NEWS? Not Really

CBS News replaced Newsman Dan Rather with Cheer-leader Katie Couric. The result has been, predictably, a dramatic decrease in the networks credibility as a serious news source forsaking actual news for feel good pieces, personal profiles and other fluff. CBS has taken a great deal of criticism for this, but it does not appear that they have any intention of changing the new format.

The Couric fiasco is merely the latest of many drastic changes to the way Americans are getting their news. The most obvious and drastic change has been Fox News Channel. Until Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes teamed up to bring their version of news to the American market no one had ventured as far from "moderate" positions as they have shown they are willing to do.

Of course, Fox News was an aberration of cable which also ushered in such reprobates as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, Tony Snow, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, and so on and so on…

Even the print media has changed and in the same direction as televised media. Both Newsweek and Time magazines have been caught publishing one cover internationally and a different cover for the American market. In both cases the cover that was suppressed was about current important issues.

The Couric episode can be seen as a marketing strategy by the media to "sell" news to the public through an appealing spokesperson. Katie was magnificent on her morning talk show as the seemingly caring interviewer, ohing and ahing poignantly as her subject poured out his or her heart.

Now, Couric's talent for appearing to care is being used to sell us news the way the media wants us to get it. The important issues down-played while lingering on sentimentality and personality that could and should mean nothing.

How does CBS and Couoric compare with the other leading news sources? NBC Nightly News has Brian Williams who proudly boasts that he feels obligated to listen to Rush Limbaugh to get his dose of daily truth, and Tim Russert who the White house counts on to treat VP Cheney with kid gloves while allowing him to "get his message out".

ABC News with Charlie Gibbson is an arm of the ABC network which is owned by Disney. This is the combination that produced and aired the program blaming Bill Clinton for everything that has happened since Bush took office.

CNN & MSNBC are fairly equal in their bias against the Left except for "Count-Down" with Kieth Olberman

Once again there is Fox Noise, the propaganda machine, smear merchants and a direct branch of the Bush Administration. Yet, in spite of the Fox record of lies, cover-ups and unquestioning loyalty to Neoconservatism, Tim Russert doesn't get why the Democrats don't want their debate hosted by these sycophants. I wonder if Russert would be so quick to defend a Republican debate hosted by Air America Radio!

Why we must Impeach

The argument against impeachment can no longer be supported if this country is to ever again be a democracy and a nation of laws. There are simply no arguments left for not immediately initiating steps to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

It was especially disappointing recently when Al Gore stated that impeachment would be a distraction to the public and not work to improve the state of the nation. Gore should realize, more keenly than most that acknowledging the existence of a problem must occur before it can be corrected. His efforts on the problem of global warming have been met with a disinformation campaign financed by the auto and oil industries attempting to discredit Gore’s research and deny that a problem exists. Gore’s movement to reverse the ill effects of pollution on the environment will fail unless new laws are enacted and existing ones are enforced, which will not happen if we don’t first acknowledge the need to do so.

The same is true of our nation. We can not correct what is wrong with the country unless we are able to name the problems that exist, and then take steps to eradicate them. As with polluters, if they are not punished they will continue to pollute, so too will elected officials continue to violate the law if they are not punished for their misdeeds.

If you have any doubt that the Republicans intend to continue their assault on the Constitution initiated by the extremist Neoconservatives, just look at their candidates for President. Except for Ron Paul, they are all cheerleaders for continued and even escalated war in the Middle East, they support enhanced interrogation techniques (read torture), they espouse creationism and renounce evolution, they advocate continued tax relief for the rich while piling up tax burdens on the middle class and they all have extremely intimate relations with big business that spells trouble for the average Joe.

Had Democrats done what they should have by introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney as soon as they took control of Congress, the rhetoric of the Republican candidates would not be so brash. They would be more cautious about supporting policies that might be judged illegal during impeachment hearings.

Had Democrats launched this session of Congress by asserting the mandate issued to them by the American electorate they could now be disassembling the unitary executive model of government devise by Karl Rove and his minions.

Reality has been quite the opposite of what Democrats should have done. Today, Congressman John Conyers posted a diary on DailyKos to share his reasons for issuing subpoenas former White House Counsel Harriett Miers. To the extent that this action is necessary the Congressman’s actions are appreciated, but to the extent that action is required in defense of the Constitution and our Democracy, it falls far short.

Also at DailyKos was a response to Congressman Conyers diary by Rusty1776. This diary is well worth the time to read and absorb it. Rusty1776 hits the nail on the head and takes Congressman Conyers to task for failing to pursue the impeachment of the President and Vice President. Before Democrats took majority control of the House and the Senate, Conyers had spoken out against Bush and Cheney and their criminal activities. Yet, when his Party came to power he has failed to follow through on his previous rhetoric.

Predictably, the argument will be made that Democrats do not have the votes required to impeach and therefore perform an act of futility by attempting it. Although this may be factually accurate, it misses the greater point of taking this action. By going on record for the impeachment of both the President and Vice President, Democrats will have taken a stand to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” which is the absolute minimum that can be expected of them, and for which they are honor and duty bound through their oath of office.

Imus Tell You

As an Imus listener (enabler) I have several thoughts regarding the comments he made about the Rutgers girls basketball team. I agree with nearly everyone that his comments were unacceptable, hurtful, and crass. Not only was this comment made with archaic thinking about black athletes by a throwback to "Jim Crow" days of tolerated segregation, it was also completely uninformed about today's NCAA players and in particular the exceptionally accomplished stature of the Rutgers’s female athletes.

My problem with the firing of Imus is simply that there are so many others more deserving of this fate. In the case of CBS and its parent Viacom, they have a veritable stable of acerbic fanatics willing to employ all manner of obnoxious commentary and envelope-pushing diatribes to attain Limbaughesque notoriety.

It's my belief that Imus' fate was preordained and would have ultimately resulted in his dismissal whether he had made this comment or not. Any off color comment of significant consequence to allow sponsors to claim righteous indignation and juicy enough to be used as bait to set off a media feeding frenzy would have sufficed

The sin Imus was punished for had already been committed when he uttered his own obituary in the form of a racial slur against these young women. Imus was guilty of taking on the Bush administration in a particularly embarrassing way. He had challenged the alibis of all politicians who claimed ignorance about the conditions witnessed at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the abhorrent level of care received by our veterans.

It was necessary to get Imus off the air because he had promised to use his personal bully pulpit to hold those in charge responsible for the substandard care received by our wounded vets this administration has proven to support in word only.

The "I"s Have It

INVESTIGATE

IMPEACH

INDICT

INCARCERATE

Neocon Hypocrisy

Recently, in a local newspaper, a conservative columnist held Representative John Murtha up to ridicule for having said that U.S. Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” in Iraq. He went on to say that Murtha had determined the guilt of these Marines without benefit of charges, trials or convictions. However, he continued to slander Murtha by reminding his readers of the FBI investigation from years ago when Murtha and other Congressmen were offered bribes.

This is my letter to the editor in response to his column:

Editor:

This paper's recent column (R-J 2/25/07) is a “must read” for anyone needing an object lesson in Neo-conservative hypocrisy. The focus of the column was Rep. John Murtha for stating that U.S. Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” in Iraq without the need or benefit of charges, trials, or convictions of the accused.

The columnist's attack against Murtha for his lack of jurisprudence only serves to demonstrate his own keen deficiency of the same. He cites an FBI investigation that videotaped Murtha and other members of Congress in a sting operation to illustrate Murtha’s unsavory character. Yet in doing so he repeats the exact behavior for which he chastises Murtha. The FBI investigation did not result in charges, trial, or conviction of Congressman Murtha.

If it serves no other purpose, the editorial illustrates the divergent philosophies of the Neo-conservatives and the rest of us. Extremists on the Right do not see the glaring injustice of their worldview and their willingness to misuse any information, and just about anything else, to their advantage. What is inappropriate for Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and Moderates is totally acceptable for them. First Amendment rights are privileges the rest of us may lose when the nation’s security (or partisan politics) demands it, but it is the unassailable touchstone of the punditocracy.

Once rare, this level of duplicity has become commonplace in certain segments of the media and it is for the rest of us to not let it go unchallenged. It is unfortunate for this columnist as well as his readers that this must be pointed out however, those of us who still believe in the possibility of a just form of government have a duty to hold to civilized standards and demand the same of columnists.

What Now?

Basking in the glow of victory and just beginning to come back to earth from the orbital bliss of returning the Congress to responsible Democratic control, it is easy to overlook the fact that the Republicans have left this country in an abyss of debt, considered by the rest of the international community as reprobates, and with a nation of well meaning citizens more fiercely divided than at any other time in our history with the exception of the Civil War.

With all that, the Democratic hold on the Senate is precarious at best due to Senator Joseph Lieberman (CFL) defeating his former Party’s candidate, Ned Lamont. Lieberman’s Neoconservative leanings have become more apparent throughout the Bush administration’s term. His personal thirst for the slaughter of innocents having been motivated by the blood-lust of the Bush chicken hawks, Lieberman threw his support to the administration and even ran interference against his own former Party to ensure the carnage continued unabated. His re-election was entirely the doing of the Republicans from Connecticut responding to the Fox News Network’s promotion of Lieberman as Bush’s choice over their own Party candidate, Alan Schlesinger. Those few Democrats who supported Lieberman over their Party’s justly elected candidate can now share in the responsibility for the continuing deaths of U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

Within the rank and file of the Democrats in Congress there have been those who believe that their return to the majority Party means that they will enjoy the advantages while business goes on as usual in the House and Senate. Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York is a good case in point. Rangel will be the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a powerful and highly prized position and the focus of a great deal of attention by the biggest lobbyists on K Street. In less than a month after the elections Rangel is attempting to change his position on Bush’s millionaires tax cuts and is willing to lie to accomplish this. He made the statement that no one promised to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy during the campaign and he believes they need to stay in place to spur the economy. He is LYING! A majority of Democratic candidates advocated the roll back of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and for Rangel to now disregard the importance of that pledge is dishonest and shameful.

Just a reminder to the 110th Congress and to the US Senate in case one is required. The Left wing blogosphere that hounded corporate owned Republicans right out of office is not about to allow you to take over where they left off. The fact that you’re Democrats does not get you a free pass because we expect even more from you than from the jerks we just voted out. Let’s start off on the right foot in January by restoring the tax burden on the wealthiest among us, reforming our elections by banning corporate money and eliminating partisans from vote counting duties. Also, Congress is Constitutionally obligated to perform Executive oversight and therefore must investigate actions by the administration that may have been criminal. Investigations must be carried out regarding Bush’s possibly lying to Congress to get us into war with Iraq, outing of a CIA operative, creating fake news stories for the media, misappropriating 9.5 Billion dollars in Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

If these investigations turn up evidence that could lead to the impeachment of the President and Vice President, Congress must take steps to remove them from office, regardless of Nancy Pelosi’s pledge that impeachment was off the table. She had to say that or appear to be staging a coup. If the evidence is there and she still will not act, she needs to be removed and a Speaker named who will follow the law.

More Bad News

Bad news for the Bush and Blair governments has been coming out of Great Britain, Ireland and Germany recently and it appears to be the type of thing that could become a trend in other countries as well. The bad news is that people charged with crimes for having taken action against military targets as a protest against the Iraq war have successfully used the defense that the war is illegal and an act of aggression by the United States and the UK.

The courts are starting to accept that the war against Iraq is a crime

The Guardian newspaper carried this headline on Tuesday October 17, 2006 for a story reported by George Monbiot. (The link is to a Raw Story article on the Guardian piece) The story cites several incidents where protesters have been arrested for sabotage of military equipment to prevent its use in the Iraq war. In one case “The defendants were allowed to show that they were seeking to prevent specific war crimes from being committed - principally, the release by the B52s of cluster bombs and munitions tipped with depleted uranium. They cited section 5 of the 1971 Criminal Damage Act, which provides lawful excuse for damaging property if that action prevents property belonging to other people from being damaged, and section 3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act, which states that "a person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of a crime". In summing up, the judge told the jurors that using weapons "with an adverse effect on civilian populations which is disproportionate to the need to achieve the military objective" is a war crime. Another case involved a German Army Major who refused to obey an order he felt would implicate him in the invasion of Iraq. In his case, “The judges determined that the UN charter permits a state to go to war in only two circumstances: in self-defence, and when it has been authorised to do so by the UN security council. The states attacking Iraq, they ruled, had no such licence. Resolution 1441, which was used by the British and US governments to justify the invasion, contained no authorisation. The war could be considered an act of aggression.”

These findings may become the legal precedents that sound the death knell for Bush and his war council. One, a judicial finding that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Great Britain was not justified either as an act of self defense or under UN Resolution 1441 which was determined not to contain authorization to do so. The other, a finding of “disproportionate force to achieve a military objective” was further amplified by the recent findings of researchers at John Hopkins University that 655,000 Iraqis have died due to the current war.

This would mean that the US and UK have committed an act of aggression in the eyes of the international community. Yet, every American politician that appears with some talking head on the cable/network news shows continue to assert that they were correct to support the invasion, some saying they would do the same today even knowing at the time what we have learned since.

Basically, we sent inspectors into Iraq to verify that no weapons existed. Then, having proven their defenselessness, invaded their country with such devastating force that the operation was dubbed “shock and awe”. What is different about this administration’s actions from a person shooting another person they know to be unarmed and claiming to be justified because the person they shot had a weapon? Many Americans are of the opinion that our country and our leaders are guilty of a crime but, fear the reprisal of the White House that this administration is famous for.

If the Democrats regain control of either branch of Congress they MUST use their subpoena power to conduct honest, open investigations and, most importantly, they must be willing to pursue the evidence without reservation and to hold responsible anyone the investigations determine to be in violation of the law, including the President himself.