The Absolute Hypocrisy of Mike Huckabee

Former Arkansas governor and perennial presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been making a lot of noise recently in his criticism of Beyoncé. Huckabee has attacked Beyoncé's music as "vulgar" and denouncing President and Mrs. Obama for allowing their daughters to listen to the pop star's songs.

Yet Huckabee counts as one of his favorite performers one Mr. Ted Nugent who is known for songs like "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang", "Yank Me, Crank Me (But Don't Wake Up and Thank Me)", and his biggest hit, "Cat Scratch Fever", a song that Nugent recently performed on Huckabee's Fox News program... with Huckabee playing bass guitar.

The song has two clear meanings: promiscuous teenage (and pre-teen) sex and contracting a sexually-transmitted disease as a result. Though Nugent has denied the latter, the phrase "cat scratch fever" was a commonly-used slang term for syphilis in the Seventies. The lyrics suggest that Nugent's denials are not truthful:

Well, the first time that I got it I was just ten years old

I got it from some kitty next door

An' I went to see the doctor and he gave me the cure

I think I got it some more

On The Daily Show (January 19th, 2015), Huckabee told Jon Stewart: "That song is an adult song, geared for adults." Really? Tell that to the hormone-loaded teenagers -- myself included -- who bought Nugent's albums in the Seventies. Tell that to the parents of those Seventies teenagers who were shocked to hear their innocent children singing along with:

Well, I make the pussy purr with the stroke of my hand

They know they gettin' it from me

They know just where to go when they need their lovin' man

They know I'm doin' it for free

Of course, his criticism of Beyoncé's music is a small part of Huckabee's schtick... but it's part of his central theme of separating this nation into two parts: Bubble-ville and Bubba-ville. He is very condescending when talking about people from urban areas and those with advanced education while portraying the rest as more wholesome and practical. He attacks one in order to celebrate the other. It's the same tactic used by other political extremists like Sarah Palin who suggest that some parts of this nation are the "real America", as if they are the only ones worthy.

This is the type of behavior that causes rifts and makes the division between two sides grow much wider. Huckabee is exploiting domestic xenophobia, the fear and hatred some Americans have of other Americans simply because of their differences.

Huckabee condemns Beyoncé's music as "mental poison"... but he excuses the blatant pornography of Ted Nugent because:

1. Nugent's music fans are overwhelmingly rural
2. Nugent's political views are shared by many of Huckabee's followers
3. Nugent and Huckabee are in agreement on gun issues.

Huckabee may have moral standards... but his willingness to disapprove of some while glorifying others is pure hypocrisy.

Why so angry?

There’s nothing wrong with being angry. I don’t just mean upset or irritated or ill-tempered. I’m talking about pure, unadulterated, enragement. It’s okay. Clearly, we are supposed to be furious. The question is: what is irritating you today?

No, seriously… you have to get mad. Everybody says so. Name a topic and you’re on your way to an argument. We’ve reached a point in history where two people simply can’t be 100% in agreement.  

Okay, that’s not completely accurate. Two people CAN agree, but in an age of information overload it’s unlikely. That’s because those two people have so many available resources from which to form their opinions that it’s virtually impossible to expect them to reach the same conclusions on any given subject.

I’m not suggesting that anger doesn’t have a place. But what’s the point of screaming, “I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore” when you don’t know what you’re mad about?

I’ve made it clear in this column that, despite the vast resources available to the average American, we as a nation appear to be woefully disinterested in facts. We’re more likely to let some talker on radio or television tell us what to think rather than taking the time to gain the knowledge necessary to decide for ourselves. In the Google era it’s unbelievably easy to catch someone in a lie, yet too many people are willing to believe what they hear or read without bothering to do a simple fact check.

It depends on the topic. If I told you that I heard that the moon was a man-made Death Star that didn’t exist before it was placed in orbit five years ago… you’d know that I was talking nonsense. But if you read an email that said the government had a secret plan to take away your guns, or send people to internment camps based on their political registration, or was creating death panels designed to kill grandma… you might believe it without evidence.

You know those things are fantasy? Yeah, you’re right… but there’s a lot of people who believe that foolishness -- and get very angry about it -- just because someone they follow claims it’s true.

In politics, it’s no longer just about Republicans versus Democrats. Every policy, every individual, is scrutinized to determine exactly where they fall in the Left-Right spectrum. One of the most frightening things you can say to a Republican politician is a four word sentence: “You’re not conservative enough.” By whose measurement? (Can you imagine a similar approach on the Left, with politicians threatened with a primary challenge because they’re not liberal enough?)

Funny. The man trumpeted as the hero of the Right… the most-revered President of the conservative movement… was a divorced, distant father whose goal was making every young starlet his sexual conquest. Then, when elected, he moved to expand abortion rights, raised taxes multiple times AND supported terrorist organizations. And yet, HE’S the guy raised up on the pedestal as the symbol of family values, patriotism, and fiscal responsibility.

And now, the new Congress is underway. Mitch McConnell gets to be the guy in charge in the Senate. One of the chief architects of the Congressional slowdown of the past six years now has to prove that he can lead. In the House, John Boehner faced competition for the Speaker’s gavel from the far, far Right… from Louie Gohmert and Ted Yoho… as if either of those extremists has demonstrated any sense of leadership. Of course, in the past two years the true leader of the House of Representatives… the one person with the most influence… has been a member of the other chamber. Republicans in the House eagerly took direction from a Canadian-born Texas transplant who once stood in the Senate chamber and cluelessly read “Green Eggs and Ham” to demonstrate his hatred of trying something new. The concept of irony is completely lost among the willfully uninformed.

In the 2014 campaigns we heard plenty of grumblings from Americans about their elected officials. “Throw the bums out” was a common sentiment, as if removing incumbents would solve the problem. Even Rasmussen, the most conservative polling company, found that two-thirds of those asked rated Congress’s effectiveness as “poor”. If that was the basis of your performance review at work, you’d expect to be unemployed soon. Not with Congress. Nearly every incumbent in the House and Senate was reelected. Essentially, Congress has an approval rating of 95%. You say you don’t like them, that you want to replace them, but you keep putting them back in… and they reward you with the same do-nothing approach to their jobs. But we chose to give them another term in office. It’s our fault.

Now that’s something to be angry about.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on January 8, 2015.)

Chris Christie's Continuing Fall from Grace

Remember this awkward "bro-hug" from the Cowboys-Lions game on Jan 4, 2015? The moment when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- a long-time Cowboys fan -- tried too hard to get in on the celebration with team owner Jerry Jones?

The hug itself is uncomfortable to see, but the story that leads up to it is worse.

You see, Jerry Jones presented Gov. Christie with a gift... a private jet flight from New Jersey to the game in Dallas, seats in the owner's suite, some meet-and-greet time with the players and coaches on the sideline, and (I would imagine) plenty of food and drinks... much more fancy than hot dogs and flat beer.

Now, Jones can afford to do whatever he wants... but Christie, who really wants to be president, should know better than to accept a gift that has a value of at least $125,000 (according to luxury gift company Goviva). Christie recently suggested to the New Jersey Port Authority that it grant a contract to a company co-owned by Jones... which would make the gift to Christie look a whole lot like a payoff.

(h/t Tom Moran)

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.)