Snake Oil for Sale

I find it amazing that so many people have been conned by this two-bit snake oil salesman who occupies the office of the President.  They have given their allegiance to someone who has no loyalty to any principles, shows loyalty only to family, and exhibits a strong affinity to authoritarian regimes, only because they wish to follow a bully from his demonic pulpit. 

Most politicians have to sell some "Snake Oil" in order to get elected. Pledging allegiance to a man with few (if any) principles wouldn't be too bad if he understood how power should be used, and that he was truly making America great again.   Instead, Trump is destroying the very things that helped keep America great in the economic world we shaped after World War 2.  

- - - - - -

In their effort to extract more wealth from the populace, our nation's elites have abandoned the most vulnerable in our society. Structural unemployment is damaging both rural and urban areas in America, as it is doing in the rest of the developed world.  And the populist insurrection that brought Trump to the White House is playing all over the world with "Yellow Vest" protests in Paris, Brexit in Britain, and the shift towards autocratic rule in Eastern Europe.  Trump is acting exactly as I'd want him to do if I were Vladimir Putin.  Every action Trump takes is geared to destabilize American political institutions, American social institutions, and American economic institutions.  It only makes sense for Trump to have done what he did, if he were a puppet of the Russians.

Sadly, in its leaders' lust for power, the GOP has lost its soul.  The base no longer cares about principles.  It is mostly a populist mob led by people who will deliver meager rations of bread and entertain them with meaningless political stump speeches geared to promote tribal identity.  The base has allowed its leaders to become irresponsible, enacting a so-called tax cut which is adding more billions to the budget deficit than if they left the tax code alone.  Even more important than this is their tolerance of a leader who shows them no loyalty as long as he is willing to pursue a retrograde social agenda.

Did the swamp get drained?  No, that was only a useful political slogan.  And yet, the base ignores the lack of progress in this area. I think this illustrates a greater social problem in our society. America has divided itself into haves and have-nots. It has also divided itself into well educated people and poorly educated people.  More importantly, it is divided into compassionate people and non-compassionate people. I feel sorry for those government employees not getting paid because of a pissing match between the House and Trump.  My Dad, however, has no compassion for them - he lived a hardscrabble life, and only has enough room in his soul to care only about himself and his immediate family.  Many of Trump's supporters are very much like my Dad - life has not allowed them the luxury of caring for others who are not doing well. 

Sadly, we have only ourselves to blame if this traitor is allowed to hold the office of the President much longer.  It is no longer a luxury to be well educated or compassionate.  The world has changed from a "Win-Lose" world into a "Win-Win / Lose-Lose" world, where education, communication, and compassion will be needed for future prosperity.  That means we have a choice: Continuing to let this traitor lead us astray, or to go in the opposite direction - where we can all work together to pursue common interests, making things better to pursue our individual interests as a result....

It's all about the Benjamins

If anyone thinks that this election is about anything other than money, then I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.  Both major party candidates are in it for the money, and both represent what is wrong about the system.

- - - - - -

Let's start with Donald Trump.  He represents what is most objectionable about the current GOP.  He acknowledges that he has bought and sold politicians in the past.  Reputable news sources state that his business deals have served to make himself rich at the expense of others - including his business partners.  And he suffers no embarrassment from making almost everything he says a lie - appealing to potential voters' more primitive brain functions, instead of their intellect.  When he says that he loves ignorant people - he means it!

We have a large number of people who have been lied to for years.  The political elite from the GOP has ignored the needs of the common people.  They have told us that cutting taxes will result in greater tax revenue as well as more jobs available to the common person - and we know this to be false (anecdotally) from recent experience.  (I'm not saying this can not be true, but we had no proof of where we were on the Laffer Curve, and whether our tax rates were high enough to slow down the economy.)  The GOP has not changed its tune, and the public has seen work move overseas or get automated out of existence.  To the GOP elite, the common people are serfs for whom they have no responsibility, and we have suffered because of this attitude.

- - - - - -

Before one gets to thinking that Hillary Clinton is that great, one has to examine her record. Even though she has advocated some good things (such as healthcare reform), she is equally corrupt.  For example, in this election cycle, she has changed her tune on TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership - a trade deal which could negatively affect American employment) from being for it to being against it, only to get the votes that might be cast by Bernie Sanders supporters.  Most people believe that once she is elected, she will change her tune on TPP without any significant changes being made to the deal.  In short, she will betray her supporters in order to get power.

What would Hillary do when she gets power?  Well, she has sucked on the teat of Wall Street for years.  It is no coincidence that the Clinton Family wealth has gone from a book value of almost zero (when Bill Clinton left office, as noted by the deal that gave him a mortgage on their Chappaqua, NY house) to over $100 million today (as estimated by the news outlets).  Does anyone think that she would support policies that benefit the common person over the lords of Wall Street?  I think not.

- - - - - -

So where does this leave us?  Do we vote for a revolution led by one of the people who gained the most from exploiting a corrupt system, and has never had to run a system of any size by himself? Or, do we vote to put a competent, but corrupt leader in charge - and defer the revolution to another day.  In the end, it's all about "the Benjamins" (slang for $100 bills). Do we want to run the economic risk posed by putting a potentially incompetent leader in charge? Or, do we accept the corruption we know from a competent leader?  Either way we're screwed.  The only difference is - how bad it may be for us. 

A seismic political shift may be underway

With the 2016 election cycle, we may be seeing a seismic change in American politics as we know it.  America saw it happen on the brink of the Civil War, when the Whig party collapsed, and the Republicans took their place.  In 1912, something similar almost happened, where the Reform (better known as "Bull Moose" party) under Teddy Roosevelt had a shot at disrupting the two party system.  And now, we had two major disruptors in the name of Trump and Sanders who almost emasculated the power of the political elites to control elections.

- - - - - -

Over the past 50 years or so, we've seen great cultural change.  Bill Maher commented "If you liked the 50's, you're a Republican. If you liked the 60's, you're a Democrat." In so many ways it is true - the cultural divide we have now comes from the conflict from that era. If you were a white male, the 1950's were the apex of White privilege in America. If you were a white male, you had virtually everything handed to you - as there were no challengers from other backgrounds, nor did any females pose a threat.  People of color (Blacks, Latinos, Asians) had yet to demand political inclusion, and women were expected to be at home. This started to change with the protest movements of the 1960's, and the extension of civil rights to most people upset those who formerly held all the power in our society.

During LBJ's presidency (1963-1969), the Democratic party sowed the seeds that would cause it to lose the American South as a voting bloc.  LBJ was forced to carry out JFK's promises (always meant to be hollow ones) to deliver civil rights to people of color and to women.  This did not go well in the South.  As a result, in the late 1960's / early 1970's, Richard Nixon developed a strategy to wrest the American South from the Democratic party. The "Party of Lincoln" sold its soul to gain these votes by putting every roadblock it could in the way of helping the groups LBJ helped, so urban dwellers who once voted for the GOP started to vote Democratic for the first time.  This tendency continued through the presidency of Ronald Reagan, where the South and rural areas of the country became solidly Republican, while the North and urban areas of the country became solidly Democrat.

- - - - - -

America became a culturally divided country from its beginning.  Rural areas of any country tend to be the most conservative in nature. In the United States, this meant that few people took chances to unionize their work forces in these areas, unless the work had become extremely dangerous (such as mine work).  For the most part, jobs were few, and people took work at whatever terms were offered by their employers.  It was only one step above slavery, save that the mill owner did not have to care for his employees once fired.  Contrast this with what happened in urban areas.  Jobs were plenty, and employees had greater bargaining power.  Unions formed both to provide better working conditions and to provide better pay. Corporate socialism evolved here, and prospered when America was the unchallenged economic power in the world.

With technological change, the globalization of world markets, and a greater concern for the environment, the old orders became threatened by pressures they could not control.  As technology eliminated many jobs, nothing was done for the displaced workers. As competitors from abroad forced American manufacturing to cut costs, many American workers lost good jobs and had nothing to fall back on. And as we slowly learned to stop polluting our local environment, we put local workers out of work as we shipped dirty businesses to places where they didn't care about their people and their land.  In short, the promises made by both business and government to the public at large were broken.  The elites didn't care what happened to the common person, as long as they stayed in power.

- - - - - -

The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is an indication that the public is tired of an elite that makes promises every election cycle, and that never delivers on its promises. Trump lies in every speech that he is making, and his supporters don't give a damn.  He appeals to these voters on a more primitive level of thought.  The same might be said about Bernie Sanders, except that he is not peppering his speeches with falsehoods.  Instead, Bernie told the truth as he saw it - America hasn't been run for the benefit of "the people" for years, and made both an intellectual and emotional appeal to his base.  Bernie's supporters are young, and see that there is no way the elites can or will do anything for them.  So they gave the system a vote of no confidence by supporting Bernie.  In short, the insurgents from both extremes realized the same truth - it's time to replace the ruling elites.

Trump's nomination and Bernie's failure to be nominated pose a question that America has to answer.  Do we want to overthrow the elites and deal with the risks of the amateurs being in charge?  Or, do we want to allow them to stay in power (with a big warning) as long as they change their tune and start looking out for the people as a whole? This question gets complicated when rumors fly about Jeb Bush looking to support the Libertarian Party's candidate for the presidency.  Could the GOP establishment be looking to flee their old party, clean up its mess, and find a path to becoming a center-right party again?  If so, I see the old GOP becoming a populist party for a generation or two.  And I would also see the Libertarians becoming like the GOP of the 1950's. Could this be a harbinger of a potential three-party system?  Who knows?  But I'm looking forward to the ascendancy of the Libertarians the the collapse of the GOP.

- - - - - -

If the Libertarians become a political force to be reckoned with, the democrats will face attacks on two fronts - one social, and the other, economic.  In a way, this will be good for the Democratic party.  It has been around almost since the founding of the republic, and it has been good at adapting to change.  Will it adapt again?  Who knows? But all I can say is that I think we're seeing a political shift like we haven't seen in 150 years....

The race to the general election.

As I write this, it looks like it will be Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump in the general election. This is a shame.  Both are very flawed candidates.  But the alternatives from the Republican party are much worse than these two people.  (I'm in favor of Bernie Sanders, but I also recognize that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell anymore.)

Most people feel very upset about these candidates.  I do.  But I also have to admit - Trump has been very effective in the use of his celebrity in his successes this year.  Earlier in the morning, Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC's "Morning Joe") noted that Trump has had 15 years of celebrity exposure on TV, and that the working class (not the Beltway class or any of the elites) felt comfortable with someone who speaks their language on their terms.  

Trump has been bringing attention to the issues that the elites have ignored, addressing the concerns of the working class, and being the one person who could force the Republican party to take a hard look at itself.  In a speech he made today (I'm writing this on 4/26), Trump notes that Bernie Sanders is saying a lot of good things, and that he should run as a third party candidate.  (Although I think this would be a disaster for Bernie and the Democratic party, Trump should be careful of what he suggests - he may just get it in ways he never expects....)  

Thinking of Bernie Sanders and a third party run....  I feel that Bernie and the Democratic party made a deal to allow him to run as a Democrat.  Neither Bernie nor Hillary wants to have the progressive voting bloc split. Splitting the bloc would likely result in a GOP victory. This is the likely reason that Michael Bloomberg didn't run this year.  So I am left to wonder - what will happen to the people who supported Bernie?  They have no love for Hillary, and they have no love for the Democratic party elite.  If Bernie doesn't support Hillary with all his might, she will likely lose the election, and we'll see "TRUMP" in bold, flashing letters over the West wing of the White House.

What are we likely to see happen?  As I see it, Bernie will extract one hell of a pound of flesh from Hillary.  He will make sure to control a couple of cabinet positions (indirectly, of course), and make sure that Hillary can't give away the store.  The Democrats desperately need the votes his supporters bring to the party, and Bernie is smart enough to play the long game - even if he only visits the White House on a tour.  If this election plays out as I think it will, Hillary will win by a handful of votes (remember Bush vs. Gore?) and Bernie will likely be able to reshape the Democrats back into a true progressive party - which it hasn't been in years....

In short - Bernie has likely just earned his place in the history books, and people don't yet realize it for what it is....

Why is everybody always picking on me?

Trump Steaks.  One of the many failed products sold with "the Donald's" name, for which he got paid for the use of his name.  Were they good?  I have no clue.  Given a choice, I'd rather spend the same money and go to either Gallagher's Steakhouse in Manhattan, or Peter Luger's in Brooklyn.  At least, in these two restaurants, I know I'd get a better steak than anything Trump could sell to me.

It is Trump's attitude of selling the sizzle and not the steak that worries me.  His followers know he's lying to them, and they don't care.  He has brought issues into public debate which the GOP elite would rather not address. And the elites are now trying to figure out a way to prevent him from winning the nomination, so that they have a chance of retaining some political power. As for me, I want to see him trash the GOP's structure and collapse the party.  Trump has no real plan.  Trump has no governing philosophy.  And Trump has no ethics.  He's dangerously close to winning the GOP nomination, and that poses a great risk to our republic.

With all this being said, the GOP gets what it sows.  They have given lunatic religious fundamentalists power, and these Christianists have used their bully pulpits to attack the GLBTIQ communities across the United States.  Strangely enough, Trump is a moderate compared to the rest of his party.  People know that he has supported Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, and other positions which are in conflict with the GOP platform. And they don't care. They want the sizzle, because they know they won't get the steak. And Trump is just the candidate who will give them that sizzle.

The GOP elite first wanted Jeb Bush, and then shifted to Marco Rubio.  The public rejected those clowns. However, it is a race between Trump and Ted Cruz to see whether one or the other will get the nomination.  Sadly, the elite will tolerate Cruz, even when he will do much more damage to their ticket than Trump will.  Can you see people voting for a theocracy, as Cruz would have (but would never openly say it)?  At least, Trump has a chance of winning against Hillary....

Sadly, Trump's lies are more palatable than Ted Cruz's lies.  It looks like the GOP may just self-destruct instead of figuring out a way to control Trump.  And I fear what is likely to happen if the GOP loses the election, as I expect they will....

Eisenhower warned us of the Military-Industrial Complex....

What does it take to abandon a project?  The basics of good project management teaches us that some projects fail, and the best thing to do is to kill those projects early, before they take on lives of their own.  In the case of the F-35 jet, the idea of a fighter jet that could be used by all services sounded good, but failed miserably in practice.

- - - - - -

The first mistake was to assume that one plane could be used by all services.  Ideally, there would be a significant percentage of parts that could be used in planes built for each of the services.  But the final configurations would be very different - customization on a small scale, and not "one size fits all".  No one thought of the trade-offs to use a single plane.  No one thought - too many stake holders make a project fail.

The next mistake was to get the plane up and flying, and then apply continuous modifications to the jest in the field.  We saw this in the automobile industry years ago with recalls - where bad design made it to the customers' driveways, and then the cars had to be fixed by the local dealerships at much greater cost.  "Agile" project management techniques ares inappropriate for a fighter jet, yet some people are using the principle to "save money and time" - when it is totally inappropriate.

The A-10 jet is very good at what it does, and will be kept flying until the F-35 is retrofitted enough to do the job the A-10 does as well as the A-10 does it.  The B-52 bomber also does its job better than any of the replacements designed to take its place - and there are no plans to retire this work horse of our air fleet.  In fact, there are father/sons who have flown the same plane, and there may soon be a grandfather/father/son combination as well.

- - - - - -

So where am I going?

As I write this, New Hampshire has just had its Presidential primary, and the two "anti establishment" leaders (Trump and Sanders) won.  Americans are totally pissed off at a government which no longer functions as needed, and they are giving our ruling elite a vote of no confidence.  Using examples such as the F-35 jet (whose parts are made all across the country to give as many congressmen as possible a stake in preserving the project), it is obvious that the elite is no longer able to make the hard decisions needed to keep this country healthy. We need leaders who could scuttle projects like the F-35 jet, even though people would be put out of work nationwide by these actions.

Our problem as Americans is simple - how do we determine who we can trust?  The uneducated people in this country are largely supporting Trump, as his "toughness" is being taken as if he'd be a strong, decisive leader. But this is all bluster.  If we want a country run as if it were a business, one can do much better than choosing a leader who has had his businesses go into bankruptcy 4 times.

Yet, the educated people also have a problem by choosing Sanders.  He is an avowed Socialist in a country that looks skeptically at Socialism.  (His policies would be in the middle of the road in Europe or Canada.  But this is not Europe or even Canada.)  Could he get anything through a GOP controlled congress?  It looks doubtful at best.

One of the TV pundits noted that we're seeing a seismic shift in politics, where one (or both) of the major political parties may fail to survive the next 20 years.  And I think this is a strong possibility. The era at the beginning of the 1900's was very similar to that we have today.  There were financial crises in 1907 and 2008 that business and government were ill-equipped to handle, there were political elites out of touch with the general public, and there were people strongly motivated for radical political change. The election of 1912 is the closest analogy we have to this year's election, and America then had 4 viable candidates who could have been elected President: Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, and Debs. This year, we have the "establishment" represented by Bush and Clinton, and "revolutionaries" represented by Trump and Sanders.  Will we retreat from this revolution as we did in 1912 when Wilson was elected? Or will we choose that political revolution by voting our elite out of power?  That is the big question to be answered in November - and I hope we choose wisely....

Democrats finally debating

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton - Opponents who know who their real political enemies are. One comment from Bernie in regard to Hillary's emails said all that needed to be said about the difference in tone between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in this country. 

Contrast the difference between Sanders' campaign and Trump's campaign.  It'd be almost impossible to find an instance where Sanders said anything mean about an individual.  Yet, you'd find a very strenuous voice against social injustice in our society.  Contrast this with Donald Trump, where a lot of meanness exudes from the man - but he doesn't have much of a message worth delivering.  Sanders states how he'd fix the problems in our society, while Trump only makes grandiose statements on how he'd make America great again, without filling in any of the details needed to believe him.

Both Sanders and Trump are voices against "business as usual" from the party elites. But again, look at the differences.  Sanders can work with the Democratic elite, even though he is an Independent from Vermont. Trump threatens the Republican party elite, and he comes from the same circles who could buy and sell presidential candidates.  Who do you think will get more done if elected to POTUS?

Many still consider Sanders' and Trump's campaigns as sideshows to the "eventual" main event - Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. But Jeb has no traction right now.  The top 3 GOP candidates are all people from outside the Washington elites.  There is a good reason for this - the public is sick and tired of an elite that no  longer looks out for the welfare of the common person.  The dislike of elites shared by rural and inner city people is now spreading to suburbia - crippling Bush's chance of being nominated as the GOP's candidate. However the same dislike is not hurting Clinton that much.  

Why is Clinton not suffering as much as Jeb Bush?  This is an important question to ponder. The way I see it, her wealth is "new money" - something people respect, even though they question her ethics. Bush's wealth is "old money", and no longer has the respect of the common person. This is not conscious. I only thought of it when I think of how rich the Clintons became in 15 years.  

This leads to yet another question - Why has Trump's wealth not been held against him? To me, I think it is how Trump has promoted himself.  He has had many more business failures than successes, yet has figured out a way to offload the risks of his business ventures onto others.  For a project manager - this is a great thing to do.  But for the rest of us, it smacks of something less than ethical behavior.

Over the next 3 months, we'll see a lot of change. And we'll see if Sanders' and Trump's campaigns are going to implode when real elections are held.  If I am right, Hillary will collapse again, and the people in back of the GOP Clown Car will drop out of the race. I also think that Sanders will ask Hillary to be his VP - and she'll accept the position. It'll be a fine way for her to end her political career - and she could still get the job she's coveted for several electoral cycles.....

Chaos in the house

From what I understand, our forefathers thought that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would be America's most important political position, and not the office of the President.  However, it is the presidency which has become the most important office - and for good reason. As Harry Truman said: "The Buck Stops Here!"

Lately, no sane man would consider the position of Speaker of the House.  Rep. Boehner resigned, as he felt that he couldn't control the extremists in his party and get them to vote on "must pass" bills needed to keep the government running. He was tired of the responsibilities of the office, and decided to retire instead of destroying himself by staying in the battle. But this left Rep. McCarthy next in line for the office.

There are many reasons why McCarthy should not be Speaker of the House. But I won't go into the ones that many Democrats might bring up.  Instead, I'll trust his judgement that he is not the right man for the job, and speculate that he did not want to take the blame for a likely government shutdown (which would likely happen by the time this entry is made public). He's smart enough to know that the same angry people who are propelling Trump's candidacy are also the same people who no longer trust political insiders to do anything to address their concerns.  They feel they have nothing to gain by keeping the present elite in charge, so they are willing to collapse the system to make their voices heard.

But what does this mean for our "democracy"?  

If the House was designed as a place where the people could vent their feelings, and the Senate was a place to prevent short term feelings from mucking up the system, then what happens when the legislative branch is dominated by a party which is unable to govern? To me, this forces a president (most likely from the opposing party) to govern by edict and by novel interpretations of existing law.  This is very dangerous, as power keeps shifting from the legislative branch to the executive branch - and this power is subject to fewer checks and balances as time goes on.

Eventually, one party will control the two elected branches of government.  And if the party is as dysfunctional as today's GOP, then I have serious concerns. The angry mob that is disrupting the functions of the House could gain control of the executive branch - and that could be the end of the republic.

Why such a concern?

Let's take an inflammatory issue such as abortion.  Many scholars thought that Roe vs. Wade was a horrible decision - not because of which side won, but because it forced society to adapt too quickly to change.  Later rulings have softened the blow, and have rolled things back a bit.  But they (SCOTUS) have always relied on judicial precedent to guide them in new rulings.  What would happen if a new, replacement elite were to ignore precedents? The loss of abortion rights in themselves might not be that onerous. But could you imagine possible government intrusion in a woman's reproduction to make sure that all fetuses are tracked and accounted for?  

Long term government policies that cross administrations could also be overturned at a whim.  Could you imagine the lunacy of a rapid rapprochement with North Korea?  Heck, Cuba and Iran have never been as much trouble to the US as the DPRK has been, and yet they get all the press these days because of a slow and careful movement towards normalization with these countries.  Would we kill NAFTA without serious thought? Possibly. But this is why our government was designed to implement change slowly - so that we don't make the mistakes often made when the voice of the mob drowns out the voice of reason.

But what role should an elite play?

This question has been central to American polity since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton. As for me, like Hamilton, I believe that there is a natural elite that tends to form in any society. But like Jefferson, I also believe that to be free, "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants."  America has been a stable republic because its design provides for a greater tolerance of instability in the system.  I only hope that the design keeps working - and I'm not too sure of this any longer....

And now, for your amusement - Jeb Bush!

As David Letterman said before he retired: "Bush presidencies are like Godfather movies - it's best to stop at two."  I don't recycle this Letterman joke because I dislike the fellow. Instead, I recycle it as a reminder that he would be the third member of his family to hold the office of President if elected - something he downplayed very much in his announcement that he was running for POTUS.

- - - - - -

Jeb is the Bush brother who was being groomed for the presidency. It was a surprise to his dad that Jeb lost a gubernatorial election in Florida, while his brother won in Texas. And, as a result, it was "W" who ran for POTUS and won in 2000.  (I can only imagine what might have happened if Jeb had been in office instead of his brother - would he have come off as more competent?  Only god knows - I certainly don't.) But I expect that Jeb will be the likely GOP 2016 nominee - and will run against Hillary Clinton.

Let's contrast the two likely candidates at first glance.  Jeb's web site and other media downplays his membership in the Bush family. Hillary in her announcement made a big deal about her connections to both her husband Bill (former POTUS) and Barack Obama (current POTUS). What does this say about Jeb? Does he fear being tarred by the same brush being used on "W"?  I can't blame him - I think "W" was a terrible president.  (Too bad that he can't distance himself from "W" without also distancing himself from his father - who was a decent president.)

- - - - - -

I am very leery of having another Bush run for POTUS. This family has been extremely well connected for the past 150+ years - and electing one of the entrenched elite from a family who has already supplied 2 POTUS's makes me worry about a static elite in this country. Our founding fathers lived in a world where one could go from poor to rich and back to being poor within a generation or two.  This is no longer the case.  So I pose the question - can we afford to have families who lock themselves permanently into both the economic and political elites?

Even though Jeb may be a decent man, my concerns about him and his family are solely about the establishment of a permanent elite, and whether a democratic republic can afford to have one. As much as I hate to compare the United States and France, sometimes the comparisons can't be avoided. In this case, history gave us a France with a static elite. The rule of law was perverted to keep this elite in power, and social injustice was rampant. Eventually the pot boiled over, and France had its revolution.  The signs are there that America hasn't learned its European history that well - and I am very concerned about what might happen in our lifetimes....

Hypocrisy and Bias in Media

Gone are the days where we could trust our newscasters to provide us with a version of the news biased towards the middle of the road. We as a nation may not have been objective, but we trusted our newscasters to be so - even when the news didn't agree with our political views. Today, we have "Narrow-casted" news, where cable channels broadcast to narrow market segments, feeding them the pablum they want to hear, and interpreted through the lenses of people who agree with them - never challenging the viewer to look at the world through a different perspective.

Recently, Brian Williams has been in the news for not being truthful in his news reports. Supposedly, he will be out for 6 months - until things cool down - but I'm not sure if he'll be back for long. I don't think people like him are the real problem in news. Instead, the problem is the firms that encourage excessive bias in the news. 

Years ago, I learned a simple fact. If a country had to use "Democratic" in its official name, the odds were that the country had an authoritarian regime. A good example of this is the DPRK - Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I don't believe that anyone outside North Korea believes that the Kim family really cares for its subjects. But I digress. The same idea also applies for news outlets. If an outlet claims to be "Fair and Balanced", the odds are that it is Unfair and Biased. I am very wary of claims from both the left and the right - both tribes are led by opportunist conspirators, and will cloak themselves in the garb of caring for the little fellow.

Why is it that MSNBC ignores Al Sharpton's past? Even though he might be a reformed man now, he still strikes me as an opportunist who works on a more subtle level than when he was younger. And why has Fox News ignored the lies coming from its own editorial staff? If one of its big shows claims to be a "No Spin Zone", why did a high school have to take his show to task for violating journalistic ethics? It seems like both sets of talking heads get their marching orders, and ignore the indiscretions of their own teams in order to sell their agendas to the unthinking public.

One of my friends believes in every conspiracy theory that comes her way. Most have been proven false. However some might be true - but not in the way she understands the world. The way I look at it, 99.44% of us are effectively pawns in the games of the rich and powerful. There are many power blocs among the elite, and they conspire against each other for greater power. Some of them believe in over population (which results in lower wages and fear of job loss), as this is an easy way for this elite to maintain positions of power. Other groups within the elite believe that greater wealth and power can be gained by fulfilling the wishes and needs of the other 99.44%. And still others benefit from dividing the 99.44% against each other. It is plausible that blocs within the elites conspire against each other, and we are affected, being mere pawns in the game.

I attempt to see reality by skipping over the BS being spewed by the two major factions in our society, and by reading media from sources (often overseas) who have less skin in the games being played in America. I compare their reporting against what is being said in America to develop a better idea of what the truth might be, and test that idea against the objective facts as I know them. And so far, luckily, I have been on target more than I would have been otherwise. Is the media biased? Yes. Are the spinmeisters hypocritical? Of course. But that doesn't make it impossible to see the truth - if one is willing to let one's own prejudices drop by the wayside....