My New Preferred News Network

I spoke with my mother yesterday. She told me that she's made a new campaign promise to herself: She will no longer watch MSNBC's election coverage. Personally, I think it's a wise choice. Their coverage has been absolutely appalling. Tim Russert is through. Keith Olberman can possibly save them, but he'll have to do it while my mom and I aren't watching.

CNN has nearly lost me too. Their coverage of Obama's race speech was shameful. Obama chose to go out on a limb and carry on a grown-up conversation with the American people. CNN just shat their graphics all over the screen like bad grafiti, providing his ongoing speech with misrepresentative captions that continuously undermined Obama's message. To the average American who will not or cannot sit still for 40 minutes, CNN spoon-fed continued incendiary versions of events, choosing a shallow context in order to spin out the controversy for a few days longer. For the next few days, using dumbed-down questions and deliberately misrepresented sound-bites, CNN reminded us that they think we're just CHILDREN. Obama's challenge to the media to carry on a conversation like ADULTS would obviously not continue on CNN. Somewhere in the building, Lou Dobbs was badmouthing Mexicans and Wolf Blitzer's wondered if John King was after his job. No one seemed to have even LISTENED to Obama's speech, as far as I could tell.

At another network, a conversation, different but related, has been ongoing...

If you're like me, you don't ever think of clicking onto Fox News. To most liberals, this station represents a joke, such an absurd twist on reality that it qualifies more as entertainment than as news. This distortion has tended to favor a more Conservative and Republican agenda, sometimes so offensively one-sided that it baffles the mind. But long after many people stopped watching, strange things began to happen at Fox News...

As MSNBC and CNN's coverage has been slowly sinking into shame, dividing the Democratic Party by pitting Obamicans and Clintonites, blacks and whites against each other, Fox News has been fighting a different battle. At Fox, there has been daily infighting between the hosts who spin the news to serve their opinions and those who think that this type of reporting is irresponsible. These complaints have been raised regularly ON THE AIR, not just by guests and pundits, but between fellow Fox News hosts. It's amazing, not only for the pure entertainment value, but because Fox News seems to be the ONLY major news network that is engaging in an on-air dialog about media responsibility. It's not constant, but the cracks are showing. The faces of the media, "respected hosts," publicly recognizing that they're reporting garbage a lot of the time, are being brave and risking their jobs. Fox News is leading the way, when MSNBC and CNN still fail to recognize that they have a problem. As Liberals and Democrats discuss how to reform politics, it's the Conservative and Republican media who are talking about how to report it correctly.

Blog Update

I have not forgotten about Part 2 of my "What Are They Afraid Of?" post. It is coming, probably later today. It's also worth Part One was written and aborted 5 times before I was able to say what I needed to say correctly. Also worth noting: I have quite a few posts from the last couple of weeks that I never posted. Due to the increasing complexity of the issues as well as political exhaustion.

What are they afraid of? [Part 1]

Call me a little bit confused this election season, but why is Democrat Joe Lieberman stumping for Republican John McCain? For that matter, how effective is Democrat Hillary Clinton's claim that Republican John McCain is fit to lead and Democrat Barack Obama is not? Come to think of it, why are some Clinton-supporters threatening Democrats (blackmailing?) that they'll vote McCain if Obama wins? Why is super-Conservative Rush Limbaugh trying to convince Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton? And...How much racial and religious double-speak is in this endless supply of kitchen sinks anyhow? It all seems so desperate. Doesn't it seem like Democrats and Republicans alike are eager to betray party loyalties to slow Obama's run?

These tactics represent something far beyond simple competitive campaigning. It seems to me more like terror of an "anything but that" variety. The desperation to knock him out of the race is not proportionally appropriate. And, for Democrats, it actually undermines their chances in the general election. Something beyond strategy is driving these attacks. Whatever it is, it's far from reasonable. Obama is certainly not going to drive this country into the ground as Obama's opponents may want to claim (he's also not going to save us from all the ills of the world either, sorry to say). He's just a smart guy with enough wisdom to run the country and some pretty typical Democratic party platforms. A few flourishes. If he's elected, he'll surround himself with other smart people who will advise him in the areas that he is less versed in. He has EXACTLY THE SAME lack of experience at being President of the United States as Hillary Clinton and John McCain have. And that's it. He's just like everyone else who runs for president. Any candidate who makes it this far is the same. For real.

So...I guess I'm not really understanding why there is such a unified, frothing resistance to Obama. At the rate at which these attacks have escalated, in two months both parties will be trying to destroy his entire future, like a sort of political career-assassination. Why?

As became apparent in the last week of the news, skin color DOES seem to be a factor. That's right: BARACK OBAMA IS A BLACK MAN. I know you may have not have noticed (with the Clinton Campaign tiptoeing around like an elephant and the Obama campaign loudly shooshing like the sole white person a Harlem movie theater) but this election season has been increasingly laced with race-talk. America, on the whole, is obsessed with racial identity. It's part of our culture. We want to identify ourselves as "unique" on Friday and the "same" on Monday, but we can't have it both ways without offending people. We don't even know what language is racist anymore because the "PC" terms that sprung up to replace "offensive" terms are as divisive as the original terms. [FOR EXAMPLE -- Why are black people called "African Americans" when white people are called "Americans"? Isn't that creating different classes of people? The "PC" term still contains a modifier that screams "different" while actually undermining usage and eliminating it's descriptive usefulness. FOR FUN -- Have you ever watched a white person hem and haw while trying to describe a black person in all PC terms without saying "African American"? They'll use every description from height to shirt color and fingernail length before quietly whispering "dark skin".]

Anyhow... At least the campaigns are now talking about racial politics out in the open. We can thank Geraldine Ferraro for that. The door is wide open now, and bursting off the hinges. We've skipped the dancing around with meaningless language (but turned up the spin) and found out exactly what drives fears that Barack Obama inspire in so many. As it turns out, there are some people that just might be afraid of black people. Given how completely race-talk has dominated the election coverage, it might be safe to say that the melanin level of our skin is still a really big deal for some people. Who knew?

[Next - Transparency, The Next Generation, and Remembering the Past]

Where does money come from?

I have a fond, nostalgic picture in my head from when I was a little tyke, probably around 10 years or so old. My mom and step-dad walked me up to the counter of whatever bank was in my hometown at the time (before many generations of buyouts) and told me to set down my nine dollars and forty-odd cents. I was opening my first bank account! Safely putting my money away into a place where my money could grow was an early step to my adulthood. For years after, I'd take every opportunity to go to the bank and have my passbook stamped with a new balance. Perhaps I was a strange kid, but that was exciting to me.

Of course I was not making any REAL money at all. Sure, a few pennies a month would appear on my passbook, but those teeny increments held a sense of satisfation. My account was making money. It was smart. It was responsible. These feelings and reasons were undoubtedly the whole idea for keeping money in the bank in the first place. How it works: The institution gets to play with our money and invest it in whatever they invest it in. That's how they make their money. In return, a couple of percentage point would get kicked back to us. It was an INVESTMENT. For everyone.

I don't recall when it happened, but somehow we were hoodwinked into believing that it would be IRRESPONSIBLE to NOT put our money in the bank. Around that time, the pennies started being counted backwards and some "processing fees" appeared on the bills. The banks were making money off of the customers now too, but we didn't seem to notice. I can't quite recall when my first ATM fee was charged, but I may have been blinded by the convenience of a money-spitting robot open 24 hours a day. Banks were silently snatched up by other banks and account terms were silently changed and at some point they wanted to start charging money for paper copies of bank statements, because they wanted to make sure that no one paid attention to how much money they'd been stealing from us.

[Insert worst banking crimes here, and we began to take notice]

Remember that time you were charged a fifty dollar overdraft fee because the bank took 7 days to deposit your check? Remember how impossible it was to talk to a live person on the phone? Remember how that one live person told you it would be fixed and it never was? Remember how you spent three months trying to recouperate the fees lost mysterious charges for $300 in gas in the Bronx appeared on your card? Remember when Commerce bank broke your heart and tried to slip in a line of fine print that they'd be imposing a minimum balance on their no-minimum balance accounts?

Remember the reason why you joined the bank in the first place?

Remember the day when you stopped fighting against bank fees because it seemed hopeless?

I went to a Chase ATM the other day. I only wanted to take out $20, but I skipped it because Chase now charges a $3.00 ATM withdrawl fee if you don't belong to Chase bank (plus whatever YOUR bank charges). Allow me to use some profanity, as I did at the ATM... THAT IS FUCKING INSANE! You do the math. That's more money than half the people in this world make in a day. Think about that. Pay attention. Read your bank statements. Fight for your rights. Don't let banks get away with this. Give a message by not using Chase ATMs. Don't be a sucker.

Dear U.N. Countries

Please help.

Our election process has been hijacked by the media culture. In the interest of ratings and continuously hyping "good television," the news networks have fixed the Democratic Primary race. They've provided daily dirt and created constant "scandals" to prolong the race by whatever means necessary, shifting voter focus to the underdog of the day. I've even seen a graphic for "Horserace '08." What began as a healthy dialog on issues has turned into constant smear, costing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the trust they would need to gain votes in the general election. Democrats are becoming increasingly divided and even spiteful towards the candidate they aren't backing. I fear that the longer this battle is waged, the less chance either will have against the Republicans in the fall.

It's clear that the Democratic popular vote is evenly divided, though trends in directions steered by the media. Nobody knows what to think anymore. The truth has been lost. The uncontested influences in this contest are the networks. The rest of the world must speak. We need your help.

The New York Times, again

I just read a Slate article about how The New York Times lifted some language straight out of a Miami Herald article on the same topic. What's going on over there at "The Gray Lady"? I know it's hard to find a decent newspaper in New York, but I've always tried to hold The Times to a higher standard. Are they still worthy of their reputation?

Feminism, Perverted

I won't dive too deep into the subject of feminism, because there is a certain type of feminist who would claim that I have no authority or valid opinion on feminism because I am a man. It occurs to me that this is the same type of person who would claim that any woman feminist who doesn't support Hillary Clinton has betrayed her feminist ideals. This seems like a twisted perversion of reality. It's my belief that someone who dedicates herself to the equality of the sexes, the expression of individuality, and strength of independent womanhood should damn-well vote for whoever she pleases.

But, what do I know?

It is Your Destiny...

And I'd always assumed that Cheney was behind the mask...

MSNBC

I would like to congratulate MSNBC for their coverage of the Ohio Democratic Debate last night. Congratulations for being so tacky! Right out of the gate, they started picking at scabs and trying to start a cat fight, immediately [before full introductions had been completed] playing a videotape of Hillary saying "Shame on you, Barack Obama." Next, they trotted out the leaked photo of Obama dressed in Somali clothing, and the debate continued like that for most of the night. Tim Russert practically reduced Hillary to tears at one point by continuously cutting her off with her own quotes in an attempt to discredited her own answers. MSNBC did not moderate this "debate;" they circled the candidates with a whip and a chair.

One of my co-workers, an enthusiastic Clinton supporter (to put it mildly), has been claiming for weeks that the media has been unfair to Hillary Clinton in their election coverage. Until now, I have ignored that oft-parroted view. When my co-worker would make this claim, I would retort that the media has been EQUALLY unfair to ALL the candidates, roasting them like ants under a magnifying glass. After all, the media does love to exploit and contort information, recklessly spinning it out as scandal.

However, after last night's debate, I was inclined to agree with my co-worker. Hillary was the short end of the stick. There was clearly a difference in the way the two candidates were treated. A small part of me didn't really mind so much because I'm getting tired of listening to Hillary's bullshit. The Clinton campaign tactics of the last week have been absolutely shameful and she deserved to be questioned about them. A larger part of me, as MSNBC took it too far, became very uncomfortable with last night's coverage. I don't know if they were intentionally trying to make Hillary look bad, whether they were trying to purposefully influence the election, or whether they were simply pulling their usual tricks and presenting the news like The Jerry Springer Show. The popular perception, according to Saturday Night Live (and Hillary Clinton, who watches it, apparently), is that the media is backing Barack Obama and allowing him to coast while Clinton takes the punches. If this perception is true, it certainly does not help him at all. I wanted Obama to tell MSNBC "No thank you. Please just let us debate the issues. I can fight my own battles. You embarrasses and discredit me. Go away."

Last night was further proof to me that the political game has changed. The news outlets are wielding a great power and doing it in irresponsible and damaging ways (New York Times, for example). With all the attention that candidates get for associating with divisive people (like Farrakhan, for example), the candidates would be wise to question/reject/denounce the media outlets that abuse their power to skew the process.

The "Ick" Factor

Hillary Clinton is a hell of a candidate. I've been increasingly impressed with her throughout the primary process. She's shown some real strength as a role model and as a future leader than I ever would have expected. Watching the Texas debate last week, I felt a sense of pride in the Democratic party. We have choices! Real people with real strength! When's the last time we've had that?

As of today, these positive feelings about her have officially soured.

During the last few weeks, as the Obama campaign has "achieved lift off," and Hillary's campaign tactics have grown more desperate, slowly casting a darkening shadow over her positive qualities. They've been throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Obama, but nothing has really worked. So, on Monday, they pulled out a doozy. Not generally known for their honorable tactics, the Clintons have never been entirely "clean," but a certain amount of strategic misdirection and political street ball is part of the game. It's expected and to a certain extent can even be admired. Everyone loves to throw around the word "dirty" when it comes to this game, but often it's just tough talk. Then there's the type of "dirty" that is "fucking despicable."

According to The Drudge Report, this photo was emailed to them by Clinton aides:

To you and I (rational thinkers), Barack Obama is dressed in traditional garb of a Somali chieftain, nothing to be too concerned about. It's not uncommon for world leaders to respectfully don cultural garb for diplomatic missions. But to some people in America, unfortunately, a brown man in a turban running for President of the United States of America is cause for panic. FOX News, having already manufactured a rumor that Obama went to school in an Islamic Madrasa, tapped into a fear that resonated with the large majority of the population who believe that all Muslims want to destroy America. Out of desperation or ill-advisement, someone in Hillary's camp decided to email a picture that harnesses that hate and fear. They stooped to a FOX News low. It's disgusting.

After the Obama camp accused the Clinton campaign of playing to these fears, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams released the following statement:

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely. This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry. We will not be distracted.”

Maggie Williams did NOT EVEN DENY that someone from within the Clinton camp circulated the photo. Furthermore, the above statement blames the Obama camp for tactics used by the Clinton campaign. It actually blames Obama for using the politics of hate. [Just for fun, Re-read the statement and try switching the names "Obama" and "Clinton."]

I guess this whole mini-scandal-of-the-day is old news by now, and I'm sure that everyone already knows the whole scoop, but I can't feeling a residual ickiness about all this. I'm not deluding myself by singling out Clinton or claiming that Obama is running with Mr. Clean. This is politics. Everyone plays for keeps. But there's playing hardball, questioning flip-flopping on policy, and exploiting past mistakes of your opponent. Then there's attacks that feed off of ignorance, prejudice, fear, and gullibility. These kind of attacks are insulting to our intelligence, they deepen the cultural divide in this country, and they've taken away what's left of my respect for Hillary Clinton.