I posted this for two reasons.
First, it’s further evidence that Fox News is not a reliable source of information… or else that Fox News attracts a very low quality viewer (and doesn’t manage to increase their quality)… not that this should surprise anyone who has been paying attention.
Second, it’s further evidence that Fox News is not “Fair and Balanced” for how could a truly fair and balanced news organization do such a miserable job of informing their viewers (or correcting the misinformation their viewers already have from other sources)… not that this should surprise anyone either.
Fox News not a reliable source of news? Fox News not fair and balanced? Oh my! LOL
December 2010 Survey:
Wall Street Journal Poll found FOX viewers the the most disinformed and misinformed:
The Pew Research Center found FOX viewers are the most disinformed and misinformed:
October 2003 Survey:
The Three Questions:
Evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found. (A: No)
Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. (A: No)
World public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. (A: No)
Take the quiz and find out: http://bit.ly/glhzkb
This succinctly explains why I trust transparency without power (e.g., Wikileaks) more than I trust power without transparency (e.g., US government).
Has Obama changed the way politics is done in Washington?
I don’t see it. Both parties are working together for the interests of corporations and the wealthy elite… which is what always happens in Washington politics.
Change? Like was brought up in this discussion, two main issues of Obama’s campaign were the wars and Bush’s tax cuts. He has compromised on both. Everything the American public wants (ending tax cuts, public option, etc), Obama just gives away without a fight.
The bow tie guy said there is nothing wrong with business as usual. That might be fine if Obama didn’t campaign on fighting against business as usual. Obama has continued most of what Bush started: both wars, tax cuts, Patriot Act, etc. Obama refused to push for investigations of war crimes or illegal activities during the previous administration. Obama’s great success is passing a healthcare reform that helps health insurance company more than anyone else.
I saw early on the problems with Obama’s attitude of compromise. There was one issue that bothered me, but most people probably never even noticed. There was plans for the Dalai Lama to visit with Obama which has happened with all recent presidents. Obama refused to see the Dalai Lama (who is the greatest human rights leader in the world) right away in order to compromise with the oppressive Chinese govt. No president (including Bush) has ever refused to see the Dalai Lama.
It’s not that Obama hasn’t accomplished anything (see: What The Fuck Has Obama Done So Far). It’s just that he has compromised on his core principles… or at least what he pretended were his core principles. When does compromise become capitulation? And when does capitulation become collusion? Either he is a spineless coward or a corporate whore… which would just mean that, either way, he is just like any other professional politician. Business as usual indeed.
Compromise, eh? And what did Obama get in return?
So, compromise means the other side gets everything they like and nothing they don’t like. Sounds like a sweet deal. I wonder if Obama will ever consider compromising with Democrats.
I’ve heard a number of interviews with Chris Hedges (and am now in the middle of reading his book, Death of the Liberal Class). In the above video, he said (from transcript):
And when you, within a society, have a bankrupt liberalism—it’s something Dostoevsky wrote about in Demons and Notes from the Underground at the end of the 19th century—you descend inevitably into a period of moral nihilism, you remove that capacity for change, that mechanism by which change is possible, and so that this legitimate rage, which is being expressed by huge numbers of the dispossessed within the United States, has no outlet through traditional political mechanisms and finds its expression in these proto-fascist movements like the militias or tea parties. And that’s essentially what’s happened. So the tragedy of the liberal class is that it was destroyed and it destroyed itself. And you can’t maintain a civil society in those kinds of circumstances.
There are two issues that this reminded me of.
First, it makes sense to me what George Carlin once said: “Scratch a cynic and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.” I don’t know if this is always true. Some cynics may have been born as psychopaths and simply lack empathy. Nonetheless, I definitely think this insight applies to liberals.
Second, I think idealism is inherently a liberal trait. Many conservatives consider liberals naive for their idealism. They often may be right, but I think that misses the point. Even though idealism can and does fail, it’s those striving for the impossible that help make the world a better place. I don’t think democracy would be possible without unrealistic idealists challenging the status quo. (As always, it must be kept in mind that my use of liberalism and conservatism are on a spectrum rather than absolute categories.)
There is a different kind of cynicism that is a failure of conservatism, but it’s just the failure of liberal idealism cuts to the heart of democratic society. Anyway, as a liberal, the failure of liberal idealism hits more of a nerve with me. I agree with Chris Hedges that the liberal movement has become disempowered and many liberals have given up on striving for worthy ideals. I’m one of those cynical liberals and that saddens me. There are few liberal politicians who represent my ideals and there is no populist liberal movement that is capable of forcing politicians to represent liberal ideals. It’s hard not to be cynical in a world controlled by people who, at best, see ideals as nothing more than useful rhetoric.
Here are two interesting videos (the second being a response to the first) about how transparency is changing society and the impact on individuals.
It is an interesting time we live in. Fred (from the first video) mentioned Wikileaks and the idea of a more transparent world in reference to the quote:
“Live your life as if everything you do is public knowledge.”
We do live in a Brave New World. Cameras and video phones are everywhere. Our personal computers have histories that people can look at and search engines record our searches. Credit card companies have records of our purchases. Local news can easily become global news through the internet. Et Cetera.
These videos put into motion the gears in my mind. I have recently contemplated how the changing world is changing me personally. I’ve become aware that I have a different sense of identity than I did when younger. I spend so much time watching news and personal videos by people from all over the world. I interact online with people from diverse locations and backgrounds.
This is creating in me a more global sense of identity and community. On a visceral level, I have a stronger sense that what happens elsewhere does matter to my own life. I’m not sure exactly what it means, but Wikileaks has clarified this for me. With all the media drama and all the YouTube responses, I can sense a real global sensibility emerging among the younger generations. More transparency seems to translate into more sense of connection.
This is the happiest news I’ve heard in a long time. I know it’s just Nigeria, but as Cenk says it’s just a beginning.
This will be a true test of justice. Where will other countries stand on this issue? INTERPOL put Assange on their wanted list merely based on unsubstantiated accusations. Cheney has a real charge being put against him and a charge that is far worse than a rape accusation. If INTERPOL represents justice rather than mere power, then obviously Cheney should be on their wanted list.
Anyone who was paying attention knew that Cheney was probably guilty of many things, but it’s nice to see some official authority finally pointing out his guilt. I know he’ll never get punished. Nonetheless, the tide is changing. With Wikileaks revelations (especially in relation to diplomats) among other things (such as Bush admitting to a war crime), the US government has had it’s respectability tarnished and it’s moral high ground undermined. One of these days, a US politician or other official might be actually tried for any number of crimes. US military imperialism can’t protect the wealthy elite in this country forever.
If this doesn’t sadden you, then you have no soul, no heart, no conscience.
Feel free to mirror
Clips are from the documentary : You don’t like the truth : 4 days in Guantanamo
Here is further evidence of how people become socially conservative when in a social situation that causes fear and stress. I’ve brought this up before because it explains why social conservatives have motivation to fear-monger.
As the researchers concede, these experiments aren’t proof that thoughts of terrorism have a uniquely negative effect on parenting. Exposure to images of an attack might simply have increased the parents’ stress level, “which could then translate into harsher and more controlling social interactions with their children.”
But they note previous research has found a link between terror threats and authoritarian political beliefs. The notion that this mindset could slop over into domestic decision-making seems entirely plausible.
Either way, it’s one more example of how fear can inspire behavior one may later regret. So in turbulent times, perhaps it’s wise to avoid reading the newspaper before heading to the nursery. It’s never a beautiful day in Mr. bin Laden’s Neighborhood, but that doesn’t mean you and your children need to live there.