Bias in the media?

While some argue that media bias is a myth that is blown out of proportion, I’m here to confirm that it not only exists, but it’s widespread.

First things first, let’s set aside a few obvious examples. Fox News is clearly in the tank for the Republican Party, as are a majority of the most recognizable talk radio personalities. For the most part the opposite is true for MSNBC, with that channel’s assorted pundits primarily taking on a supportive role for the Democrats.

There, we’re not even one hundred words into this column and I’ve told you something that you already knew. But the truth behind the news media’s efforts at taking sides is simultaneously much more complicated and much more undeniable.

To shine a light on the subject, we must explore a few uncontested facts about the news business, at least how it relates to prioritizing how the news is presented to the average citizen.

In newsrooms across the country, reporters and editors are constantly striving to determine which stories will attract a larger audience. For newspapers and magazines, it’s the desire to sell more copies of the latest edition and, hopefully, increase the number of subscribers. For radio and television, the hope is to capture a larger immediate audience as a means of boosting ratings. In each case, the ultimate goal is to make the medium more attractive to advertisers by showing the size and loyalty of the consumer base of that medium. More readers, listeners, and viewers means more advertising revenue. Therefore, those compiling the news are often drawn to sensationalism in order to expand their audience.

So what works? There are two major categories of news stories that are guaranteed to instantly grab the attention of a large crowd: sex and violence. Just a few whispers of a sex scandal is a sure-fire way to encourage people to want to hear more. Same goes for an accident with injuries. Who among us doesn’t rubberneck at the scene of a crash? Sex and violence… two constants in the world of news.

But where does the bias fit in? And how does this apply to politics? Ah, here is where the consistency wavers.

At the beginning of this column I highlighted a handful of known examples of bias that essentially do not change. Put those aside and focus instead on the rest of the media world. In order to simplify this examination a bit, we’ll limit our study to television news coverage.

The bias is for what the reporters think is the most interesting story, one that is considered more likely to grab the attention of the average consumer. There are lots of examples in recent history. Jimmy Carter’s 1976 nomination over a crowd of better-known candidates. Carter as the incumbent losing four years later. The opportunity for a son to follow his father into the White House. In 2008, the election of an African-American man defeating an old white man was more unique than the other way around.

Am I saying that national reporters intentionally sway their coverage to favor one candidate over another? That’s not so easy to prove. But I am saying that those reporters at least subconsciously are driven to bring to their audience a viewpoint that would encourage voters to lean a certain way. But before you point fingers and try to lump selected reporters into one political camp or another, you should understand that political coverage changes like the tides. It’s all about the reporter’s perspective. What outcome makes for a more interesting story?

Mid-term elections are a great measurement of this. No matter who controls the White House, if the opposite party has a chance to take over Congress you can bet that the news media in general will excitedly cover that angle. Conflict between the two parties is the best way to generate major news stories, so the chance for the Republicans’ conquest of the Senate majority was a gift dropped into the laps of every major news organization. A Congress that gives a president everything he wants is not at all as exciting as having the two parties constantly clashing over even minor issues. It’s all about trying to cover stories that are going to boost the ratings.

Of course, there are times that a reporter or pundit has a vested interest in the outcome. Rush Limbaugh became hugely famous -- and rich -- during the Clinton presidency. His audience can expect to be more entertained when he rails against Democrats in power. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Limbaugh actually voted for Obama.

So, yes, there is bias. But it’s neither liberal nor conservative, at least not in a way that conforms to a certain political ideology. It’s all about ratings… and money.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on December 4, 2014.)

Let's talk about guns!

First, let me do my best to calm your nerves. I am not opposed to private citizens owning guns. You want a gun… or two… or two hundred? Fine. I have no problem with that. This nation was formed in no small part due to the ability of the average citizen to rely on a gun for protection of self, family, and property and to provide food for the table.

In the hands of a responsible, mature, trained individual, a gun can have great value. Guns are a useful device for hunting, sport shooting, and personal defense. But let’s be clear: much like a woodworker’s circular saw or a surgeon’s scalpel, a gun is merely a tool that must be treated properly with respect to its power.

Sadly, the news is constantly flooded with stories of people who misuse guns.

Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania: three people were shot and killed and two others wounded at a local government meeting by a man involved in a property dispute.

Jacksonville, Florida: a 17-year-old young man was shot multiple times and killed by a man who was angry over loud music.

Marysville, Washington: a 15-year-old student, upset that a girl refused to date him, shot her and four other teenagers in their school’s cafeteria. Three 14-year-old girls died, two 15-year-old boys were also shot, and the shooter took his own life. [Update: one of the boys has since died of his wounds.]

These are just three examples of people who decided that the only way they could resolve a problem is with a gun. They didn’t choose to walk away from a confrontation or seek another means of conflict resolution. Instead, they determined that a gun was going to give them satisfaction.

In none of these cases was the shooter’s life in danger; self-defense is not the issue here. Each of the shooters was the instigator; each caused the situation that led to the deaths of innocent victims. In all three instances, the person with the gun was at fault and is worthy of our condemnation. That’s not to say that each is evil… but each committed an evil crime that they themselves could have prevented.

Obviously, not every dispute ends with gunfire. But doesn’t it make sense to prevent even one such incident from occurring?

Naturally, this would be the point in the conversation where some people would call for the removal of guns from society. I am not one of those people. As I pointed out earlier, there are many reasons for gun ownership and possession, so you won’t find me playing the role of a bleeding-heart liberal seeking to remove all guns from society. The concept of taking away the right to own a gun is as foolish as saying that everyone should have access to as many and as wide a variety of weapons as he wishes. As much as I support an individual’s right to own a gun, I also support every effort to keep weapons out of the hands of those who intend to use them unlawfully. I have no problem disarming a violent offender… and I certainly don’t think the average citizen should be able to own fully automatic rifles and other weaponry that are clearly intended for the battlefield. You want to fire such weapons? Join the military.

Don’t worry, I’ve read the Second Amendment. I’ve also read numerous interpretations and arguments about its meaning. We could debate whether the Founding Fathers meant this or that, but this much is clear: the language of the Amendment does not grant anyone the right to use a gun to bully others into submission. Yet that is exactly what happened in the three cases I cited and many more besides.

I’m not a gun control advocate, not in the sense of gun removal. But I do believe in the need to control how we think about the proper use of guns.

For starters, we need our politicians and other prominent personalities to tone down their rhetoric. In her failed campaign for a US Senate seat in Nevada, Sharron Angle said, “...you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?”

In a speech before the NRA, newly-elected US Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa told the crowd: “I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson 9 mm and it goes with me virtually everywhere. But I do believe in the right to carry and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family, whether it's from an intruder or whether it's from a government should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”

What exactly are Angle and Ernst proposing? That if they don’t get their way politically, they’ll transform in Tony Montana? Is it that much of a stretch to imagine them ending a debate with, “Say hello to my little friend”?

Statements like these are encouraging some people to sling high-powered weapons over their shoulders as they stroll through the grocery store, clearly an act of symbolic aggression designed to intimidate anyone nearby. Open carry laws may make such actions legal, but common sense should reign supreme. Who really needs to tote an AR-15 while making a milk and bread run?

As I said, a gun is merely a tool. It should not be seen as the symbol of our self-esteem or the only thing that gives us confidence and earns the respect of others. Above all, we need to stop thinking of a gun as the key to winning an argument.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on November 6, 2014.)

When is a Libertarian not a Libertarian?

How to tell if your Libertarian friend isn't actually a Republican:

A true Libertarian would object to the forced quarantine -- essentially, incarceration -- of asymptomatic medical workers returning from western Africa.

Even a non-Libertarian Tea Partier couldn't possibly be thrilled with the whole "loss of personal freedom" bit.

But then, it's no different than when I hear my friends on the Right screaming about how they hate entitlement programs while insisting that no cuts be made to their own Social Security or Medicare benefits.

Whose 'values'?

Summer has come and gone. I know this because football is in full swing, baseball is nearing the World Series, leaves are changing color, and America has just experienced the annual Values Voter Summit.

Created in 2006 by a group of conservative Christian leaders looking to become more influential in American politics, the event brings together a couple thousand or so attendees who listen to assorted radio and TV talk show hosts, politicians, and other prominent social conservatives as they enthusiastically condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with their point of view. It’s Us versus Them, with no middle ground nor hope for compromise.

Of course, that pretty much describes every political event… from the smallest town hall to the huge conventions held every four years by the two main parties. The speakers are just telling the crowds what they want to hear, and those at the Values Voter Summit got quite an earful.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann declared that the US is engaged in “spiritual warfare” with the terrorist group ISIS, clearly suggesting that the fight against this extremist group is a battle between Christianity and Islam. You would think that Congresswoman Bachmann -- an appointed member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- would be aware that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan have all carried out air strikes against ISIS. Of course, that fact doesn’t fit Bachmann’s agenda, so her audience was led to believe that this is a religious conflict.

Senator Ted Cruz told the crowd that he’d like to “abolish the IRS”... which is an interesting concept. I wonder how the good senator expects this nation to operate without revenue?

And what would a gathering of this type be without Sarah Palin? The former Alaska governor got in plenty of jabs against President Obama and former Secretary of State -- and probable presidential candidate -- Hillary Clinton. Sadly, Palin seemed to have some difficulty reading from her teleprompters, especially when she flubbed her punch line about truth being “an endangered species at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue.” (I don’t remember everything I learned in grade school, but I do recall the White House is at 1600 Pennsylvania.) Perhaps someone should send Ms. Palin a map of Washington DC.

But those in attendance… and those who are fans of these and other Summit speakers like Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Rick Santorum… are willing to overlook these discrepancies. All they want to hear is someone saying what they already believe. They want famous people to validate their own beliefs regardless of those pesky facts that keep getting in the way.

One would be tempted to think that the Values Voter Summit is merely a one-sided event designed to attack one party and favor another. On the face of it that would seem valid, since all of the politicians invited to speak are Republicans. The organizers would want us to think otherwise, that they transcend partisan politics, that they are willing to stand up in opposition regardless of affiliation. They would point out that two very prominent members of the party, Gov. Chris Christie and former Gov. Jeb Bush, were purposely not invited.

In response I would suggest that both Christie and Bush have established records of pragmatic bargaining, demonstrating a willingness to reach across the aisle in order to govern in a way that offers a piece of the pie to both sides. But the Values Voter Summit appears more interested in achieving purity within the ranks, and those who show even the slightest inkling of compromise are not worthy.

Imagine if a similar meeting were held but the only invited guests were from the far left of the political spectrum, packing the airwaves with truth-deprived attacks upon an administration that came from the other side. Same concept, but from the opposite perspective. Would the attendees and their leaders be hailed as true patriots or radical extremists?

Twisting the truth isn’t new in politics, of course, and it isn’t limited to one side. Ever since someone got the bright idea to hold elections, candidates and their supporters have done everything they can to toss aside logic and common sense. The ultimate prize is all that matters. Win at all costs, even if you have to lie to do it.

Sadly, while the concept isn’t new, it’s more obvious today. We have more opportunities to be persuaded and informed - 24-hour cable channels, talk radio, websites, etc - than ever before. It’s unfortunate that so many people take advantage of those resources to spread absolute falsehoods.

I’d love to be able to tell you that there’s a solution, that things will get better, that truth and honesty will prevail. Sorry, but I’m a realist. As long as even one politician wins a race by lying about his opponent or himself, that tactic will continue indefinitely.

What we’re left with, if we’re lucky, is the lesser of the evils. Sometimes we’re less lucky.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on October 2, 2014.)

What century is this?

This is State Senator Fran Millar (R) of Dunwoody GA and he is fighting a plan that would allow Sunday voting in his district. Why? Let's allow the senator to explain in his Facebook post from 9/9/14:

("AJC" refers to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, a prominent local newspaper.)

Notice the portion I highlighted? Sen. Millar is concerned that Sunday voting will be too convenient to African Americans.

But that's not all. In the comments section, Sen. Millar added this nugget:

Yes, Sen. Millar doesn't think that the African Americans who may find Sunday voting more convenient are sufficiently educated.

Man, my ears are hurting from all the dog whistles going off!

Sen. Millar is a classic example of bigotry in action... something that is all too common.

If he hasn't deleted it yet, here is a link to Millar's Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/millar.ga/posts/718236501557052

Small government? For whose benefit?

We hear it every election cycle. There’s too much government involvement in our everyday lives. If only the government could be reduced in size and influence, all would be well with the world. Grover Norquist, the founder of American for Tax Reform, famously said of our federal government, “I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." (Why Mr. Norquist resorted to use such violent imagery in his rhetoric is unknown, other than to create a lasting impression.) Politicians and pundits make great pains to repeat the “small government” mantra in front of every camera and microphone they can find.


The message is clear: Conservatives stand for small government… and anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to make you dependent. But have you ever taken a moment to consider the speaker’s intent? How does the message compare to the actions?


As examples of how they would reduce the size and scope of government, they push for lower tax rates and less regulations for corporations, often peppering their arguments with keywords like “job creators”. Getting government out of the way, they say, would provide a great cost-savings to these companies. In turn, they would be more willing to expand their operations, resulting in hiring more employees and bringing more prosperity to all.


These, they say, would be some of the benefits of smaller government. And this is why they continue to push the message. What’s good for those at the top is good for all, they say. On the surface, you could be persuaded if that were the end of the argument. I mean, who wouldn't want to see such happiness throughout our economy?


The reality? The Conservative movement -- at least those who make the most noise on the subject -- only want a small government when it comes to business. The noisemakers who beat the drums of small government are simultaneously seeking to expand government’s intrusion elsewhere. They want to expand or create restrictions on the everyday lives of individuals.


How could that be? If the goal is smaller government, wouldn't that mean more freedoms for each of us? Hardly.


Those same Conservatives want government to intervene in our most personal matters. They want to create a nationwide definition of marriage rather than allow each state to decide (which is ironic since another Conservative message is that the feds are trying to usurp powers that are best left to the states). In defiance of the First Amendment, they want government to prevent construction of some houses of worship while granting certain privileges to other faiths. They want to impose restrictions on what two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And they want to make it harder for people to vote. How do the small government worshippers explain their desires to grow the size of our federal system to police these matters? In truth, they don’t. Instead they avoid the question and steer the conversation back to how they are dead certain that government just needs to get out of the way of large-scale business.


I can remember when it was considered right and proper for the government to keep us safe from the devastating effects of pollution from factories that dump filth into our waters and our air. It was a Republican president, after all, who established the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, the EPA is targeted for elimination by the small government crowd.


We all want to know that the food we eat is safe, free from contaminants and within common-sense freshness guidelines. But how can we be confident with our food and drink unless suppliers are subjected to regular inspections?


We expect our hard-earned money to be safe, so we need regulators to keep a watchful eye on the banks. We want to be confident that our cars aren't built with faulty parts, so rigorous standards are in place. We need to know that the products we buy are manufactured without dangerous parts and materials, so imported goods are carefully screened and domestic manufacturing is kept under a watchful eye. All these and more are the responsibility of a strong government that is big enough to handle these tasks.


In fact, knowing that we have government agencies acting upon these regulations gives us -- you and me -- power. We can stand up and demand safety and value, knowing that the government that we created and paid for has our backs. Take away the government’s strength and you remove whatever leverage the average American may hold. British writer George Monbiot has said, “Deregulation is a transfer of power from the trodden to the treading.” To put it another way: do away with government oversight and the little guy is left vulnerable and unprotected.


Face it. We are a nation of more than 314 million individuals. Without a strong central government, we’d be facing little more than anarchy. Sure, there is waste and inefficiency within our federal government. But doesn’t it make sense to fix what’s broken rather than simply throw it away?

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, 7/3/14)

Would Jesus preach for a Final Solution?

Dear Charisma Magazine,

Would you please tell me why you have suddenly deleted the commentary by Rev. Gary Cass? You know the one... entitled: “Why I Am Absolutely Islamophobic,” where he calls for mass sterilizations, absolute deportations, and, finally, this:

3.) Violence: The only thing that is biblical and that 1400 years of history has shown to work is overwhelming Christian just war and overwhelming self defense. Christian Generals Charles Martel in 732 and Jon Sobieski in 1672 defeated Islamic Turks and their attempts to take the West. Who will God raise up to save us this time? Will God even intervene or turn us over to the Muslims for turning against Him?

Either way, we must be prepared for the increase of terror at home and abroad. This is not irrational, but the loving thing we must do for our children and neighbors. First trust in God, then obtain a gun(s), learn to shoot, teach your kids the Christian doctrines of just war and self defense, create small cells of family and friends that you can rely on if some thing catastrophic happens and civil society suddenly melts down..

Do you see that? "Rev." Cass is encouraging genocide of an entire population based on religion. Where have we seen such a "Final Solution" before?!?!

IS THAT HOW CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY PASTORS?

IS THIS NOT PURE EVIL?

Cass is relying on falsehoods and stereotypes to hype up his message. Referring to the terrorist organization Islamic State, Cass writes: "ISSA is doing to America (sic) journalists what every true follower of Mohammed wants to do to you and yours: subjugate or murder you." Cass, like so many others, falsely asserts that all who claim the Muslim faith are intent on exterminating Christians and Jews.

Cass is calling for just such genocide, and is doing so under the guise of Christianity. Doesn't that make him the murderous fanatic that he claims to deplore? Indeed.

Recently I listened to a pastor condemning the concept of "Coexist", as if respecting one another's diversity is wrong. Cass is ranting on the same subject, but amping up the rhetoric by encouraging anarchic violence... violence by Christians against Muslims.

Charisma magazine thought Cass's words were important enough to post on its website... but then reversed that decision, likely out of fear of the kind of backlash they deserve for taking part in promoting his message.

Fortunately (if you will), "Rev." Cass has not deleted this horrific diatribe from his organization's website. So... for now, at least... you can read it all here: http://defendchristians.org/commentary/im-islamaphobic-are-you/

A dying breed.

Common sense is an endangered species.  

In Nevada we met Cliven Bundy, a rancher who refused to pay grazing fees in order to legally range his cattle on federal lands. While Bundy actually stopped paying the fees in 1993, it wasn’t until earlier this year that the federal government chose to confiscate Bundy’s cattle following a trespassing ruling. Rather than see Bundy as the scofflaw that he was, many people chose to make Bundy into a hero, a kind of freedom symbol. A few of his supporters, armed with assault-style rifles, took sniper positions with law enforcement officers in the crosshairs. Fortunately, no shots were fired. What did these people think… that they could be justified in shooting an agent of the federal government?

Recently, one of Bundy’s sons refused to enroll his daughter in school when he learned that she would not be allowed to carry her pocket knife to class. Sure, there once was a time when pocket knives were commonplace – I carried one myself – but once a rule is established, we have to honor it. But the younger Bundy, like his father, seeks to ignore authority.

A few days ago, a young girl was treated by her parents with a vacation trip in Arizona that included a stop at an outdoor shooting range that features specialty weapons including fully automatic machine guns. Unable to control the Uzi as it fired, she lost control of the weapon and a bullet struck and killed her instructor. Now, I have no problem with providing young people with proper instruction in the responsibly use of firearms. But we should be sure that the child is mature enough to treat that weapon with respect… and we most definitely should not give a child a weapon that she is not physically capable of controlling.

And then… there’s Ferguson, Missouri.

One thing I won’t write about here is the incident that started the unrest in Ferguson, the death of Michael Brown. I won’t get into discussing Brown’s death because there’s so much we don’t know… and will never know. Without objective witnesses – and, especially, without video of the incident – we can’t possibly know what caused Officer Darren Wilson to shoot Brown to death. We also don’t know why an incident report wasn’t filed immediately.

But what we do know, and what I will discuss, is what happened after Brown died.

In the immediate aftermath, the local police department seemed unable to diffuse what quickly escalated into a tension-filled atmosphere spanning a racial divide. Of course, it didn’t help matters when the Ferguson police chose to employ military surplus equipment and to aim their weapons directly into the crowd of protesters. Sure, there were incidents of bottles and other projectiles thrown at police officers, but for law enforcement to point their rifles into a seemingly unarmed crowd caused many of us to flashback to 1970 and the National Guard’s blunder at Kent State.

It certainly hasn’t helped to have television and radio personalities rush to cast judgment. One foolish pundit even suggested that a water cannon should be used to stop the protests. Seriously? Do we really want to see white officers aiming high-pressure water hoses at black protesters… again? Did we learn nothing from America’s struggles over civil rights?

Let’s be honest: there were some bad people in Ferguson over the past few weeks. Vandalism, looting, arson… destructive behavior by a small group of people who were taking advantage of a bad situation. But let’s not confuse those wrongdoers with the peaceful protesters of Ferguson, those who simply were voicing their concerns over what they considered the unnecessary use of force by law enforcement.

I’m a strong supporter of the police, but I will admit that there are a few bad eggs. One in particular stood out in Ferguson. A police officer lost his composure and shouldered his rifle, aiming at the faces of some of the taunting protesters. In an obvious fit of rage the officer told members of the crowd, “I will [expletive] kill you.” Fortunately, a senior officer reached out and guided the policeman’s weapon downward while escorting him away from the scene. The profane language uttered by that officer in a moment when he lost control, captured on live streaming video by a member of the crowd holding an iPhone, was an embarrassment to law enforcement in general. It has been reported since that this officer has been disciplined in the past for unbecoming conduct.

These are all examples of Common Sense Deficiency Disorder.

Think about it: if you don’t pay your bills, you risk losing your property. If you carry a prohibited weapon into a school, you risk disciplinary action. If you allow a child to handle a weapon that is beyond her capabilities, someone could get hurt.

And if you react to anger and violence with more anger and violence, the situation will only get worse.

Common sense. It takes a little effort.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, 9/4/14)

Remembering the Nixon Resignation

This is probably interesting only to absolute history fanatics and political geeks -- like me, of course -- but this really impacted my life.

I was 14 and vacationing in Ocean City MD with my parents and my grandparents during that momentous week in 1974.

On the evening of 8/9/74, I chose to stay in the room as the four adults went out for a late dinner... because I wanted to watch this speech live.

I remember sitting on the edge of the motel room bed... fixedly staring at the little TV screen. When I heard President Nixon say, "Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow," I actually let out a cheer of victory. Yes, it was a dark blot on our nation's history... but the removal of this man from office was not a moment for sadness. Rather, it was the first step toward a healing process.

Today, when we hear so many weak-minded people toss around the notion of impeaching President Barack Obama... I wish that those people would take a moment to understand: impeachment is a serious step to be taken only when there is justification due to actual wrongdoing, not because you just don't like the guy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/character/links/nixon_speech.html

A few less clowns, please.

Remember the class clown? The kid in school that you could count on to say or do something outrageous… obnoxious even… to become the center of attention. We’ve all known at least one. Maybe it was the boy who chugged his carton of milk then burped the alphabet. Or the girl who could make the infamous armpit noise. Usually the entire class got in trouble for laughing. All because someone wanted to be noticed.

It’s not limited to goofy juveniles in the classroom. How often do you hear about a young actress who experienced a ‘wardrobe malfunction’ and suddenly exposed herself, coincidently just when the photographers were there to capture the moment? Or the singer who became involved in a minor scuffle with a fan, and the incident conveniently occurred right when a new album was about to be released? A few personalities have taken it much further, signing up for their own ‘reality’ television show, though more often than not what you’re shown is scripted and rehearsed.

Sadly, the phenomenon isn’t limited to those we would normally refer to as entertainers. More and more, our political world has become dominated by the type of scandalous behavior one shouldn’t expect from adults given the weighty responsibility of operating our government.

Radio and television personalities are well-known for stirring up their followers with one conspiracy theory after another in an effort to boost ratings. Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Michele Malkin, the list goes on and on. They claim to have evidence of secret plots by our government to confiscate our guns or establish internment camps or purposely collapse the economy. They’ll chatter about the creeping influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law… or how you should fear George Soros and Saul Alinsky  It’s all fantasy designed to gather and maintain an audience to whom they can then market products like books, freeze-dried foods, virility pills, and gold.

You’ve got Ted Nugent, a one-time big name in rock who is known today more for his off-the-rails remarks against President Obama. I can’t blame poor Ted for trying to make a living doing something, since his music isn’t really bringing in a flood of cash anymore. The Nuge performed last week in Kansas City for a crowd of less than a thousand in a theater that easily seats three times that many. On a side note: why is Nugent so beloved by the Right for his outlandish (and usually profane) attacks on President Obama but the Dixie Chicks were subjected to protests by talk radio hosts and a nationwide radio boycott for their opposition to war a decade ago?  

It’s one thing when these entertainers and pundits spread their tales of imagination. It’s another when the politicians decide they also want to play the game.

Recently we’ve heard Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, breathlessly claim that the influx of children at our southern border is part of a secret plan by President Obama to: “put at risk the American people, our culture, our way of life, our economic standing, and also he’s willing to allow a pandemic of disease to come into our country.” Mind you, the congresswoman provides no proof to back up her remarks.

Bachmann isn’t alone in the Congressional Cavalcade of Clowns. From the great state of Iowa – land of that coveted prize of presidential hopefuls, the Iowa Caucuses – you get Rep. Steve King, who can be counted on for either making snide comments that are offensive to Hispanics or suggesting that the president be impeached for… well, something. Out of Texas we have Rep. Louie Gohmert who claims to know that terrorists want to have their babies born in the USA to gain citizenship, then whisked off to another land to be: "raised and coddled as future terrorists" so that they could return, programmed I suppose, as adults bent on destruction. Louie must think “The Manchurian Candidate” was a documentary.

And then there’s that reservoir of wack-a-doodle speech, former Gov. Sarah Palin, who looked around the political landscape and decided that what the world needs is a subscription-funded website that, for $9.95 a month ($99.95 for a year), gives you the opportunity to watch a video in which she stands in her kitchen talking about vegetables. No, I’m not kidding.

This is probably where some readers will say, “There he goes, picking on poor Sarah.” Look, I know she was once elected the governor of a sparsely-populated state and was handed the opportunity to be the number two name on a losing presidential ticket… but that doesn’t insulate her from criticism when she serves up her typical word salad of nonsense. Sure, she’s popular… but so is Honey Boo Boo, and I wouldn’t seek out her political meditations either.

Let’s be clear: all of these people have a right to voice their opinions. But we have the responsibility to filter what they say, separating fact from fiction.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald, 8/7/14)

Stuck in the Middle

My favorite sport is baseball. I fell head over heels for the game when I was a young boy, and that love affair continues today. There’s nothing like the satisfaction of turning a double play, the crack of a wooden bat as it slaps the ball between two fielders for a base hit, the feel of a leather glove that you spent weeks pounding into shape so it practically became a part of your hand. And then there’s the math! Baseball is all about math: batting averages, slugging percentages, calculating the Magic Number as your team tries to clinch the pennant.

The games themselves can be decided in nine innings… or they can go on and on and on until one team is victorious. You may argue close plays… you may dispute an umpire’s call… but in the end there are clear winners and losers; there are no ties, and the losing team goes home disappointed but anxious for the next game.

My second favorite sport is politics. I fell for that game in my teens but really became a fan in my late twenties. There’s nothing like the satisfaction of watching the election results scroll along the bottom of the TV screen, the crack of a smile on a winning candidate’s face, the feel of the leather chair you plop into after a long and successful campaign...

Meh. Who am I kidding? Politics isn’t fun like baseball, at least not anymore. Politics has become a necessary evil. Our system of government depends on the game of politics, but the game has lost its glory. Gone are the days when elections were a choice between two or more qualified candidates, when the point was to find the best person for the job. Yes, popularity was always a factor. It’s no secret that John F Kennedy’s charming smile was a key factor in his 1960 presidential victory. Dwight Eisenhower stood a better chance of winning than Adlai Stevenson thanks to Ike’s status as a military hero. And let’s face it: any Democrat was destined to win in 2008 thanks to a pair of unpopular wars and a very unpopular financial crisis.

But popularity isn’t enough. The Kardashians have a huge following but I don’t see anyone making the argument that any member of the family should hold elected office. What we need are men and women who have a sense of the huge obligation that comes with accepting such positions. What we need are men and women who understand how important the job is and are willing to accept the responsibilities of the post with maturity and common sense. Unfortunately in recent years our elections are giving us the exact opposite.

Even a casual observer can see that our current Congress is populated with bad-tempered fools and their numbers are growing.  One Senator can place a ‘hold’ on a nomination and prevent his colleagues from taking any action, even if the other 99 are in favor. In the House, a committee chairman can simply refuse to call for a vote on a measure… and legislation dies, even if a majority of representatives want to vote for the plan. Do Americans find it entertaining to have their elected officials act like petulant children rather than adults who can work together to accomplish common goals? In many ways, I think the answer is ‘yes’. We are going through a phase where both politicians and pundits have tapped into a well of anger and fear and will do whatever it takes to keep those emotions flowing. My guess is most of these people couldn’t tell you specifically why they are angry or afraid, but their radios and televisions are encouraging those feelings and that’s all the justification they need. So they tend to elect candidates who reflect those same emotions.

Sadly, there’s no simple fix for the problem. In this 24-hour news-cycle world we have created, you’re less likely to find a sensible person willing to toss a hat into the ring. Who among us would welcome the scrutiny? More important, who among us would want to be the target of so much negativity? It’s incredibly easy to plant a false story about an opponent that will quickly take root and command the attention of reporters and onlookers.

America has become the Land of the Uninformed. That may sound ridiculous, with such easy access to information on our computers, tablets, and smartphones. However, what we read and watch is easily tainted… manipulated, distorted, fabricated… so that we may be glued to our electronic devices but we’re not any smarter as a result. For example, there’s a reality TV star who has been able to single-handedly control large amounts of news coverage by merely suggesting that a birth certificate isn’t a birth certificate. Such wild goose chases dominate our radios and televisions, and there is a large audience eager to waste time on this nonsense.

I’m not trying to turn my readers into a swarm of cynics. What I am hoping is to see are larger numbers of people who take the time to filter the news to see what does and doesn’t make sense. The more outrageous the story, the more it deserves the common sense filter. Listen, really listen, to what people are saying. Maybe… one step at a time… we can bring back some civility to American politics.

So it begins...

Here there be monsters...

Finally, all of my musings are to be gathered in one forum. Here for your reading pleasure you shall find those thoughts that rise from deep within my personal cabinet of curiosities.

No subject is off-limits. I spent too many years holding back on my opinions... for the sake of my business, or because of some internal self-restraint gnome. That time is long gone.

I don't believe in lashing out recklessly... and I don't think that's what you'll find here. Instead, my opinions are based on facts and I'm not afraid to express my opposition to those who seek to distort reality.

Politics, religion, entertainment, science... whatever is on my mind will be exposed before your very eyes on these pages.

I hope you'll enjoy what you read... and that you'll share these posts with others.

As for the content, aside from any sourced quotes (and I will endeavor to provide permalinks where possible) the words here are my own. Unabridged and unfiltered.

Feel free to disagree, but come prepared.

"Oh boy, is this great!" - Flounder, Animal House (1978)