I've always said - everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

Back to tort reform. There really is so much misinformation out there. Anyone hear about the woman who was awarded "millions and millions of dollars" for spilling McDonald's coffee on her lap? Yea, I've heard that one, too.

The plaintiff who took on McDonald's, an 81-year old woman at the time, put the coffee between her legs and it spilled. Hey, that could happen to anyone - my wife spills coffee just about every day, and I spill stuff all the time, too. But, this particular coffee was a skin-scorching 185 degrees. McDonald's knew about the problem - it had settled about 700 suits relating to its scalding coffee in the decade prior to the case. The woman in the case had never filed a lawsuit before in her life, and wouldn't have against McDonald's had the corporation agreed to pay her medical bills, which it refused to do. The woman suffered serious third-degree burns to her legs, genitals and groin, requiring skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. She was awarded $2.7 million, the equivalent of two days of coffee sales; at the time, McDonald's generated revenues of over $1.3 million daily from coffee sales, selling about one billion cups every year.

Now, you tell me - was she not awarded a proper amount of pain and suffering? You bet. Her award was later lowered by a judge to $480,000, a fact got virtually no press. I follow the news pretty closely, and I didn't even know the award was lowered until I did some digging about the case online. There are many Websites that discuss the case. Here's one of them.

What's more, you think an arrogant president and his Republican party both have the right to take away your right to pain and suffering? Sounds like McCrap to me.

And there are countless other instances of serious injury or deaths of people at the hands of corporations and businesses. It's awfully tough to put a price tag on a life and/or pain and suffering, but mandating a blanket $250,000 cap on suffering awards is nothing but a sop to already sleazy insurance companies and big business. (Read: We scratch your back now, you scratch ours come election time when we need campaign contributions.)

The issue of tort reform is a complicated one, I realize, and there are many cases of juries awarding absurd lawsuits. But no system is perfect - there will always be cases of abuse no matter what laws are in place, but I'm for erring on the side of caution when it comes to victims, no corporations and big business.

Hey Luntz - "lawsuit abuse" my eye.

Amnesty: "Amnesty for illegals equals death for politicians," says Luntz. People don't want breaks for illegals. They want "border control" and "rule of law," he warns his clients.

Okay, Luntz has a point here. But, we haven't had border control during the entire six years Bush has been in office. This only became a political hot potato when polls told Bush it could cost him votes. And his Band-Aids for the border problem are laughable.

The president had a chance to abolish or seriously reform the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) following 9-11 (or at least push for it, but he had a Republican-controlled Congress at the time), and he failed to act.

I recently read a story where there are still 9-11 hijackers on government's No-Fly List! Are you kidding me? An INS official's explanation? "These lists are slow to be updated." Slow wouldn't be the word for it - 9-11 happened over five years ago. When I read stories like that, I think this government would screw up a cup of coffee, no matter what temperature it's served at.

Again, Luntz's way of thinking typifies what's wrong with our political system, and I'm referring to all parties here. The message I get from all of this "let's not work on correcting the problem, let's just work on getting elected with the right words that resonate among voters."

How can you conclude differently?

Allow me to offer up some better euphemisms:

Global Warming? Climate Change? How about Global Oven? And big business is paying the electric bill. Okay, I need to work on that one.

Death Tax? Estate Tax? How about Paris Hilton Enhancement Tax? Lindsay Lohan and Brittney Spears are beeeeeeeeyond annoying, but at least they are working for their money. Yea, just what we need - rising deficits so lazy fat asses can sit around and spend their late mommy and daddy's money. Raise the dollar limit on tax-free estates to $5 million, and leave it there. For good.

Tort Reform? Lawsuit Abuse? No. How about Corporate Rape?

Anyway, thanks for nothing, Luntz. Here's wishing you have a Jerry Maguire moment some morning when you look in the mirror, since you contribute zilch to society now. I'm not holding my breath.

Or should that be Voluntary Oxygen Deprivation, Mr. Luntz?