The Right Wing Media (Discussion)

On June 4, 2015 I posted my commentary entitled "The Right Wing Media."

Almost imediately I received three commnets on the post. My reponse to the one from Albert Nekinken ended up being rather long and so I will save that for my next post.

The other two, however, are set forth below:

From Mike Cerrato, Esq. of Westville, New Jersey, came this generous compliment:

As usual, very educational. I fear, however, that many of the people who SHOULD be comparing and contrasting the "reported facts" to the actual article will be few and far between. Thanks for the ammunition, though, I will certainly use it appropriately.

To which I was forced to reply:

As you will see from one of my future posts, I made a mistake, and while one should always " be comparing and contrasting the "reported facts" to the actual article will be few and far between” I ended up quoting the wrong article from  Cynthia Tucker. Mea culpa.

Robert Malchman of Brooklyn, NY wrote:

This is why I *don't* read "conservative" (i.e., reactionary) news sites or watch their television.  I know I should, if for no better reason than "know your enemy."  The combination of hypocrisy and imbecility enrages me, which adds nothing to my day.  I'd much rather watch MSNBC and John Stewart skewer these evil trolls, even if it doesn't have much affect.  Luckily the Foxpublican Party is going to die out, as ignorant white men become a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate.  The Koch Brothers can spend a billion dollars per election cycle and try to suppress minority voting, but their base (and I do mean BASE) electorate is slowly but surely going six feet under.

To which my response was:

Thanks for your comment.

I can understand your reluctance to read Right Wing commentary. It can be infuriating. But as you say one should read it, "if for no better reason than "know your enemy.”

 But actually, I think there is an even better reason. How can one be sure ones views are sound unless they are constantly tested against different views. If one choses to live in an echo chamber, and unfortunately, recent surveys have shown that this is exactly what most people are doing, how can one ever be sure that ones views are sound. I feel I have to expose myself to a variety of views to get stimulation for my own, though I have to admit that this is easier for one who is retired, then for one who has to earn ones daily bread.

My post “Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things," is an example of the extent to which the Right Wing media will go, telling outright lies about the Clintons. Yet we have to recognize that the smears of the Clinton’s are definitely having an effect, as the polls on Hillary’s popularity have shown. In November of 2012 her favorability rating was 58.6% favorable v. 33.1% unfavorable. As of June 1 it was  favorable 46% v. 48.4% unfavorable, and in a discussion with a very liberal friend (supporter of Bernie Sanders) today, she expressed concern about Clinton's ethics on the basis of foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

 In the hubbub over foreign contributions to the foundation, what is overlooked is that it is a charitable foundation, from which the Clintons do not profit. One might even argue that turning down donations, which benefit people in need throughout the world, is something no one has the right to do, since the money refused is money that is not available for the recipients of the foundations work. But the media has always enjoyed lots of good copy by playing up accusations that eventually, more often than not, have turned out to have no basis in fact. Whitewater never proved to be Clinton corruption despite the best efforts of Keneth Starr, and in the end all they could get on Bill or Hillary was that he lied about an extra-marital affair, as just about anyone would lie about something like that, and as e.g. Martin Luther King (of sainted memory) did.

 But the so-called liberal media is a myth concocted by the media echo chamber, and the New York Times, despite its liberal editorial page, has spread more than its share of Right Wing lies. 

And then added:

After I sent the below set forth message I started thinking about the things that do bother me. For instance I think it was wrong to indict former speaker Hastert for paying blackmail. But I am much more bothered by the amount of money he reportedly made as a lobbyist after leaving Congress. Influence peddling is a big deal in Washington and the Clintons never indulged in this form of payola.

 On the other hand they have made huge amounts in speaking fees, which I find abhorrent. But this is so ingrained in our culture that it is difficult to fault them. See ABC News for an article about how much Sarah Palin has been making. But that article has an even more important item. I quote from the article. "President Reagan once got $2 million from a Japanese manufacturing company for two 20-minute speeches… And George W. Bush told reporters he expected to make a "ridiculous" amount of money on the speaker's circuit when he left office.”

 Our system also effectively makes it impossible for anyone to run for public office unless they have one or more rich angels, and that includes Sanders. 

 We cannot hold people to a standard that is completely out of line from that which is ingrained. More important is whether they want to change the system.

 In the end we will always have to choose between realistic, and I emphasize realistic, choices, unless we want to simply opt out of the process and leave it to the very worst elements.

 Sorry! I do get carried away.

Which only prompted a further repsonse from Malchman as follows:

Well, a couple of things. One, if Hillary is elected and one or more of the SCOTUS Republicans leave the bench, Citizens United will get overturned.  My fantasy is that the Court say corporations are not people for purposes of constitutional protection.  Corporations are creature of state (and sometimes federal) law, and could be banned outright (caveat: I haven't thought about the implication of the Contracts Clause here), and therefore could be regulated to restrict speech.  The Constitution protects people, not legal fictions or business constructs.  But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that ruling.

 As for Hastert, he was not indicted for paying blackmail, he was indicted for structuring cash bank withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements and then lying to the FBI about it.  Those are real crimes.  At a moral level, I have no doubt he's serial a child molester, and anything bad that happens to him is karmicly (if that's a word) deserved.

Ending that exhange with my concluding reply quoted below:

I am afraid that this is indeed a fantasy. The more likely scenario, even if Clinton is elected, which is not a given, is that Ginsburg will retire and her replacement will face a filibuster leaving eight on the court and we get 5-3 Right Wing decisions. Eventually one of the Right wing judges retires and we get a deal of one on the right and one on the left, continuing the 5-4 split of today. Maybe in a Clinton second term we get control of the court, but that is a long way off.

 Sorry, I wish I could buy into your fantasy.

And then concluded with:

As for Hastert, I know they got him on a law that might stick, but that is just the handle. I don’t believe in prosecuting people on a legal fiction, on the theory that you, or they think, but can’t prove, that he's a serial child molester.

 The sale of influence is of much greater concern to me.

Next time I will share with my readers my exhange with Nekimken, where I confessed a serious error in having set forth in my original post the wrong article from Cynthia Tucker. But that will have to wait for my next post.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Reality Check (Further Discussion)

On February 7th I posted "Reality Check!! (Discussion)" to my blog and it was distributed to subscribers that evening. In that post I first set forth my exchange on that topic with Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia, but in the second portion presented an exchange with Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey. That exchange continued, but was not posted promptly because I felt the need to address "The President’s Second Inaugural Address." Both posts can easily be accesses by double clicking on their titles shown in bold above.

Now I would like to share with my readers the concluding portions of my discussion with Mike Cerrato. Mike wrote:

OOOH, you are making me think about this stuff. That hurts! 

I guess we are going in the same direction, but from slightly differing directions. Of course, I cannot disagree that the reality of what I will call capitalistic opportunism does not in any way come close to the horrors of slavery, I don't believe the mindsets of the opportunists are all that different than the slaveholders. The only difference is, I fear, degree. Only a little over a century separate us from the days when the chains were all too real to today, when they consist of those created by self-appointed masters of the universe who have constructed their more-figurative chains through the crony capitalist-supporting legal and economic systems which enable them to grab most of the pie while forcing the rest of us to fight over the scraps they allow to fall off the table. I cannot help but believe that, had today's robber barons been born in 1860 below the Mason-Dixon line, they would have been all too happy to own a few other human beings. 

I wholeheartedly agree with you, however, about the need to "balance the system."

My response is set forth below:

Thanks, for that compliment. If I can make my readers think, that is far more important than having them agree.

It is second only to giving them facts that they did not possess, and if in the process I slay a few myths, then I am having a very good day.

I am afraid that you are decrying the nature of the beast. Man, or should I say Homo Sapiens, to make sure the female is not overlooked, is and always has been a selfish species. It is the argument against Democracy, which is often referred to as the rule of the mob. It is why our founders created a Republic, and not a Democracy. They were a bunch of aristocrats, who didn't trust the people. That is why the President was to be chosen by electors, rather than the people. Why Senators to be chosen by state legislators and not by direct suffrage. The vote restricted to male property owners and not to others.

Over time we became a Democracy. Still an imperfect one, but a Democracy nevertheless. Many on the Right would like us to return to the Republic of our forefathers. Would our plutocrats of today enslave us if they could? I don't know? Certainly some would! Most I think not. It is irrelevant.

Homo Sapiens are what he/she are, and we have no control over that. It is only what system we employ that we can control.

You appear to be attacking the Capitalist system in all its forms. To that I say the same as I say about Democracy. About that I quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

I have to say the same about Capitalism. It too is the worst form of an economic system except for all the others that have been tried.

Today every country that has any kind of successful economic system has a free enterprise system including, "Communist" China. The only variations are the degree to which the system is regulated and the extent to which the state has a hand on the tiller. Where socialist systems have been tried they have failed. We don't have to look at the usual straw men systems such as the Soviet Union to see that. The Labor Party in Britain kept nationalizing the economy every time they came to power. It didn't work. They gave it up.

There are very few instances of managed economies left in the world and they are all failing their people. Venezuela is a prime example. Well meaning, but a disaster. Uganda? Cuba? Well we can make excuses for Cuba because of our economic boycott, but the rest of the world trades with them. I don't think their failures, and I recognize they have some successes, such as good health care, can be blamed entirely on the US.

I am a lawyer like you, only I practiced on the international scene. I remember when India was a Socialist country anxious to keep out foreign capital. It didn't work.

What makes Capitalism work is the very fact that people are essentially selfish. We can't change that! We can only devise a system that takes advantage of that inherent trait.

Like sports, it depends on competition. Like sports, it needs rules, so that mere muscle and unrestrained power does not carry the day. Like sports it needs referees to see that the rules are enforced. Without these rules and the referees it becomes a fixed sport known as crony capitalism.

That is where the battle lies. We fight about the rules and their enforcement and leveling the playing field. To make, as I have said, false equivalencies about good and evil, and the inherent greed of homo sapiens, brings us no nearer to a juster society (and I will not speak of a just society, because there is no such thing). We strive, and the struggle endures; it never ceases. That is what it is all about!

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. 

Reality Check!! (Discussion)

I posted my last commentary on February 4, 2013. For those who may want to re-read it, it can be found by double clicking on its title "Reality Check!!"

I received two comments in response thereto both of which led to exchanges. I want to share these with you.

The first came from Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia, whose reaction to my post was as follows:

Your skewering of Jindal was delicious and absolutely on target. Regarding the prospect of millions of new Hispanic voters, I was surprised that you didn't even mention the recent vote in Puerto Rico in favor of statehood. How long can Republicans ignore this fervent plea to join the Union (and add Democratic votes in Congress…)? 

As for gerrymandering of House districts, I continue to believe strongly that the only way to solve this is to amend the Constitution so that ALL members of the House are elected by a national constituency, as is the president. The current system is hopelessly anachronistic and, as you describe cogently, thoroughly sabotaged. A national constituency would have the corollary benefits of diluting the effectiveness of lobbyists and narrowly directed PAC money. It would force the creation of multiparty, national governing coalitions. 

Beyond that, you are absolutely correct in sounding the alarm regarding GOP efforts to change the electoral college system, which--whatever its faults--seems to be working as intended at present.

My response follows:

Not all agree that there is a fervent plea on the part of Puerto Ricans to join the union. See here. 

Quoting from CNN:

"In response to the second question, which asked voters to select an alternative, 61% of those who cast ballots chose statehood, but more than 480,000 people abstained from voting on that question.

They could have voted for statehood, if they had really supported it," said Maria de Lourdes Santiago, senator-elect for the Puerto Rican Independence Party, which supports the island becoming its own sovereign republic. "When you combine all the votes, statehood doesn't appear as the true winner in the second question about non-colonial options."

But it is irrelevant. Congress will never allow it. You may remember that when statehood for Hawaii and for Alaska was being considered it only became possible because one was considered Democratic and the other Republican. Without a balance it is not possible.

As for gerrymandering the solution does not require a Constitutional Amendment, and I think that your national House is neither a good nor a viable solution. The Solution lies in the Supreme Court striking it down as a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

In VIETH V. JUBELIRER the Court would not intervene because they could not agree on a suitable standard. But that is not needed. They don't have to agree what would be legal, only what is not. I think this is an issue where Kennedy could be won over and we might have the practice stopped.

A national House constituency runs in the face that smaller units need to be represented, something I agree with.

But I would favor doing away with mid-term elections. Let the House and the Senate be elected every four year to coincide with Presidential elections. Less time spent campaigning and raising money, and a larger and more representative electorate. If possible, state elections should be held at the same time too.

I do not favor multi-parties. They confuse the issues. 

Another comment came from Mike Cerrato Esq. of Westville, New Jersey, who opined:

I've gotten over their having founded their economic system on slavery several hundred years ago (after all, up until that time, everyone was doing it or had done it in the past) I just wish they'd stop trying to REINSTATE it for EVERYONE not earning over a half million dollars/year! But, then again, I always was a wild-eyed idealist.

This drew the following rebuttal from me:

I would not consider slavery as being an integral part of the founding of our nation as being relevant today, were it not for the fact that its influence pervades our culture to this day.

As for "until that time, everyone was doing it" is not accurate. Take a look here and you will see that the US was very late in abolishing it, as compared to most of the world, and no where else did it require a bloody war, to end it. As late as 1850 the US Congress passed the Fugitive slave law, and as late as 1857, the Supreme Court decided the Federal Government did not have the power to regulate slavery within the territories.

But the important point is that race has never ceased to be a major factor in our body politic. It did not stop being a factor even after the Civil Rights movement of the '60s and remains a major factor to this day, as I will discuss in a future post. This is a factor quite apart from the economic class warfare being waged against the middle and lower classes.

Which in turn drew these further remarks:

I don't know about it being "quite apart" from what is going on today. Oh, the suits are nicer, and the words more polished (i.e., "Right to work"), but it still boils down to a bunch of people who still think that it is right to steal another’s' labor, or at least get it as cheaply as possible and morality be damned as long as it gives us "Always low prices." As for the history you cite, all I can say is "American exceptionalism" indeed! As always, thanks for some enlightening information.

Drawing an extensive surrebuttal from me, as follows:

Here I must again take exception. Lower prices are as much a boon to those with little, as higher income. If there were a direct relationship between lower wages and lower prices, it might have some justification. Occasionally there is, but most of the time, lower compensation leads to more profits, which goes mostly to those who already have too much. But I have no quarrel with the Capitalist system that creates these motives, or with the people who take advantage of the system. 

           

I must caution against false equivalence. A system that tries to keep labor costs low is not in any way equivalent to slavery, and we serve both concerns poorly when we make such a false equivalence.

           

All I want is for the government to play its role in balancing the system. A fair minimum wage adjusted to inflation. A fair system of taxation where we get enough revenue from those who can afford it, so that government can meet the needs of the nation and promulgate regulations to protect the consumer, the worker, and the environment, while making sure the nation has the infrastructure and the educational system that keeps it competitive into the future.

           

It is indeed generational theft when we do not do the things that will make us competitive in the future, and destroy the environment in which future generations will be living.

           

But race is different. There is no profit motive when we incarcerate people of color for doing what white people do with impunity, or deny them the right to vote. That is innate to people needing to feel superior, when they have no other basis for it than color.

           

Note how our immigration laws have always, and continue to discriminate against people we deem inferior, whether first Chinese, then people of Eastern and Southern European descent, and now people from the South of us.

           

We, as a nation, suffer from a terrible case of xenophobia and fail to deal with our problems with cries of exceptionalism, which leads to a refusal to recognize our failures and to remedy them.

           

What has made this nation an exceptional one was our creation of a strong middle class, and an educational system that was second to none. This is not the fist time we have temporarily lost our way. We have always managed to right ourselves, often through sheer luck, such as when the reactionary McKinley died and the Reformist VP Teddy Roosevelt ascended to the Presidency. This ushered in a reformist era, when the Republican Roosevelt was followed by the Reformist, though racist Woodrow Wilson, though with the Taft hiatus. We then had the dark days of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, only for the pendulum to swing the other way with Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and would have continued in this vein if the Left foolishly had not turned on Humphrey, prolonging the Vietnam war by eight years, by ushering in Nixon, whose policies, domestically, really weren't so bad, but who with his Southern strategy, based on race, ushered in the Reagan era, which we are only now recovering from, albeit with great resistance.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but will not be distributed, because events are moving too fast and my posts need to keep up.