http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/bring_it_on

Saturday, October 29, 2005

What A Hot Week For Politics This Was!

So much happened this week that it's almost overwhelming to find a topic that stands out enough to be worthy of a post. That's fine and good though because my old nemesis, the upper-respiratory infection, has scored a touchdown at my expense and I am now sitting around the house in almost-misery. I say almost-misery because I'm reading Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and am enjoying the religious-mystery immensely. That's a story for another day though. In the mean time, I have decided to write a post responding to interesting things that happened this week but which the MSM didn't adequately cover. Let's get started before my throat starts tickling again.
Congress Sucks: Polls Say
All throughout this week, there have been a multitude of polls released about how awful our government is doing and how there is no love lost between the public and its paid criminals er..um Congressmen. Congress traditionally gets lower scores than the Judicial and Executive branches of government but in recent months, the overall approval ratings of Congress have truly fallen through the floor.
The new AP-Ipsos poll finds that almost half of the nation, 45 percent, gives Congress overall poor marks for honesty and ethics. An additional 21 percent says Congress is doing neither good nor bad. Only a meager 34 percent of the nation is pleased with Congress. Additionally, most of those who are pleased with Congress are found to be Republicans, not Democrats or Independents. What's interesting here is that the public overall is equally upset with both Democratic and Republican leaders.
One article I read included interviews with Americans on both sides of the aisle. This was the primary strength of the article. Interestingly, the author chose to end the story with a quote from an Idaho Republican who seemed as out of touch with reality as most of the rest of her party is from the American people. She said she has trouble believing Congressman are as bad as people say because she hasn't heard much about them, "specifically about Bill Frist and Tom DeLay." No offense mam, but where do you live in Idaho? In a cave? In a tree?
Republican Candidates Fleeing President Bush's Wake?
Speaking of bad politicians, it's interesting to see just how many Republican candidates are trying to distance themselves from President Bush these days. A year ago, he was the hottest commodity in Conservative politics. Now, in many cases, he can't volunteer to work for free without the prospectees running the other way. Isn't this an interesting aspect of that "mandate" his meager 3 percent win last year got him?
Look at it like this. Last week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) was pushing his "anti-union" legislation as well as trying to save his own sinking ship-of-state. Well, it appears that Bush never even got an invite whereas in previous years, Arnold couldn't get enough of the guy. Hmm....
This week, President Bush was in Norfolk, Virginia giving another rhetorical speech about the WoT. Guess who declined to be present? None other than Virginia's Republican gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore. It seems that the scandals swirling around the White House and the Washington GOP in general kept Kilgore at bay. Hmm....
I guess that's enough. If anyone cares to look into this further, they will find that this is a trend that's on the rise. Hopefully it will continue. Without their political savior, many Republicans will be at a disadvantage during upcoming elections. God knows that the right-wing direction in which this nation has been dragged for the last 5 years is a direction we can't afford to maintain. I mean, even when Bush tries to do the right thing, his own party shoots him down. Look at the Miers nomination. What about that?
Conclusion
That's it for now I guess. I'll post a small review of "The Da Vinci Code" this week, maybe Wednesday. God knows I feel awful enough to just sit around all weekend. That gives me plenty of reading time. CHEERS ALL!

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The GOP: Cutting America Where It Hurts

As per their party's usual designs, House Republicans voted today to cut programs that are not only important but essential to making America tick. Why did they do it you ask? Because, after all, they have to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the rich somehow. What did they cut and how deep will it sting you're wondering? Well let's take a look!
Student Loan Subsidies
Yes, proving a theory of mine that they like to keep the poor man poor by making it hard for him to get an education, House Republicans voted today to cut student loan subsidies from the budget. They probably figured hey, poor people tend to vote Republican (for some reason that God only can decipher) while the educated, middle-class people tend to vote Democratic or Independent. By making it harder to get a good education, Republicans can put a noose around the middle-class and slowly force it to shrink. I think that's exactly what they're up to.
Child Support Enforcement
If this is what it sounds like, House Republicans seem to be on the side of the dead-beat dad. That's appropriate though since the GOP is fast becoming the party of the dead-beat leadership. Like dead-beat dads who hang out with friends drinking beer and ignoring the problems of their kids, Republicans are big advocates of letting companies cut and eliminate their employees benefits to increase profits even when those employees lose everything they have because of it. Taking that into consideration, I guess letting dead-beat dads off the hook by cutting the funds that are used to force them to pay up is just a logical step in the Republican mindset, eh?
Aid To Firms Hurt By Unfair Business Practices
Last but not least, House Republicans voted today to cut financial assistance to firms hurt by unfair business practices. This is a pretty self-explanatory cut, don't you think? We all know how fair-minded the Republican Party is. They have a long history of playing fair (Watergate, 2000 Election Theft, 2004 Wolf Attack Election Ads) so it should surprise nobody that they don't care at all for the victims that illegal business practices leave in their wake. I guess Republicans figure Americans like the idea of being underpaid by their employers so their employers can turn around and cut insurance benefits to save money so they can then undercharge customers for products and services in an attempt to drive competitors (read companies who are actually competing fairly) out of business. Yes, that is exactly the kind of things Republicans want to see. What did the President have to say about it you're wondering? Let's take a look!
Bush Applauds His Party's Support of Dead-beat Dads
You guessed it! Bush was upbeat and supportive of his party's work today when he met with Congressional GOP leaders. He even said he encourages "Congress to push the envelope when it comes to cutting spending." Yeah right. Who was it that called for spending all of that money on a failed missile defense system a few years back? Who was it that gave all of those contracts to Halliburton without even trying to see if other companies could provide the services for less? Bush is proving, as he so often does, that he hates the middle-class and the American way of life. He's also proving that he's nothing more than corporate-America's paid spokesman. What a joke.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

DeLay's Indictments A Strange Comedy?

Is it just me or is Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX) fast turning his indictments into a soap comedy worthy of a major motion picture?
The Latest "DeLay" In The Justice Process
Tom DeLay has a new defense strategy. Accused, as he is, of using illegal funds to engineer a theft of power by Republicans from Democrats, he's clawing for any defense he can find. His latest "defense" is to request a new judge to oversee his case because the current one, Judge Bob Perkins, donated a few thousand dollars to the Democratic Party last year. Are judges not private citizens who are free to donate to their party of choice? Is DeLay saying that judges are all incapable of legal oversight because of their political beliefs? Because of the potential precedent involved, I believe this case should not be sent to another judge on these grounds. It opens the door to all manner of abuses of the system in future.
Is This In Reality A Fastball By DeLay?
In light of the potentially damaging precedent that could result if DeLay's request is honored, it's interesting to note that the next judge in line to deal with the case is a Republican judge, B.B. Schraub. Should prosecuting attorney Ronnie Earle say that a Republican judge would be biased in favor of DeLay since DeLay says a Democratic judge would be biased against him? The answer you came to, I hope, is in the negative. If we're willing to take a judge off a case simply for being Democrat or Republican, we'll soon be out of judges. The scary thing here is that that may be DeLay's intent in the first place. After all, if he could get a precedent set for Democratic judges not to rule on Republicans and vice versa, could he not cause enough confusion in the justice system to allow seemingly corrupt politicians such as himself more of a free reign on power, at least for awhile? It might seem unlikely but after all, evidence suggests he's a criminal and do criminals not play outside of the law?
TIL Recommends A New Strategy For DeLay
It would seem to any legal-minded American (or it should) that if DeLay is innocent, he should try defending himself with evidence instead of petty mudslinging. He has, after all, tried to have the case thrown out on legal technicalities and when that didn't work, he tried to accuse the grand jury of being tampered with. When that didn't work, he accused the jury of being biased. When that didn't work, he tried to get a new judge because he didn't like the current one. In addition, DeLay is now using money from his election campaign budget to pay for attack propaganda aimed at the prosecution. Is that not improper use of campaign funds? These are all very petty defenses. If DeLay is innocent as he claims, he should try to provide facts that prove his innocence instead of trying to bully his way through the justice system. It is interesting to note that though DeLay claims arrogantly claims his innocence and says he will be cleared of all charges, his two associates who stand charged don't seem to share his confidence. They've both told reporters that they hope the case will be dismissed or settled out of court in some other manner. That suggests they aren't confident that evidence will prove their and DeLay's innocence.
Conclusion
Tom DeLay's "defenses", though accepted lock, stock and barrel by most Republicans, have so far proven baseless. He has failed to provide any evidence so far to prove his innocence and has instead stooped to petty accusations and propaganda as a defense strategy. His failure to provide evidence seems damning but it would be unfair to make that accusation until the case is concluded. However, smoke and shadows won't be enough to get him out of this mess. He forgets the most important fact in all of this: It was the Grand Jury that indicted him, not Earle or Perkins. As Juror Veronica Dixon put it, "The only thing the grand jury bases its decisions on is the evidence presented to us. We had quite a lot of evidence."

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

The Independent Liberal's Mission Statement

In the course of publishing this blog, I have found that it's often difficult to write successfully about the controversial topics I love without a set code of conduct and a set mission statement to show where I stand on the issues. I have decided today to put down into words exactly where I stand on politics and at the same time explain to my readers in-depth how I intend to manage my site and its format. Let's start with my position on politics.
My Political Philosophy
I am neither an absolute Liberal nor am I an absolute Conservative; I'm not even an absolute Moderate. My views are a mixture of different positions, many of which come close to conflicting at times. My late mother was a very liberal Michigander (of 100% recent European immigrant lineage) so from her, I draw most of my Liberal leanings. My father is a very Moderate individual from Tennessee so from him, I draw some Liberal leanings but also some Conservative ones. The views that I have picked up on my own are heavily influenced by the traditional Southern values of my native Oklahoma. From these sources spring my views such as they are.
How I Believe The Government Should Function
I am a firm believer in every man and woman's right to earn a good life through hard work. I also believe the government's role is to protect the public from foreign and domestic threats and also through pro-public policies to help the people have every opportunity to earn success as long as they are willing and able to work for it. In the same token, I believe direct-cash assistance should be reserved only for those who truly need it. My belief is that the government (all levels) exists by, of and for the people, meaning that in all things, the people who elect government officials should be the ones for whom the government works. Any time the government or a government official puts one agency, ideology or organization's interests above the good of the public, the government or the guilty person has committed treason. I believe the government should remain as small as possible and should only grow when absolute need requires it. The Federal government should be in charge of national defense, international diplomacy, monitoring trade, monitoring inter-state and multi-national corporations and deciding state-to-state disputes by interpretation of the Constitution. In general, other rights and responsibilities should fall to each individual state and local municipality. This is a brief synopsis of my political theory but it should paint a detailed picture of what I fight for.
The Format Of The Independent Liberal
On this blog, I welcome all views. I ask that trolls do not rear their ugly heads but apart from those rude little creatures, all views are welcome. I ask that readers and responders to my posts read my work and the comments of others in an open-minded fashion and that they think critically of all views, their own included. There is no such thing as an absolute truth except for the secrets that God himself knows and keeps so we should never assume for any reason that we have all the answers. In short, I ask that everyone who frequents The Independent Liberal keep an open mind and remember that politics is about different views, debate and diplomacy. I will, if forced, ban hate-mongers just as I would ban trolls so please don't put me in that position. This site is intended to be an open forum where all sides of the political sphere can meet and mingle. That's what Democracy is supposed to be.
If I'm Being Unreasonable, Call 1-800-Biteme!
I just want to say that I appreciate every single comment that you, my readers, leave me. I don't always agree with you and that heartens me. What fun would this great sport of politics be if we were all pitching for the same team and could find no batter to challenge us? It takes all sorts as the saying goes and that means that every single point of view has value to some extent. Now you know what I think so let me know what you think as posts come and go. That's it for now. CHEERS AND BLOG ON!

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Bob Woodward: A People's Advocate

I recently had the honor of being invited to a state dinner at which Bob Woodward, one of two journalists famous for exposing the corruption of President Richard Nixon, was to be the keynote speaker. I honestly doubted that he would speak on politics all that much but was pleasantly surprised when my doubt was disproven. He spoke of Watergate and of politics since the infamous scandal. He also spoke in great depth on the state of politics today. I would like to record for you some of what he said for much of it will likely be surprising to both Liberals and Conservatives.
Watergate: Symptom Of A Corrupt President
The first thing Woodward said of Watergate was that it is, to people in his generation, "like Vietnam- a memory seared into your mind." He said that it proves why journalists and other investigators need to have anonymous sources. Without them, he suggested, it's too easy for the powerful to use fear and manipulation to prevent the truth of their actions from getting out.
"The President has immense power, and the possibility of having someone setup a secret government as Nixon did is the greatest danger we face," he said. "Watergate wasn't one event but a series of secret, criminal events and operations. When we published Watergate, most people didn't believe it. It was overpowering to see such a small man (Nixon) use the Presidency as an instrument of revenge."
At this point, a student asked Woodward if he thinks, as so many Americans seem to, that there are no good journalists in the business today. He responded that there are good journalists and said he believes the problem with today's media is that most people focus on the 24/7 broadcast media, which care more about being first with the story than first with the facts. "Journalists should be strict constructionists, not advocates of one way or another," he said.
To illustrate his point, he brought up a recent luncheon he had with former Vice President Al Gore. At the luncheon, he said Gore asked him, "Why aren't you bringing Bush down?" To which Woodward replied, "Becoming a political tool isn't my job; Being a people's advocate and providing facts is."
After this, he returned to the subject of live media and said that he believes it has gone downhill because, "pomposity has infected the profession and now they (the live reporters) are judging instead of describing."
At this point, the subject of discussion turned to President Bush.
An Interview With President Bush
At this point, Woodward began the discussion with a few questions to the audience. The first question was, "How many of you voted for President Bush last year?" The audience was split with about 60 yeas and about 60 neas. "How many of you in the audience think Bush's tax cuts were good?" The audience was biased on this with only about 20 yeas to 100 neas. "How many of you support the war in Iraq?" The audience was biased on this also, with only about 20 yeas to 100 neas.
"The Iraq war has become the center of the emotional state in this country," he noted. "The decision to go to war is the most serious a President can make and it defines us to the world but more importantly it defines us to ourselves."
Working on a book about Bush, he said he once interviewed the President for three-and-a-half-hours. He said that contrary to the experiences of many other journalists, Bush gave direct answers. When he asked Bush what his motives were for the war, Bush said, "We have a duty to free people." Woodward said he followed this answer with the question that turned out to be the last of the interview. "How will history remember the war, Mr President?" Woodward said Bush stood up, walked around the Oval Office for a bit and then turned and said, "I don't know- we'll all be dead."
Woodward said going to war takes courage, whether for the right or wrong reasons. Courage is the most important trait for any President to have. "Courage often means walking the road alone and re-examining your decisions," he explained. "I believe every President since Nixon truly believed their policies would help America. They had courage."
Again, Woodward returned to the matter of judging people. He said it is impossible to judge people and their actions without understanding the full scope of those actions and their consequences. Bush is judged for the war but until we know how it will play out in the end, Woodward said, we can't truly know the story. That makes it very hard to judge.
Just before he finished his address, Woodward said he doesn't think Bush invaded Iraq for oil. He said Bush truly believes he is doing the right thing. "I think Bush's goal is to liberate Iraq, Iraqi oil and then hand Iraqi oil over to Iraqis," he said. With this, he took a few small questions about his books then sat down to dinner.
Conclusion
In short, I will leave my readers to draw their own conclusions. I enjoyed the address and felt that Woodward's vast knowledge of Washington only proves what I already believe: that good and evil do exist but that they are not absolutes which can be judged with rhetorical opinions and bias. Only by collecting all the facts of a story and looking at each detail equally can we even come close to accurately judging whether something is good or evil. Apart from that, I will leave you good people to your own thoughts.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Democrats and Republicans: Reconcile!

- President Richard Nixon, August 9, 1974 - "Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
Richard Nixon stands out in history not only for his infamous abuse of the Office of President of the United States but also for his witty proverbs, none of which are more famous than the speech this statement is taken from. It is ironic that one of the wisest statements ever uttered by an American President was a product of the man who is considered by most to be the worst President of all time. Even more ironic is the way his words, proven true for all time by his criminal vices, still stand true today despite all the change that time has wrought on this nation. Sadly, his terrible example and hard-earned truth fall on far too many a deaf ear amongst our politicians, our leaders and our people. Why, today, do so many Americans of all political stripes forget or ignore the lesson of Nixon? The answer, I suspect, is because far too many Americans have fallen by the wayside of what America stands for and now walk the path to self-destruction that a President walked not so long ago.
A Call For Reconciliation Between Left and Right
After studying Nixon's crimes and failures as well as those of other leaders past and present, I would humbly like to make a call for Democrats, Republicans, Leftists, Rightists and all the rest of you to come together and remember that some things, indeed many things, matter far more than political ideology. Though it is difficult to tell by their politics, Democrats and Republicans were once two parts of the same party. That was almost 200 years ago. About the only thing they have in common now is their shared use of rhetoric, intentional misleading of the public and silent agreement to share power and prevent the success of any other political parties. In light of this growing political extremism, I ask everyone to take a good look at his or her own political views. I ask you to examine closely the similarities and differences that truly set you apart from your neighbors on the other side of the aisle. After you have identified these shared and unshared values, identify the subjects you can work together on. Finally, on the areas that you cannot reconcile, agree to disagree peacefully. You see, I have observed that those who hate others tend to fail more often than those who disagree respectfully with ideas instead of people. This, I deem, is the root of the Democratic Party's fall in the 1990's. It is also the seed by which the Republican Party is building towards its own fall. Work together or fail together, that is the lesson. Do not focus only on the evils of others but see the good in them and build on it. Evil will always be punished in the end because that is in its nature. Remember, it takes a better kind of person to reconcile than to injure an open wound. God Bless!

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Why Bother Debating With The Right?

There is both good news and bad news this week my friends. First, we'll look at the good news and then we'll get around the looking at the bad stuff. Fair enough?
The Good News
The good news is that I've decided to rethink the style of my posts. If anyone noticed, my posts tend to be really long, which is all fine and good I suppose but it seems to me that most bloggers don't like reading long in-depth articles. The Internet is all about getting information and ideas quickly after all, isn't it? With that in mind, I've decided to write shorter posts and I've decided to write on both Saturdays and Wednesdays. Hopefully shorter, more frequent posts will allow me to write about more topics and attract more readers. Now for the bad news.
The Bad News
As many of you already know, my friend Gun-Toting Liberal has been out of town for a while now. Before leaving, he asked several fellow bloggers, including myself, to fill in for him on his site while he is gone. Naturally I was happy to oblige him. Along with nine other bloggers, I began writing guest posts. At first this arrangement worked out fine as it seemed GTL's site was receiving a lot of hits from those familiar with his work. As time has passed, however, things have gone downhill. It seems that most of the visitors to GTL's site are now conservatives and they are using it as a conservative forum. In addition, they seem bent on forcing their views and methods on the site, evidently feeling that they now own it. I have grown tired of constantly debating with these folks and having my words fall on deaf ears so I've decided not to post there anymore. Hopefully GTL will clean house when he gets home. Godspeed GTL!
Did You Know Bush's Supporters Are Mad At Him?
I've been keeping a close eye on public opinion in recent weeks as Bush has attempted to wade through tumultuous political waters far too deep for a dishonest man. What I've noticed is that the deeper he wades, the more support he loses. I haven't found a good reason for this as of yet but I believe it has something to do with his system of covering up the truth and then showing his true colors later on. Let's look at the individual groups that are upset with him for a bit, shall we?
Americans In General
In the latest AP-Ipsos poll, it appears that the American people only marginally support Bush. Only a meager 28 percent of those polled felt that Bush is leading America in the right direction. That is opposed 66 percent who felt he is leading us in the wrong direction.
White Evangelicals, Republican Women and Southerners
Since November 2004, Bush's support in among white evangelicals has dwindled by 30 percent. At election time last year, this group overwhelmingly supported Bush but this is no longer the case.
Similar to white evangelicals, Republican women have lost their faith in Bush by a margin of 28 percent. Also like white evangelicals, Republican women overwhelmingly supported Bush during last year's election.
Only slightly less so than with white evangelicals and Republican women, Bush has managed to lose a lot of support from Southerners. In the last election, the South overwhelmingly supported Bush but that support has dwindled by 26 percent.
Hispanics
Over the last 10 years, Republicans have fought hard to convince Hispanics that the GOP is the party that doesn't screw the little guy. They've managed to convince a lot of them. However, the faith of many Hispanics in the GOP has been shaken to the core by Bush's refusal to nominate an Hispanic to the US Supreme Court. Considering that he won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in the last election, one would think he wouldn't want to upset this important group of voters. After all, there are 37 million Hispanics in the United States. By disproving years of campaign promises, Bush might be costing his party a few elections, don't you think?
Conclusion
While political polls are a non-scientific sport, they are accurate enough to tell us that things aren't looking good for Republicans right now. Given that the American people have clearly decided by the smallest of margins that they want Republicans to rule them, despite their tyrannical overtures, it would be prudent for Bush to carry out his position as the leader of the GOP with caution. Instead, he seems bent on doing whatever he wants to. This cowboy-cavalier attitude comes with a high cost: millions of swing-voters who swing left just as easily as right. Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio perhaps best summarized the situation Bush faces when he said recently, "There is a growing, deep-seated discontentment and pessimism about the direction of the country." Yes, that's true. The best part of it is that it's mostly conservatives that are getting upset now. Does that mean the Republican Party is slowly losing its grip?

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Why America Needs Biased Media: Part 3

Well friends, we've come to Part Three, the final part in my series about media bias. Once again, I'd like to thank everyone who read the first two posts and took part in the debate such as it was. As you can see, I firmly believe that bias has a place in media right alongside nonbias (on the rare occasions we can find it). In the first two parts of the series, I put media bias in an historical and political perspective, showing the ways in which it improved the United States of America. Today in Part Three, I will use a few modern political situations to show that we now have a negative and damaging media bias. I will then end the series with my final thoughts on where the media was, is and should be going. So with that in mind, let's get started.
The Clinton Case: Media Bias Is Good, But Now Twisted
Though the media is perpetually referred to as the "liberal media", almost every major media outlet is owned and operated by rich conservatives and is molded to fit their tastes. Add this to the manner in which many Republicans tow the line and follow the party's leadership and it's easy to see why most major media outlets have begun caving in to conservative views. After all, they don't want to lose all of those conservative dollars and viewers do they? This is exactly why the media followed President Clinton's sex scandals with gusto.
Republicans accuse the so-called "liberal media" of being slanted from the left. They say media outlets plaster their broadcasts and publications with attacks on Bush and other Republicans. While that was true originally, it is true no longer for reasons we will discuss later. What is true is that the MSM plastered their coverage of Bill Clinton with his scandals perpetually from the very mention of them. He never had a day go by that the MSM mention his scandals in stories in which he was involved, even when the story itself had nothing to do with his wrongdoings. They crucified the guy. How's that for "liberal media"?
I'm certain that my friends on the right are getting upset about now so let's take a look at several important facts.
First of all, while Clinton wasn't guilty of attacking his fellow Americans as Nixon was, he was guilty of cheating on his wife and telling lies to cover it up. That was something that needed discovering. Likely, without the so-called "liberal media" sensationalizing it and thus driving a bias, Republicans wouldn't have been able to turn his affairs into the big mess they spun them into. That, in turn, would have slowed or prevented the "Republican Revolution" they are so proud of.
Second, having sex and covering it up obviously isn't as big a crime as breaking into a political enemy's headquarters but Republicans hadn't forgotten the trouble Nixon got into for doing just that. They blamed Democrats for Nixon's downfall and thus were still out for blood after two decades (though Nixon did actually break the law when he tapped Democratic phone lines and broke into their headquarters).
Third, it's important to point out here that the media bias that was directed at Clinton wasn't like the bias of earlier times, which was usually targeted for or against a major social issue. The bias in Clinton's time was purely targeted to weaken one political faction in order to strengthen another, a purpose which didn't serve the American people and which severely wounded the nation by dividing it perhaps more than ever into ideological factions.
In conclusion, while we must concede the point that Clinton did some things wrong that deserved finding out, we must also observe the fact that media bias targeting him was not intended for the betterment of America but rather for divisive purposes intended to trick Americans into joining a subversive ideology. This is a case where media bias was detrimental to American well being.
The Bush Case: Media Bias Is Needed, But Lacking
While we're discussing how biased media can serve or harm the public during scandalous Presidencies, let's discuss Mr. Bush, a man who for soo many reasons should be investigated but whom for many more reasons can't be investigated. Let's look at these one at a time, shall we?
The first Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the original manner in which Bush came to power. Irregardless to the beliefs many Republicans hold, there is indeed something wrong about winning an election by such a close vote in a state ruled by one's brother and then being told by a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court which had no legal bearing on the case in the first place that no one would be allowed to investigate further. That is an issue the so-called "liberal media" should have stopped at nothing to investigate. Indeed, they probably would have had the GOP'ers not started heavily tagging them "the liberal media" at just that time. If the media had held to a little bias and developed some backbone, we might have at least known who had actually won the election. Bush: 1 MSM: 0
The second Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the fact that Bush was caught on tape saying that he would invade Iraq if he won the race in 2000. Does that not give at least reasonable doubt that he embellished WMD's claims as a means to "justify" his invasion at that time? This isn't about Saddam but it is about a claim Bush made that was either a lie or a gross embellishment. Americans deserve to know the truth either way. Besides, if we received "bad" intelligence about WMD's, as Bush claims, the intelligence has obviously proven faulty and can thus be released to the public to show that he did nothing wrong. Why hasn't he done that? Does he hide such "evidence" to protect, as he claims, national security or does he hide such things to protect his own guilty record? Clearly the "liberal media" isn't biased against him on this matter either. They seem content to let him get away with not coming clean about his intentions so long as he doesn't direct financial investigations or boycotts in their direction. Bush: 2 MSM: 0
The third Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the fact that Bush recently suspended prevailing wage to "help" in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region, which was totally devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Naturally, the "liberal media" is so biased against Bush that they let the matter all but drop only days after he made the decree. Do you think the construction workers who lost everything will appreciate being paid next to nothing for their services as they try to rebuild their communities? Do you think the workers who come in from out of state to help them will appreciate it? In effect, this is yet another case where the media that once fought over major social problems is now being trained to act with complacency when it comes to the White House. They are now happy to let Bush do as he pleases as long as he doesn't threaten them with investigations or conservative boycotts (and yes conservatives do boycott though they don't like to admit it). Sound like we need media bias? Yes it does but I'm afraid the media has already been sold to the highest bidder. Bush: 3 MSM: 0
Conclusion: Media Bias Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
I believe that history shows bias in the media has had, for the most part, a positive effect on America's development. It has brought to the foreground issues, facts and ideals that may never have surfaced without a bias to drive many a writer to persevere in his or her beliefs and causes, even under threat to his or her person. This willingness to take the hard road for the belief that the nation will benefit as a fruit of the effort should serve as a shining example to journalists today and in the future.
In saying that media bias has an overall great record, however, we must admit that the current system of media in the United States is stifled. Through the use of clever rhetoric, the very bias that once made American media so powerful has been used against it by a tide of political vigilantes in a quest to seize far more power than is their Constitutional share. As things stand at the present, the media is a tool of powerful rightist political forces. It is, in fact, being used against the masses though the masses themselves don't always realize what is being done to them. Through threats, bribes and buyouts, the media has been subverted and its once equally distributed bias along with it. In this way, the good things that come from bias in the media are now bad things. This proves that while media bias is a positive thing in that it can bring out all sides of an argument, it's strength is also a weakness that makes it vulnerable.
In the future, I would like to see the MSM undergo some changes that will give it a level of immunity to external forces such as those that now hold it hostage. For example, I would like to see media outlets declare their ideological positions whether they are biased, unbiased or centrist. I would also like to see journalists like those of old who refused to back away from a story simply because there was a chance that those in power would go on the offensive. Finally, I would like to see an increase in privately-owned media because owned by large corporations as most newspapers and news stations are, the personal feelings and emotions that drive good journalism are orbiting farther and farther from the journalistic mainstream and by association the American people. This can only make matters worse as time goes on. I hope everyone has enjoyed on some level or another my series on media bias. Thanks for reading!
The End

Enter your email address below to subscribe to The Independent Liberal!


powered by Bloglet
Last Modified On January 31, 2006