Page 78 of 93

Fox News hoisted with own petard (again)

Pat Ryan 1 Comment

For any of you who had to vote “hypocrite” in the last round, take some solace in knowing that your member of Congress, hypocrite though he/she may be, can’t hope to compete with the people of Fox News.  The best part is that, of course, the Fox folk did it to themselves…again.  In the category “Who called who a Nazi?” last night The Daily Show nailed them not only for gratuitous and improper use of the term, and not only also for the hypocrisy of being the pot while calling the kettle black, but mostly for flat out lying when confronted about what they say on their air.  Click the grey afro below; the Fox fun starts at 1:33 in.

image

I try not to think of it as piling on; but when I do think of it as piling on, I think, who deserves it more?

Hypocrite or Liar

Pat Ryan 6 Comments

For a lot of you those are the only choices available to characterize your U.S. representative for his/her vote yesterday on the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act.  I am not one of you (this time), but that doesn’t mean you can’t play the game.

The Republican Party majority in the House and Speaker John Boehner made it a top priority to vote on repeal of last year’s health care insurance reform.  They did it even though they know that the Democrats who control the Senate won’t bring it up for a vote there, and that even if the Senate voted for repeal the president would use his veto.  But they wanted to make a political point, get members on the record on this issue, and keep one promise in that Pledge to America many of them took last fall.  I don’t have an issue with any of that.

I do have an issue with a party that claims to be a champion of fiscal responsibility and deficit lowering voting for repeal after they all but covered their eyes and ears and refused to believe the Congressional Budget Office report which found that repeal would actually increase the deficit and leave more than 30 million more people without health insurance.  Boehner said CBO is entitled to its opinion!

If a CBO report is an opinion, it’s the considered opinion of the experts employed by Congress to provide lawmakers with numbers that are not influenced by political needs and desires…it’s the closest thing to a truly non-partisan statement you’ll find in Washington, D.C.  What’s more, a group of independent experts found that the Republican claim that the new health insurance law will kill jobs is not justified by the facts.  The GOP offered an analysis that claims the new law “may” make the nation’s fiscal situation worse; among others, economist Paul Krugman doesn’t think much of that report’s reasoning or logic.

OK, game time.  Here’s a list of how the members of the House voted on repeal of Obamacare; check to see if your rep, who campaigned as an agent of deficit reduction, got to Washington and started off by voting for a bill that would raise the deficit (if it ever became law, which it won’t).  Then you can  ask him/her what they hell they think they’re doing.

Weddings should be fun

Pat Ryan 2 Comments

…and this marriage got off on the right foot (in mouth):

Couldn’t resist…I laughed until I stopped

Why we are so polarized

Pat Ryan 10 Comments

A man opens fire on a crowd in front of a grocery store; six are dead and 13 more are wounded.  A quick and easy explanation that somehow blames a political enemy would be nice, right?  Not so fast…

doc4d290f6a042817218110492This discussion got jump-started last week after the Tucson shootings thanks to the rampant news media speculation that accused gunman Jared Loughner was encouraged in this crime by violent rhetoric from the political right.  It turns out, most Americans aren’t buying: in a CBS News poll nearly 60% say there is no connection at all.

But Loughner is mentally disturbed, and according to his friends his view of the world, and his imagined grudge against Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, were influenced by extremist conspiracy theories (read about a couple of them here and here).  And so, some argue, Loughner is responsible for the crime but was influenced by a world in which violent rebellion against those who would hijack “our America” is seen as an heroic act.

…if you decide to go kill a bunch of innocent people, it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re not a picture of mental health. But that doesn’t sever the link between you and the people who inspired you, or insulate them from responsibility.

The quote is from Robert Wright’s Opinionator blog entry on Tuesday about the growing demonization of “the other” in our society.  He makes the point that any demagogue can whip up a fear frenzy among the gullible, that today’s technology allows each of us to shield ourselves from any competing point of view if we choose to, and that it’s easy to think the worst of people “you never communicate with, and whose views you never see depicted by anyone other than their adversaries.”

It feels true: most of us rarely discuss political issues with people who hold different views.  There seems to be no common ground from which to start a discussion, no one wants to hear what the other side has to say, and we end up beating each other over the head with talking points rather than exchanging ideas.

Paul Krugman attributes this to a deep divide in American political morality:

When people talk about partisan differences, they often seem to be implying that these differences are petty, matters that could be resolved with a bit of good will. But what we’re talking about here is a fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government.

He does a good job identifying the roots of today’s ballistic political tone, attributing it to a morally-based difference of opinion about what is appropriate, or constitutional, for our government to be doing.  A disagreement stemming from moral belief, as Krugman believes this one is, would be a disagreement not easily reconciled.

That doesn’t give us permission to stop talking to each other, or stop trying to find common ground, or to subtly encourage violent means to win the moral struggle.  Because then nobody wins.

What I learned this week

Pat Ryan 2 Comments

First off, I learned that I got off track on the way to making my point in Monday’s post.  I was unhappy, but not surprised, that speculation about political influence as a motivation in the Tucson shootings was at the top of the agenda for every broadcast and cable network last weekend.

I think it is both natural and appropriate for us to wonder why someone would shoot 19 people in a grocery store parking lot, and it is a valuable service when journalists report what they’ve learned in their investigation.  But it is irresponsible and inflammatory of you, Mr. Fourth Estate, to let us listen to your imagination while you work.

It is said that there are two things you don’t want to see being made: sausage and legislation; journalism makes it three things.  If you don’t know something, say you don’t know—don’t then list all the speculative and unsubstantiated possibilities and rumors as if they all deserve equal and serious consideration…and certainly not at the point in time when you don’t even know the suspect’s name!

But, we need to say something to fill up the air time…no, you don’t.  When you’re finished reporting what you know, stop talking—go to a commercial; go back to regular programming and break back in to recap or when you have something new to report.  That need to fill time is one of the root causes of the decline in your standards and, as a result, the decline in the trust people put in you and your work.

Second, the capacity of the human body to withstand injury is just stunning.  A bullet fired from close range forced its way through Gabrielle Giffords’ head from front to back, and although in critical condition a week later she is making a miraculous recovery—moving her extremities, responding to commands, and today the doctors removed her breathing tube.

Third, you can’t outsmart crazy.  It seems clear that Jared Loughner didn’t open fire on the congresswoman and the crowd because of any perceived encouragement in the political speech of an elected official or candidate for office, or from radio or television entertainers; he’s mentally disturbed.  We could debate whether Arizona’s gun control laws made it too easy for a mentally disturbed man to legally acquire a gun, or whether people who knew Loughner should have tried, or tried harder, to get him help for his mental illness, but people (crazy and otherwise) can get guns no matter what the law allows, and we don’t lock people up because of what we think they might do. 

Last, we got off to a good start on a reasonably serious discussion about just what the hell it is that has people in this country so polarized about almost everything.  I’ll pick it up there next time.