'The Politico' - Stenographers for the GOP.

There are a lot of good liberal, progressive, and left-of-center policy- and research centers out on the web today (one of the best is the Center for Media and Democracy). It's a far cry from how it was 10 years ago. There are also great discussion forums like Daily Kos and MyDD that continue to offer debate on issues of the day.

 

And I'm all for having opinions that differ, existing in these environments. I think it's very important that differing viewpoints (be they liberal, conservative, or otherwise) be evaluated and the most logical, reasonable, intelligent, and forward-thinking ideas should prevail in any kind of debate.

 

I find such things don't really exist within most Conservative counterparts. I find they also largely don't exist in most mainstream media (hence the existance of Media Matters). There are no real debates - just lots of talking points and trolling. Of course talking points are all one has when one doesn't have any real arguments.

 

But real discussion of issues isn't very appealing to do where there isn't any real debate, like most conservative outlets. So often such viewpoints and trolls end up in more non-conservative sites. I find that's done to really poison the public debate going on elsewhere, or to really derail debate altogether.

 

But right-wingers also know that's not the only way to derail public debate. They have their own pretend mediums - like cable news.

 

But contrary to what many may think - I don't believe Faux News is the propoganda arm of the Republican Party. Their audience consists of conservatives, right-wingers, libertarians, and various other groups and such, so they appeal to them. In a sense, they are entertaining their audience, in order to sell their sponsors' products. This should come as no surprise in that Faux News is owned by a large entertainment media congomerate.

 

(Hey, by that argument, aren't pretty much all major networks owned by large entertainment conglomerates?)

 

By the same argument, I don't consider Rush Limbaugh the de-facto head of any political party. He's an entertainer, his audience is mostly conservative and right-wing. He's saying whatever sells his sponsors's products the most to his audience.

 

'The Politco' is a different story.

 

Exhibit A - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/ipoliticois-thrush-apolog_n_296585.html

 

"Thrush was handed a truncated quote that came bundled with an official statement from the NRCC, which Thrush included in his original report. There should have been a moment, prior to publication, where Thrush questioned the neatly wrapped gift he received from this party operative."

 

Indeed. A real journalist would've questioned what was given and verified the data was accurate.

 

Hence 'The Politico' is not - and never was - journalism. Unlike Faux and Rush, I consider them a publisher of the American Republican Party spin. Their entire existence came about from various right-wing sources - read Glenn Greenwald's Politico origins.

 

(Check this out for a more recent Politco takedown - courtesy Mr. Greenwald).

 

Any person or persons using Politco as a source of anything is diluting their own credibility in a debate, or otherwise.

 

The Obama Healthcare plan ...

   ... in 4 minutes.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/21/784906/-Pass-it-on:-President-Obamas-HealthCare-Plan-in-4-Minutes

 

While I'm happy that there is a public health care option, I wish it wouldn't just be restricted to those who don't have coverage, or for those who are changing jobs or starting a new business.

 

Lots of people have crappy insurance through their employer and pay up the nose every month.

 

But still, I'm glad it's there.

The Internet - The Last Frontier on Earth.

Net Neutrality Shifts Into High Gear

For as long as perhaps when people started walking the Earth, we have been destroying it. Land, water, people, air, you name it. Causes of such things include disease, war, hatred, greed, money, power, and violence that has come and wrecked those things and those we cherish.

Now, our planet is at a point where the decisions made over the next few years I think will shape our planet’s collective future. The generations that succeed mine and those before will have to deal with the fallout of those decisions.

One of the things that may decide this is the battle over the Internet. It is one that I think years from now, will be seen as the decisive battle between corporations, governments, military and the establishment(s) vs. the people of this planet.

For a long time, these interests have acquired a massive amount of political, financial, and economic power, much of which has little to no accountability.

The Internet represents a domain where knowledge can be a great equalizer between the rich, the poor, and those in-between. Those that have the ability to access it, to learn, and to act on what they learn will not only survive, but succeed.

It can also be a great medium of communication that can bring people together and solve many complex problems facing all of us, as well as help us get further in resolving conflict. Indeed, it has shown that it can turn things around – I think the 2008 US Elections would not have achieved the result it did, without the existence of the Internet.

But in its current state, I believe the Internet also represents the last real chance people of the Earth have in fighting off the dominant control currently being held by those interests who seek to maintain what they have, and increase it to what they don’t have.

For if those forces succeed in boring out the tube of connectivity and determine what flows through and how much, I fear we as a people will reach a point-of-no-return in being able to tackle some of the great problems facing us - that number one issue being Global Warming.

Unless a true form of net neutrality is formed and enforced by all countries, I fear there will be no hope.

Information will be doled out based on who pays, and who has access. Content will be controlled by who ‘owns’ the pipe. In a real sense, this battle is one over power, control, and information over all of us. The Internet will become less of an information superhighway, and more of a controlled content distribution system.

And make no mistake, those that control, those that wish to control - they are getting ready. And because of their already existing connections to those with political power, they have a headstart.

At this point I cannot say what till happen. I'm not even sure what I can do. But I know - I know I have to pay attention. I know I'll have to reach out.

And I know - I know that whatever happens, I must not fail to stop trying.

The stakes are high, and so are the consequences. The moment we as a people tune out, stop paying attention, stop caring, stop fighting, that's when I'll know that the establishment has won.

All of us will lose - and will pay the price.

When war becomes the main export, the empire is already in decline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-a-clarke/more-troops-to-afghanista_b_283466.html

 

As much as I respect Richard Clarke and his views and opinions, there's fundamental disagreement I have with this viewpoint.

 

And I fear that (on the anniversary of the events of 9/11), we've already lost the chance to learn anything.

 

It's a fallacy - the underlying notion that the United States, has the unilateral right to invade other countries. This should not be confused with ensuring one's nation is secure, as security doesn't just involve invasion. It would include shoring up our defenses, work to prevent attacks, work with other countries, etc).

 

To me those are two different things. The latter is something nations do - the former is something empires do.

 

This commenter sums it up best -

 

"Any strategy we use in Afghanistan will be the wrong one, for the simple reason that the U.S. presence there is the main cause of the violence. But conventional thinking in Washington is now so imperialist that our officials think they have the right to invade any nation they want, for as long as they want, as long as it suits our politicians. I doubt that anyone seriously thinks any Af-Pak strategy will work. It's just a matter of stalling and kicking the can down the road so some other president gets the humiliation of the eventual pullout. Vietnam all over again. But's it's great for business, isn't it? Just think of all the gasoline, ammunition, armored vehicles, aircraft, etc. that's used. "

Bloc-heads – Who are supporters of the Bloc Québécois and why?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/09/08/gilles-duceppe.html

 Let’s assume for a moment that I agree with those residents of Quebec who believe that it is a nation that exists within Canada – that I agree with this person’s definition of what a nation is –

“A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.”

Okay.

So following that, why on earth would I believe that somehow, miraculously, the Bloc Québécois is going to make that happen?

If you assume that they can via being part of the federal government that would presume that the either they would form a majority government, a minority government, or be part of a coalition.

1. The first scenario will never happen – I don’t think Canadians en masse will vote for a group that claims to only represents the interests of one province (‘nation’ if you will) only to have that same group then leave the country.

2. The second scenario is plausible only if no other party gets enough seats, though I cannot see that lasting for very long. Eventually, I think it would revert back to the first scenario.

3. The third scenario is also plausible, but again, it won’t last long enough to achieve any type of sovereignty-type solution.

This leaves the Bloc Québécois as an Opposition Party (i.e. not in a position of power), which has been their default position since their formation.

• What have they really accomplished for Quebec since then?
• What legislation have they passed, or laws they’ve enacted that demonstrate they can accomplish the tasks for the people they represent?
• What action or actions have they taken to demonstrate to residents in Quebec that they are one step closer to achieving their goals?

The Clarity Act? – I would argue this was done to rope in the sovereignty movement by establishing and framing any debate on the conditions of when a province or region can leave Confederation.

So I ask those who insist that they’d vote for the Bloc Québécois in a pending Canadian Federal Election? Why would you vote for a group that can never accomplish what you’d want, under any possible legal rational circumstances?

As for what I really think elections can do for the Bloc, well .... I think I've covered that one before.