by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 10, 2010
When the majority of the “civilized” world joins arms and sings a common tune, we should all stand up and join in, right? I mean, after all, we all strive for unity above discord and cooperation above competition, right? Well, my friends, it seems that almost every nation is singing the same song these days and the chorus goes something like this: Israel massacred innocent people on the high seas; the ship boarded by the Israelis was part of a “Peace Flotilla” and its only mission was to deliver much needed humanitarian aid to starving Palestinians in Gaza.
Well, before I join my voice in singing along, I have to ask a few rhetorical and a few not-so-rhetorical questions. To explain, rhetorical questions, according to my dictionary, are meant to elicit an effect, but not necessarily a response from the hearers/readers. However, some of the following questions are open for response and I welcome any reader who believes she/he has the proper answer to please respond.
1. It is always a good practice to “follow the money” when faced with alternative accounts of a story, for to determine who has gained or lost in the exchange usually determines who is at fault and who is the victim in the event. Therefore, to alter the above policy slightly, I would ask us to “follow the best interest”. My question then is this: In who’s best interest was the outcome of the attempted effort to break the Israeli blockade? i.e. Who would gain or lose in the Public Relations battle?
2. If the sole intent of the organizers of the flotilla was to deliver humanitarian aid, why did they not follow commands to dock at the southern Israeli port and have their cargo inspected and loaded onto Israeli trucks and delivered into Gaza – just as over 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid is delivered each week?
3. A corollary to the above question, if it was concern for the suffering Palestinians in Gaza and not a resurging flood of anti-Semitism that drove these organizers to action, why would they not compel the Hamas leadership to “cease and desist” from launching missiles (over 10,000 since Hamas took over Gaza in 2005) into Israel and commit to peaceful coexistence, as Egypt has?
4. If Israel really wanted to commit massacre and mass homicide on the high seas as Turkish leaders claim, why did they do such a lousy job of it? i.e. Why kill “only” nine people when they could have easily, and without risk to their soldiers, blasted every ship out of the water?
5. If they really wanted the residents of Gaza to suffer and die a slow, painful death by starvation, as UN inspectors seem to claim, why would Israel continue to truck aid to Gaza on a daily basis? During the first three months of this year, for example, 95,000 tons of supplies have found their way via Israeli trucks into Gaza, including 48,000 tons of food products, 40,000 tons of wheat, 2,760 tons of rice, 1,987 tons of clothing, and 553 tons of powdered milk and baby food.
6. If Israel abandons the use of blockade (which, by the way, we Americans have used repeatedly against our former enemies in Japan, Germany and Cuba) to protect themselves from Hamas’ rocket attacks, what defense is left to them? They have been criticized in the international community when they took an active defense (the use of military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the enemy, by the way, if those words sound familiar, they are the tactics approved by Obama against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) approach in attacking hostile forces in the Lebanon War of 2006 and in Gaza in 2008 – 2009. They have followed recommendations from U.S. presidents and Secretaries of State in the past and surrendered land for peace, and received no peace; instead, hostilities have only increased.
7. Why do we even have a nation of Israel? And why are they so hated? Of all the ethnic groups that have the ability to trace their origin and retain their ethnicity, why are the Jews still around when multiple times in their history they have been specifically targeted for extinction by great military minds such Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Hitler and others? Why have they returned to the land of their ancestors?
8. If I could show you a book that would answer that last question for you, would you be interested in reading it?
The book was written by a man who saw the scattering of the Jewish nation among all the other nations of the earth and he foresaw the persecution and attempted annihilation of the Jews as well, but he also foresaw the re-gathering of the Jews upon their soil of Jerusalem. The author was a man named Ezekiel, the book was written in 600 B.C. and it can be found anthologized within a book that has many other answers for your life. I highly recommend it to you.
Friday, June 11, 2010
A Special Relationship
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, June 10, 2010
Much attention has been paid in the last couple of months to President Obama’s failure to publicly recognize the “special relationship” of the U.S. and U.K. As much as conservative pundits would like to assert that Obama’s foreign policy represents a departure from previous policy, it is undeniable that the unique bond shared by the two superpowers is alive and well in the current administration. Other than the brutal Revolutionary War at the birth of our nation, the United States and Great Britain have historically stood side by side as allies.
Similarly, a special relationship exists between the U.S. and Israel. This one, however, has its dysfunction and implicit pitfalls. In past editions of this column (March 2008; January 2009), I called attention to this relationship and mentioned concerns that I saw in the fact that our nations’ fates are so closely entwined. The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and security interests in the Middle East are a part of that equation. Another component is evidenced in my brother Gordon’s piece.
For many religious conservatives the prophetic importance of the nation of Israel is a key to their perspectives. Unfortunately, the modern world and dynamics between the Israel and the Arab world are much more complex and perilous than can be addressed with biblical references. The situation becomes more problematic still when one suggests that we model policy and agendas around millennia-old prophesy.
What results often is a perspective that throws broad support behind Israel and excuses any wrongdoing committed by her. One can note this attitude in the demonizing of the activists seeking to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Gordon suggests that organizers may have instigated the aggression (and willfully caused the deaths of the victims) in order to gain leverage in the arena of public relations. This characterization is unfair to the organizers of the flotilla (who also have been instrumental in supplying aid to Bosnia, Haiti and New Orleans). Certainly, it serves the organization’s interests to shine a spotlight on the human rights violations perpetrated by Israel. Certainly, they wish to generate international support for the cause. Certainly, they seek to end the blockade that continues to choke the citizenry of Gaza. But sacrificing the lives of activists as a PR stunt makes little sense.
What I have found interesting over the last week is that there has been coverage of the flotilla raid that has been highly critical of Israel. Furthermore, the international community, as Gordon recognizes in his column, has largely condemned the actions taken by Israel and the loss of life as a result.
One can look first to the party who enjoys the special relationship that I mentioned earlier. Former British foreign secretary David Milliband has urged Israel to lift the three-year blockade that has denied humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip and has ultimately resulted in the deaths of the flotilla activists and the suffering of Palestinians in the region. In a recent interview he argued that the blockade was counterproductive to the peace process in the Middle East, stood in the way of a Palestinian statehood and was detrimental to the security of Israel itself. He also maintained that the blockade was in violation of United Nations Resolution 1860, which also called for a stop to arms trafficking to Gaza.
The United Nations called for emergency talks almost immediately after the incident to discuss Israel’s actions. Some nations called for in depth investigations into the matter and the evidence provided by Israel to support its version of the story. The deaths of Turks among those killed in the raid, and strains in the aftermath have led to tense relations between Israel and Turkey (an important ally in the Muslim world).
Even internally, support for the Israeli operation was far from unanimous. Parliament member Einat Wilf had warned against military action in reference to the aid flotilla, citing public relations issues. She also said the action was misdirected because the ships didn’t represent an arms threat. “This had nothing to do with security… … The armaments for Hamas were not coming from this flotilla,” she said in an interview with the New York Times. Some Israeli journalists were also critical of the navy.
The incident presents a problem to the current U.S. administration. President Obama has been measured in his response to the attack, but has gone as far as calling the incident tragic. While he hasn’t been vocal in reaction to the issue, it seems clear that the Obama policy regarding support of Israel largely echoes that of the previous administration. This may create complications in the Middle East as the United States attempts to bridge tensions and as the humanitarian situation in Gaza worsens. There has been talk among State Department officials that the current blockade is not sustainable and actually creates security issues for both the U.S. and Israel.
Again the special relationship between the United States and Israel has troubling consequences. A broad view of the big picture is more valuable than unconditional support of, or than mere condemnation of Israel. Often biases stand in the way of lessons that may be learned from incidents like last week’s raid.
From Broader View Weekly, June 10, 2010
Much attention has been paid in the last couple of months to President Obama’s failure to publicly recognize the “special relationship” of the U.S. and U.K. As much as conservative pundits would like to assert that Obama’s foreign policy represents a departure from previous policy, it is undeniable that the unique bond shared by the two superpowers is alive and well in the current administration. Other than the brutal Revolutionary War at the birth of our nation, the United States and Great Britain have historically stood side by side as allies.
Similarly, a special relationship exists between the U.S. and Israel. This one, however, has its dysfunction and implicit pitfalls. In past editions of this column (March 2008; January 2009), I called attention to this relationship and mentioned concerns that I saw in the fact that our nations’ fates are so closely entwined. The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and security interests in the Middle East are a part of that equation. Another component is evidenced in my brother Gordon’s piece.
For many religious conservatives the prophetic importance of the nation of Israel is a key to their perspectives. Unfortunately, the modern world and dynamics between the Israel and the Arab world are much more complex and perilous than can be addressed with biblical references. The situation becomes more problematic still when one suggests that we model policy and agendas around millennia-old prophesy.
What results often is a perspective that throws broad support behind Israel and excuses any wrongdoing committed by her. One can note this attitude in the demonizing of the activists seeking to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Gordon suggests that organizers may have instigated the aggression (and willfully caused the deaths of the victims) in order to gain leverage in the arena of public relations. This characterization is unfair to the organizers of the flotilla (who also have been instrumental in supplying aid to Bosnia, Haiti and New Orleans). Certainly, it serves the organization’s interests to shine a spotlight on the human rights violations perpetrated by Israel. Certainly, they wish to generate international support for the cause. Certainly, they seek to end the blockade that continues to choke the citizenry of Gaza. But sacrificing the lives of activists as a PR stunt makes little sense.
What I have found interesting over the last week is that there has been coverage of the flotilla raid that has been highly critical of Israel. Furthermore, the international community, as Gordon recognizes in his column, has largely condemned the actions taken by Israel and the loss of life as a result.
One can look first to the party who enjoys the special relationship that I mentioned earlier. Former British foreign secretary David Milliband has urged Israel to lift the three-year blockade that has denied humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip and has ultimately resulted in the deaths of the flotilla activists and the suffering of Palestinians in the region. In a recent interview he argued that the blockade was counterproductive to the peace process in the Middle East, stood in the way of a Palestinian statehood and was detrimental to the security of Israel itself. He also maintained that the blockade was in violation of United Nations Resolution 1860, which also called for a stop to arms trafficking to Gaza.
The United Nations called for emergency talks almost immediately after the incident to discuss Israel’s actions. Some nations called for in depth investigations into the matter and the evidence provided by Israel to support its version of the story. The deaths of Turks among those killed in the raid, and strains in the aftermath have led to tense relations between Israel and Turkey (an important ally in the Muslim world).
Even internally, support for the Israeli operation was far from unanimous. Parliament member Einat Wilf had warned against military action in reference to the aid flotilla, citing public relations issues. She also said the action was misdirected because the ships didn’t represent an arms threat. “This had nothing to do with security… … The armaments for Hamas were not coming from this flotilla,” she said in an interview with the New York Times. Some Israeli journalists were also critical of the navy.
The incident presents a problem to the current U.S. administration. President Obama has been measured in his response to the attack, but has gone as far as calling the incident tragic. While he hasn’t been vocal in reaction to the issue, it seems clear that the Obama policy regarding support of Israel largely echoes that of the previous administration. This may create complications in the Middle East as the United States attempts to bridge tensions and as the humanitarian situation in Gaza worsens. There has been talk among State Department officials that the current blockade is not sustainable and actually creates security issues for both the U.S. and Israel.
Again the special relationship between the United States and Israel has troubling consequences. A broad view of the big picture is more valuable than unconditional support of, or than mere condemnation of Israel. Often biases stand in the way of lessons that may be learned from incidents like last week’s raid.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The Blame Game
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 27, 2010
Over a month ago a tragic explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the coast of Louisiana claimed the lives of eleven workers and caused a horrific oil leak that is pouring thousands of barrels per day into the Gulf of Mexico. Certainly, there are unanswered questions about what could have been done to prevent this catastrophe; who is responsible for its occurrence, and even the scope of the problem it presents. However, it is troubling that opposing factions have exploited those questions with certain implications and clear motives. The fact that a story of undeniable consequence would prominently grace the editorial sections of media outlets (including the Broader View Weekly’s) is a testament to the politicization of this tragedy.
To be fair, this is not the first event of its kind to be treated as a political weapon or tool. For example, I was disappointed in the way that Katrina was treated during George W. Bush’s presidency. The way the natural disaster was kicked around like a football between both sides marginalized the real suffering and diminished the value of those who lost lives or livelihoods as a result of the hurricane. Likewise, the lives of the eleven lost souls in the recent oil rig explosion are obscured in the fog of debate.
Finger pointing has trumped meaningful problem solving. The blame being thrown about while the problem worsens is counterproductive and is exacerbating the situation. Still, scapegoating will not cease, but only grow more prevalent, if history is any indication.
Investigations into the cause of the explosion are ongoing and will continue for some time, but emerging information indicates that the Deepwater Horizon incident may be a symptom of a greater ill within the oil exploration industry. Responsibility for the failures that brought about disaster rests on many shoulders. More important than assigning blame is solving issues and moving forward in the right direction.
Oil giant British Petroleum (BP) owns majority stake in the oil field in which the Deepwater Horizon was drilling. The rig was owned and operated by Swiss drilling contractor Transocean. Oil services corporation Halliburton contracted the cement and “mud” used in the drilling operation. Mineral Management Service (MMS) is the government agency charged with (among other things) inspection and oversight of the industry. Each of these entities shares some of the blame for this mishap, but assigning blame alone serves only to placate one interested party or another. We need to determine what went wrong and work to prevent future problems.
According to testimony and accounts in MMS and congressional hearings, faulty drilling plans and elimination of safety steps are believed to be the causes of the explosion. Plans for the cement called for an inadequate amount of materials to contain natural gas surges and used chemicals that actually heightened the risk. Natural gas “kicks” occurred frequently in the weeks before the explosion, but the bursts were labeled by BP as a “negligible” risk. Instead of following standard procedures while attempting to cap the well, the decision was made by either BP or Transocean to save time by displacing drilling mud with lighter seawater before cement caps were allowed to be set to prevent surges in the piping.
It can be assumed that profit was the motivating force behind the blunders. According to sources, BP paid approximately $500,000 per day for the use of the rig and its crew. Chemicals used by Halliburton were designed to speed the curing time for cement, another cost-saving technique. Economics should not be the determining factor where safety is concerned, especially when the consequences go far beyond the personal safety of those directly involved.
Corporations cannot be relied upon to put ethics above profitability. Corporate structure is designed to declare capital king. Greed takes over from there and the results can be deadly.
The trade-off of ethics, environmental concerns, and safety considerations for cash is something we all would do well to ponder. We can apply lessons learned to our own communities. As we weigh natural gas exploration of the Marcellus shale against the potential impacts on environment and safety of our drinking water, we need to look beyond the financial benefits that might come.
Perhaps the most troubling factor in the Deepwater Horizon story is the inability or unwillingness of MMS to adequately police the industry. An impartial agency free of conflicting interests is necessary to regulate the oil exploration and other industries. Instead, an ineffectual entity corrupt with industry collusion dropped the ball in overseeing the drilling there, and is currently charged with regulating similar operations elsewhere. One can only assume that other violations of procedure and design standards are committed in other operations and are going unchecked by the bodies responsible for oversight.
Why did MMS fall down on the job? Again, economics is a clue to its inaction. The mission statement found on the agency’s website prominently declares that it “collects, accounts for and disburses an average of $13.7 billion per year in revenues from Federal offshore mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases…” Though responsible for inspecting and investigating the industry, that section makes no mention of that capacity.
The loss of life on April 20 was appalling and tragic. Sadder still, is that we have only begun to feel the sting of the oil rig incident. One estimate says that nearly 95,000 barrels a day are pumping into the gulf (19 times the BP estimate of 5,000 barrels). Oil has already reached Louisiana’s wetlands, threatening vegetation and wildlife species. The spill is reaching the Gulf’s Loop Current which promises to carry it to Florida and up the Eastern coast of the U.S. The impact on fishing and other industries in the region will be extreme, with as-yet untold losses and a protracted recovery, which may take decades to achieve.
“Drill baby drill” is a dangerous policy. Without regulation and reform in the industry, oil exploration is bound to produce problems similar to the ones we are currently facing. We need to witness more from our government than a blame game or lip service toward oversight. We need to protect more than the bottom line. There is too much at stake.
From Broader View Weekly, May 27, 2010
Over a month ago a tragic explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the coast of Louisiana claimed the lives of eleven workers and caused a horrific oil leak that is pouring thousands of barrels per day into the Gulf of Mexico. Certainly, there are unanswered questions about what could have been done to prevent this catastrophe; who is responsible for its occurrence, and even the scope of the problem it presents. However, it is troubling that opposing factions have exploited those questions with certain implications and clear motives. The fact that a story of undeniable consequence would prominently grace the editorial sections of media outlets (including the Broader View Weekly’s) is a testament to the politicization of this tragedy.
To be fair, this is not the first event of its kind to be treated as a political weapon or tool. For example, I was disappointed in the way that Katrina was treated during George W. Bush’s presidency. The way the natural disaster was kicked around like a football between both sides marginalized the real suffering and diminished the value of those who lost lives or livelihoods as a result of the hurricane. Likewise, the lives of the eleven lost souls in the recent oil rig explosion are obscured in the fog of debate.
Finger pointing has trumped meaningful problem solving. The blame being thrown about while the problem worsens is counterproductive and is exacerbating the situation. Still, scapegoating will not cease, but only grow more prevalent, if history is any indication.
Investigations into the cause of the explosion are ongoing and will continue for some time, but emerging information indicates that the Deepwater Horizon incident may be a symptom of a greater ill within the oil exploration industry. Responsibility for the failures that brought about disaster rests on many shoulders. More important than assigning blame is solving issues and moving forward in the right direction.
Oil giant British Petroleum (BP) owns majority stake in the oil field in which the Deepwater Horizon was drilling. The rig was owned and operated by Swiss drilling contractor Transocean. Oil services corporation Halliburton contracted the cement and “mud” used in the drilling operation. Mineral Management Service (MMS) is the government agency charged with (among other things) inspection and oversight of the industry. Each of these entities shares some of the blame for this mishap, but assigning blame alone serves only to placate one interested party or another. We need to determine what went wrong and work to prevent future problems.
According to testimony and accounts in MMS and congressional hearings, faulty drilling plans and elimination of safety steps are believed to be the causes of the explosion. Plans for the cement called for an inadequate amount of materials to contain natural gas surges and used chemicals that actually heightened the risk. Natural gas “kicks” occurred frequently in the weeks before the explosion, but the bursts were labeled by BP as a “negligible” risk. Instead of following standard procedures while attempting to cap the well, the decision was made by either BP or Transocean to save time by displacing drilling mud with lighter seawater before cement caps were allowed to be set to prevent surges in the piping.
It can be assumed that profit was the motivating force behind the blunders. According to sources, BP paid approximately $500,000 per day for the use of the rig and its crew. Chemicals used by Halliburton were designed to speed the curing time for cement, another cost-saving technique. Economics should not be the determining factor where safety is concerned, especially when the consequences go far beyond the personal safety of those directly involved.
Corporations cannot be relied upon to put ethics above profitability. Corporate structure is designed to declare capital king. Greed takes over from there and the results can be deadly.
The trade-off of ethics, environmental concerns, and safety considerations for cash is something we all would do well to ponder. We can apply lessons learned to our own communities. As we weigh natural gas exploration of the Marcellus shale against the potential impacts on environment and safety of our drinking water, we need to look beyond the financial benefits that might come.
Perhaps the most troubling factor in the Deepwater Horizon story is the inability or unwillingness of MMS to adequately police the industry. An impartial agency free of conflicting interests is necessary to regulate the oil exploration and other industries. Instead, an ineffectual entity corrupt with industry collusion dropped the ball in overseeing the drilling there, and is currently charged with regulating similar operations elsewhere. One can only assume that other violations of procedure and design standards are committed in other operations and are going unchecked by the bodies responsible for oversight.
Why did MMS fall down on the job? Again, economics is a clue to its inaction. The mission statement found on the agency’s website prominently declares that it “collects, accounts for and disburses an average of $13.7 billion per year in revenues from Federal offshore mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases…” Though responsible for inspecting and investigating the industry, that section makes no mention of that capacity.
The loss of life on April 20 was appalling and tragic. Sadder still, is that we have only begun to feel the sting of the oil rig incident. One estimate says that nearly 95,000 barrels a day are pumping into the gulf (19 times the BP estimate of 5,000 barrels). Oil has already reached Louisiana’s wetlands, threatening vegetation and wildlife species. The spill is reaching the Gulf’s Loop Current which promises to carry it to Florida and up the Eastern coast of the U.S. The impact on fishing and other industries in the region will be extreme, with as-yet untold losses and a protracted recovery, which may take decades to achieve.
“Drill baby drill” is a dangerous policy. Without regulation and reform in the industry, oil exploration is bound to produce problems similar to the ones we are currently facing. We need to witness more from our government than a blame game or lip service toward oversight. We need to protect more than the bottom line. There is too much at stake.
Lessons from the Gulf
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 27, 2010
For those of you who may be taking score at home in the ongoing battle between the “Brothers Cooper”, you may score this particular column as a tie. I have to agree with several points in my fellow columnist’s essay. For example, I agree with him that the 11 human lives that were tragically cut short by this event have been forgotten as the “not my fault” charade is played out before the cameras.
I also agree with Keith when he said that “corporations cannot be relied upon to put ethics above profitability.” It is further proof of the validity of the scriptural admonition: “… the love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Timothy 6:10 KJV)
I will concur again with Keith in the idea that assigning blame, while necessary at some point, is not as important as limiting the destruction to our environment and correcting the policies and procedures that led to this catastrophe.
If I could construct a perfect world, I would design an environment where vital natural resources such as coal and oil could be obtained as easily and as safely as picking cherries from low-lying branches. However, our Creator saw fit to bury those precious commodities beneath our soil and beneath our oceans. Hence, we are left with no choice but to put our fellow humans and our environment at risk to obtain these necessities. Now, before you take up pen and paper or fire up your word processor to tell me that we do indeed have a choice – and that choice is alternative forms of energy – let me say that I am one who believes in the Hippocratic Oath approach toward obtaining and exploiting our natural resources – i.e. “First, Do No Harm.” We can and we must find ways to deliver these products from the depths of the earth to the consumer at the pump with a minimal amount of damage to our landscape, water or air.
We must accept the fact that our economy and our lifestyle are, at this point in our civilization, inseparably linked to the use of fossil fuels. You and I may wish for a day when wind, solar and other renewable sources would be able to be harnessed in a way that would make oil and coal a minor commodity, but that day is not on the horizon just yet.
As we accept this fact, we must also be aware that the law of supply and demand is as undeniable as the law of gravity and as long as we demand a product, someone will make a profit as they assume the risk to supply that need.
In my opinion, if we over-react to this tragedy by initiating new regulations that would serve to stifle new oil field discoveries or burden the domestic oil industry with heavy fines and fees, we would be opening the door for foreign competitors who would be exempt from and indifferent to those same regulations. The end result would be a greater risk to the environment and to the safety of the workers.
I am not defending the careless attitude that led to shoddy work practices, nor am I approving of the “Let’s do whatever it takes to give the shareholders a good return on their investment” mindset that seems to justify cost-cutting at the expense of safety.
I am saying that we need to get our priorities in order. First of all, we should stop the leaking (obviously), secondly we should develop a strategy for removing the oil from the ocean in a responsible way. Thirdly, we should not make long-term, over-reaching reforms without first of all, trying some common sense mid-range tweaks of a system that – for the most part – has been trouble-free.
I know it is within our nature to respond to the stimuli of tragedies with knee-jerks. While that may be advisable in some situations, it is costly in others. The energy industry is a vital cog in the security of our nation and the competitive nature of the global economy is such that we need to make sure our domestic companies are not over-taxed or over regulated to the point where foreigners have the advantage.
From Broader View Weekly, May 27, 2010
For those of you who may be taking score at home in the ongoing battle between the “Brothers Cooper”, you may score this particular column as a tie. I have to agree with several points in my fellow columnist’s essay. For example, I agree with him that the 11 human lives that were tragically cut short by this event have been forgotten as the “not my fault” charade is played out before the cameras.
I also agree with Keith when he said that “corporations cannot be relied upon to put ethics above profitability.” It is further proof of the validity of the scriptural admonition: “… the love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Timothy 6:10 KJV)
I will concur again with Keith in the idea that assigning blame, while necessary at some point, is not as important as limiting the destruction to our environment and correcting the policies and procedures that led to this catastrophe.
If I could construct a perfect world, I would design an environment where vital natural resources such as coal and oil could be obtained as easily and as safely as picking cherries from low-lying branches. However, our Creator saw fit to bury those precious commodities beneath our soil and beneath our oceans. Hence, we are left with no choice but to put our fellow humans and our environment at risk to obtain these necessities. Now, before you take up pen and paper or fire up your word processor to tell me that we do indeed have a choice – and that choice is alternative forms of energy – let me say that I am one who believes in the Hippocratic Oath approach toward obtaining and exploiting our natural resources – i.e. “First, Do No Harm.” We can and we must find ways to deliver these products from the depths of the earth to the consumer at the pump with a minimal amount of damage to our landscape, water or air.
We must accept the fact that our economy and our lifestyle are, at this point in our civilization, inseparably linked to the use of fossil fuels. You and I may wish for a day when wind, solar and other renewable sources would be able to be harnessed in a way that would make oil and coal a minor commodity, but that day is not on the horizon just yet.
As we accept this fact, we must also be aware that the law of supply and demand is as undeniable as the law of gravity and as long as we demand a product, someone will make a profit as they assume the risk to supply that need.
In my opinion, if we over-react to this tragedy by initiating new regulations that would serve to stifle new oil field discoveries or burden the domestic oil industry with heavy fines and fees, we would be opening the door for foreign competitors who would be exempt from and indifferent to those same regulations. The end result would be a greater risk to the environment and to the safety of the workers.
I am not defending the careless attitude that led to shoddy work practices, nor am I approving of the “Let’s do whatever it takes to give the shareholders a good return on their investment” mindset that seems to justify cost-cutting at the expense of safety.
I am saying that we need to get our priorities in order. First of all, we should stop the leaking (obviously), secondly we should develop a strategy for removing the oil from the ocean in a responsible way. Thirdly, we should not make long-term, over-reaching reforms without first of all, trying some common sense mid-range tweaks of a system that – for the most part – has been trouble-free.
I know it is within our nature to respond to the stimuli of tragedies with knee-jerks. While that may be advisable in some situations, it is costly in others. The energy industry is a vital cog in the security of our nation and the competitive nature of the global economy is such that we need to make sure our domestic companies are not over-taxed or over regulated to the point where foreigners have the advantage.
welcome to 1984
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 13, 2010
In his epic novel published in 1949, George Orwell painted a picture of a dystopian world that awaited his readers in the year 1984. Among the many fearful aspects of that world there was the introduction of a policy called Newspeak and within that policy was a practice known as “doublethink” in which the word blackwhite was used to alter the perception of the adherent of Newspeak in such a way as to think that black is white and to eventually force them to forget that black and white were ever, well, black and white.
Today we see that fearful scenario played out in the debate over Arizona’s SB1070 and HB2162 legislations, which, in essence, do little more than allow law enforcement officials to arrest anyone who, after being interrogated in the course of a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” or during the apprehension of someone committing a civil crime, is reasonably suspected of being in our nation illegally. In other words, anyone who cannot produce a valid form of legal identification like a driver’s license or a tribal enrollment card would be subject to being charged with a state misdemeanor, which carries a maximum fine of $100 or a maximum sentence of 20 days.
A few weeks back, my fellow columnist waxed philosophic about the difference between responsible and irresponsible speech. I find it very ironic that that word – responsible – has become the very word manipulated by our president in the aforementioned Orwellian use of Newspeak.
Following the signing of SB1070 by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, President Obama made the following statement:
“Indeed our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.” He further added another incendiary remark in an Iowa town hall meeting, when he said: “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”
Despite the fact that Obama has, time and again, acted below the level previously described as Presidential, these words are much worse than just being inaccurate or exaggerated campaign speech. These words were intended to alter the very meaning of words and to inspire fear and anger among the intended audience, which could only be the future voters from the Hispanic community.
First of all, his altered use of the word “responsible” is problematic because it was partly true in that the feds have been less than responsible in enforcing their own immigration laws. It was not true, however, in claiming that Arizona’s new law is “irresponsible” nor is it even remotely true that a legal citizen, regardless of her/his race, will be “harassed” as a result of this law.
The catch phrase used by Obama and his fellow Newspeak adherents in their criticism of all things Arizonan, is the “show your papers” line. As if Arizona just became the epicenter of neo-Nazism or a revived stronghold of apartheid. From Desmond Tutu to Cardinal Mahony and from Dana Milbank in the Washington Post to the editorial board of the New York Times, many examples of intentional doublethink can be cited. Those quotes can be found in Byron York’s article, titled “The 10 dumbest things said about the immigration law”, in washigntonexaminer.com, dated 5/01.
The sad and scary fact is that most readers or listeners of the above voices will never take the time to actually read the law in question, but will be led, lemming-like, to the cliff of ignorant activism with cries for boycotts and/or even worse, may be inspired to act out in violent protest like the instances in Phoenix and Santa Cruz in which windows were smashed and vandals destroyed public property.
The reality behind both the necessity for and the wording of the Arizona law has been shaded by the hyperbolic, hate-filled and race-baiting rhetoric of the vocal critics. The reality is that Arizona is the epicenter of the illegal immigration plague that has diminished the wages of legal citizens, burdened our schools and health care facilities, increased the crime rate, introduced gang violence to border states, and has weakened our national security by allowing terrorists an easy access to our once sovereign soil.
With almost 500,000 illegal immigrants in this relatively small state, Arizona was forced to take responsibility (there’s that word again) when the feds failed to act responsibly. The state budget was being stretched to the point where legal immigrants were suffering, which is why over 70% of Arizonans support the law, many of those supporters being of Hispanic descent and here legally, if I may be redundant for the sake of emphasis.
My concern is, first of all, for the protection of our borders, our rule of law and our national sovereignty, and secondly, for the protection of our vocabulary, meaning that I want words to have meaning and speakers to have responsibility for how they use those words
From Broader View Weekly, May 13, 2010
In his epic novel published in 1949, George Orwell painted a picture of a dystopian world that awaited his readers in the year 1984. Among the many fearful aspects of that world there was the introduction of a policy called Newspeak and within that policy was a practice known as “doublethink” in which the word blackwhite was used to alter the perception of the adherent of Newspeak in such a way as to think that black is white and to eventually force them to forget that black and white were ever, well, black and white.
Today we see that fearful scenario played out in the debate over Arizona’s SB1070 and HB2162 legislations, which, in essence, do little more than allow law enforcement officials to arrest anyone who, after being interrogated in the course of a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” or during the apprehension of someone committing a civil crime, is reasonably suspected of being in our nation illegally. In other words, anyone who cannot produce a valid form of legal identification like a driver’s license or a tribal enrollment card would be subject to being charged with a state misdemeanor, which carries a maximum fine of $100 or a maximum sentence of 20 days.
A few weeks back, my fellow columnist waxed philosophic about the difference between responsible and irresponsible speech. I find it very ironic that that word – responsible – has become the very word manipulated by our president in the aforementioned Orwellian use of Newspeak.
Following the signing of SB1070 by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, President Obama made the following statement:
“Indeed our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.” He further added another incendiary remark in an Iowa town hall meeting, when he said: “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”
Despite the fact that Obama has, time and again, acted below the level previously described as Presidential, these words are much worse than just being inaccurate or exaggerated campaign speech. These words were intended to alter the very meaning of words and to inspire fear and anger among the intended audience, which could only be the future voters from the Hispanic community.
First of all, his altered use of the word “responsible” is problematic because it was partly true in that the feds have been less than responsible in enforcing their own immigration laws. It was not true, however, in claiming that Arizona’s new law is “irresponsible” nor is it even remotely true that a legal citizen, regardless of her/his race, will be “harassed” as a result of this law.
The catch phrase used by Obama and his fellow Newspeak adherents in their criticism of all things Arizonan, is the “show your papers” line. As if Arizona just became the epicenter of neo-Nazism or a revived stronghold of apartheid. From Desmond Tutu to Cardinal Mahony and from Dana Milbank in the Washington Post to the editorial board of the New York Times, many examples of intentional doublethink can be cited. Those quotes can be found in Byron York’s article, titled “The 10 dumbest things said about the immigration law”, in washigntonexaminer.com, dated 5/01.
The sad and scary fact is that most readers or listeners of the above voices will never take the time to actually read the law in question, but will be led, lemming-like, to the cliff of ignorant activism with cries for boycotts and/or even worse, may be inspired to act out in violent protest like the instances in Phoenix and Santa Cruz in which windows were smashed and vandals destroyed public property.
The reality behind both the necessity for and the wording of the Arizona law has been shaded by the hyperbolic, hate-filled and race-baiting rhetoric of the vocal critics. The reality is that Arizona is the epicenter of the illegal immigration plague that has diminished the wages of legal citizens, burdened our schools and health care facilities, increased the crime rate, introduced gang violence to border states, and has weakened our national security by allowing terrorists an easy access to our once sovereign soil.
With almost 500,000 illegal immigrants in this relatively small state, Arizona was forced to take responsibility (there’s that word again) when the feds failed to act responsibly. The state budget was being stretched to the point where legal immigrants were suffering, which is why over 70% of Arizonans support the law, many of those supporters being of Hispanic descent and here legally, if I may be redundant for the sake of emphasis.
My concern is, first of all, for the protection of our borders, our rule of law and our national sovereignty, and secondly, for the protection of our vocabulary, meaning that I want words to have meaning and speakers to have responsibility for how they use those words
Friday, June 4, 2010
What’s Behind Arizona’s New Laws?
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 13, 2010
There has been much discussion over the last couple of weeks, of the implications of Arizona’s new tough legislation regarding undocumented immigrants. A full picture of the legislation, and the buzz around it, is only possible when one looks at the motivation and politics behind the legislative changes and other actions by the state’s governor and legislature.
Before I get to the important background story, I feel compelled to call attention to a provision in the Arizona House bill to which my brother Gordon refers in his column. He asserts that “anyone who cannot produce a valid form of legal identification like a driver’s license or a tribal enrollment card would be subject to being charged with a state misdemeanor….” While technically accurate, the wording of both House and Senate bills is problematic. In one section of the House bill, a driver’s license is indeed listed as a potential proof of citizenship. However, in another section and in the Senate bill (which is vague on requirements for proof), it states that officers are obligated to verify alien status “pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code” (which would mean consulting the federal Immigration and Naturalization Services). In most states of the country, while driver’s permits constitute appropriate proofs of identification and age, they are not sufficient evidence of legal citizenship. It shouldn’t be assumed that a driver’s license will be accepted as acceptable proof of citizenship.
This is important to note because defenders of the Arizona policy have attempted to minimize the effect of the law by claiming that its enforcement represents nothing more ominous than the obligatory expectations most of us face when we purchase alcohol, cigarettes, or spray paint. The fact of the matter is that the change in expectations has an impact on several American citizens and a diminishing of liberty toward standards adhered to in many European countries, which currently require documentation of citizens and travelers. I find it interesting that the same voices that decried the European influence they saw in the administration’s approach to health care, would applaud such a similarity in Arizonan law.
This brings us to the “why” of the legislative change and why the voices I mentioned above have spoken in its defense. The stated purpose is that Arizona had to do something because crime was rampant and the federal authorities were ineffective in solving the situation.
The problem with this argument is that the crime rate in Arizona has actually declined over the last decade. The current violent or property crime rates of Arizona are below the national average. A comparison between the crime rate of Phoenix, near the Mexican border, and that of Cleveland, Ohio (far from the border) shows a greater occurrence of violent crimes and property crimes in Cleveland. And even if crime were on the rise, there is little evidence of a correlation between undocumented immigrants and crimes not related to immigration laws. In fact, despite bogus claims by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News that over 2,000 people are killed each year by undocumented immigrants, studies show that such immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes.
Also noteworthy is the fact that some law enforcement officials have called the law change unnecessary. Phoenix police chief Jack Harris has argued that he has all the tools he needs to address issues of human smuggling, kidnapping, robbery, etc., that are cited as immigration-related issues. In fact he believes it would “divert our officers from investigating property crimes and violent crimes and divert… …our personnel to enforcing civil portions of federal immigration law…” and that it “takes officers away from doing what our main core mission of local law enforcement is, and that's to make our communities safe and enforce our criminal codes in that effort.” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik agreed that the law was “unnecessary and that he would not be enforcing it.
So, why did Arizona Governor Janice Brewer and the legislature feel the need to change immigration laws at this point? Certainly, many point to the recent violent death of a rancher as a catalyst. While the killing of rancher Robert Krentz is tragic, it has less to do with the new law than does the political climate in Arizona (and, indeed, the country as a whole).
Governor Brewer faces a tough campaign against Democratic challenger and Arizona State Attorney General Terry Goddard this fall. Brewer and the conservative legislature see the passage of legislation like the toughening of immigration laws and the relaxing of gun laws as a way to mobilize an important base of support. Also, after six years under her Democratic predecessor, Janet Napolitano, who vetoed similar legislation on both immigration and guns, conservatives are seizing the opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.
One should also look at why the actions of one state’s legislature should resonate throughout the country. Certainly Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs have been hard at work “informing” those who would likely ignore the issue in favor of the statuses of American Idol contestants. Whether or not they would choose to take credit for the tempo of rage and fear inspired among a certain sect of conservative Americans, I don’t wish to assign them that much influence.
Instead, I would prefer to ask why the issue of immigration (legal or otherwise) does enrage so many. Perhaps it makes sense to examine our collective psyche. What elements lie at the core of our propensity to scapegoat and discriminate against the “other”? Without investigating this nature within us, it is difficult to explain why we express so loudly our outrage at the immigration dilemma while so vehemently denying any racial or ethnic motivation.
From Broader View Weekly, May 13, 2010
There has been much discussion over the last couple of weeks, of the implications of Arizona’s new tough legislation regarding undocumented immigrants. A full picture of the legislation, and the buzz around it, is only possible when one looks at the motivation and politics behind the legislative changes and other actions by the state’s governor and legislature.
Before I get to the important background story, I feel compelled to call attention to a provision in the Arizona House bill to which my brother Gordon refers in his column. He asserts that “anyone who cannot produce a valid form of legal identification like a driver’s license or a tribal enrollment card would be subject to being charged with a state misdemeanor….” While technically accurate, the wording of both House and Senate bills is problematic. In one section of the House bill, a driver’s license is indeed listed as a potential proof of citizenship. However, in another section and in the Senate bill (which is vague on requirements for proof), it states that officers are obligated to verify alien status “pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code” (which would mean consulting the federal Immigration and Naturalization Services). In most states of the country, while driver’s permits constitute appropriate proofs of identification and age, they are not sufficient evidence of legal citizenship. It shouldn’t be assumed that a driver’s license will be accepted as acceptable proof of citizenship.
This is important to note because defenders of the Arizona policy have attempted to minimize the effect of the law by claiming that its enforcement represents nothing more ominous than the obligatory expectations most of us face when we purchase alcohol, cigarettes, or spray paint. The fact of the matter is that the change in expectations has an impact on several American citizens and a diminishing of liberty toward standards adhered to in many European countries, which currently require documentation of citizens and travelers. I find it interesting that the same voices that decried the European influence they saw in the administration’s approach to health care, would applaud such a similarity in Arizonan law.
This brings us to the “why” of the legislative change and why the voices I mentioned above have spoken in its defense. The stated purpose is that Arizona had to do something because crime was rampant and the federal authorities were ineffective in solving the situation.
The problem with this argument is that the crime rate in Arizona has actually declined over the last decade. The current violent or property crime rates of Arizona are below the national average. A comparison between the crime rate of Phoenix, near the Mexican border, and that of Cleveland, Ohio (far from the border) shows a greater occurrence of violent crimes and property crimes in Cleveland. And even if crime were on the rise, there is little evidence of a correlation between undocumented immigrants and crimes not related to immigration laws. In fact, despite bogus claims by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News that over 2,000 people are killed each year by undocumented immigrants, studies show that such immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes.
Also noteworthy is the fact that some law enforcement officials have called the law change unnecessary. Phoenix police chief Jack Harris has argued that he has all the tools he needs to address issues of human smuggling, kidnapping, robbery, etc., that are cited as immigration-related issues. In fact he believes it would “divert our officers from investigating property crimes and violent crimes and divert… …our personnel to enforcing civil portions of federal immigration law…” and that it “takes officers away from doing what our main core mission of local law enforcement is, and that's to make our communities safe and enforce our criminal codes in that effort.” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik agreed that the law was “unnecessary and that he would not be enforcing it.
So, why did Arizona Governor Janice Brewer and the legislature feel the need to change immigration laws at this point? Certainly, many point to the recent violent death of a rancher as a catalyst. While the killing of rancher Robert Krentz is tragic, it has less to do with the new law than does the political climate in Arizona (and, indeed, the country as a whole).
Governor Brewer faces a tough campaign against Democratic challenger and Arizona State Attorney General Terry Goddard this fall. Brewer and the conservative legislature see the passage of legislation like the toughening of immigration laws and the relaxing of gun laws as a way to mobilize an important base of support. Also, after six years under her Democratic predecessor, Janet Napolitano, who vetoed similar legislation on both immigration and guns, conservatives are seizing the opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.
One should also look at why the actions of one state’s legislature should resonate throughout the country. Certainly Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs have been hard at work “informing” those who would likely ignore the issue in favor of the statuses of American Idol contestants. Whether or not they would choose to take credit for the tempo of rage and fear inspired among a certain sect of conservative Americans, I don’t wish to assign them that much influence.
Instead, I would prefer to ask why the issue of immigration (legal or otherwise) does enrage so many. Perhaps it makes sense to examine our collective psyche. What elements lie at the core of our propensity to scapegoat and discriminate against the “other”? Without investigating this nature within us, it is difficult to explain why we express so loudly our outrage at the immigration dilemma while so vehemently denying any racial or ethnic motivation.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Understanding the Tea Party Movement
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 29, 2010
On April 15, the Tea Party movement held Tax Day demonstrations across the country. Tax day was the culmination of a nationwide tour over the past several weeks and an opportunity for this loosely organized but narrowly focused group of conservatives to protest taxation. Modest crowds gathered in cities like Boston and Philadelphia, and around 10,000 gathered on the national Mall in Washington, D.C. There is much emphasis, among the faithful supporters of the movement, on patriotism and historical context. Make no mistake, however, this ain’t your founders’ Tea Party.
Timed to coincide with the April 15 events was the release of several surveys, including one by the New York Times and CBS News. These polls were designed to offer some insight into the demographics and the motivation of Tea Partiers. Since those who consider themselves supporters of the movement comprise about 18 percent of the nation’s population, it seems worthwhile to study the group’s concerns and intentions in order to gauge the impact the group might have on politics and policy.
Let me just say first that I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to take a relatively small sample of people, conduct a survey and publish the results as a definitive identity of the group. Less effective still is to take that definition and apply it to every single participant at the level of the individual. Just as the polling data compiled and the conclusions imposed on the anti-war protesters in the United States during George W. Bush’s reign did not define me as a member (and facilitator) of a group called Peaceful Gatherings, I don’t believe that every Tea Partier is a cookie cutter impression that matches the Times/CBS News poll’s determinations. I wouldn’t want to flatly apply a stereotype to any group and expect any given member of that group to live up (or stoop) to that stereotype. Instead, I would prefer to look at the actions and words of individuals and perhaps make judgments about why they might seek to associate themselves with that particular group. There is a value to that when it comes to understanding the popularity and impact of the Tea Parties.
The findings of the Times/CBS News poll were not exactly surprising to those either on the right or on the left. A conservative group, they primarily vote Republican. The vast majority disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance (84% of the movement compared with 33% nationwide). The majority have an unfavorable view of the government as a whole, with 96% disapproving of Congress’s performance. They are also largely better off financially than the general population, which may explain why the majority don’t approve of health care reform or want the government to spend money on job creation. Half of those polled criticize the administration for its focus on helping the poor.
While over 80 percent are optimistic about their own economic situation the vast majority are pessimistic about the economy as a whole. This is an interesting disparity and may be difficult to understand. It certainly makes the intensity of the anger expressed about the way government is handling the problems of the financial industry and the economy harder to comprehend.
It is also interesting to see the apparent disregard for the plight of the poor. Much has been made lately of the fact that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes. Lost in this debate is the reason for that fact. The growing wealth gap has accounted for the increasing number of poor who do not earn enough to pay income taxes. Those who talk of turning back the nation to the 1950s (an era for which many claim nostalgia) should bear in mind that the salary of the average corporate CEO in the 50s represented a 20:1 ratio with the average laborer. The current ratio of compensation is nearly 1,000:1. This out-of-control wealth gap is the cause for the situation of which many Tea Partiers complain. Organizer Jeff McQueen told an interviewer, he is part of the “50 percent stuck paying for the other 50 percent.” He expressed his dissatisfaction with the way that the country had changed since the 50s and 60s. It is interesting that his rage seemed to be leveled at the current administration since the state of the economy has been evolving through a disproportionate favoring of corporate America over the common citizen for decades.
While I don’t think the fact that nine in 10 Tea Partiers are white means that they are racists, I think the fact that many (over a quarter) believe that the administration favors blacks over whites implies a racial element is at play. That 25 percent of respondents would vocalize a concern that there is a racial imbalance in a time when political correctness makes most wary of declaring racial bias is telling. I firmly believe that there is a component of racism in the “Birther” movement. And Birthers have aligned themselves with the movement, with 30 percent of Tea Partiers convinced that Obama was not born in this country.
I think that the rage that is evident among the movement is based not on the fact that a black man has been elected president but on the fact that there is a liberal in the White House. However, nearly every time I acknowledge that Tea Partiers are angry about the 2008 election I get accused of calling someone a racist. In reality, my comment is based on the individuals I know who have voiced their support of the movement because they see the country shifting to the left and are angry about that.
A friend of mine has become very active in the Tea Parties and has even achieved a leadership position in the region. He has always expressed his conservative views. However, since the election in 2008 he has become incensed about liberalism and how he sees it as a negative impact on the direction of the country. While I hesitate to paint people with a broad brush, the views expressed by my friend echo many of the views of those who speak out at Tea Party events or express their views through chants or signs. I see the commonality of attitudes as a result of conservative media personalities and punditry. While many organizations that help to mobilize the Tea Partiers publicly discourage followers from expressing partisan politics, the talking points disseminated from their websites tend to echo the Republican base.
The growing popularity of the Tea Party movement and its impact on the political landscape may be exaggerated but that it will be felt in November is undeniable. That its motivation and instigation appears to be driven by anger and rage is troubling.
From Broader View Weekly, April 29, 2010
On April 15, the Tea Party movement held Tax Day demonstrations across the country. Tax day was the culmination of a nationwide tour over the past several weeks and an opportunity for this loosely organized but narrowly focused group of conservatives to protest taxation. Modest crowds gathered in cities like Boston and Philadelphia, and around 10,000 gathered on the national Mall in Washington, D.C. There is much emphasis, among the faithful supporters of the movement, on patriotism and historical context. Make no mistake, however, this ain’t your founders’ Tea Party.
Timed to coincide with the April 15 events was the release of several surveys, including one by the New York Times and CBS News. These polls were designed to offer some insight into the demographics and the motivation of Tea Partiers. Since those who consider themselves supporters of the movement comprise about 18 percent of the nation’s population, it seems worthwhile to study the group’s concerns and intentions in order to gauge the impact the group might have on politics and policy.
Let me just say first that I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to take a relatively small sample of people, conduct a survey and publish the results as a definitive identity of the group. Less effective still is to take that definition and apply it to every single participant at the level of the individual. Just as the polling data compiled and the conclusions imposed on the anti-war protesters in the United States during George W. Bush’s reign did not define me as a member (and facilitator) of a group called Peaceful Gatherings, I don’t believe that every Tea Partier is a cookie cutter impression that matches the Times/CBS News poll’s determinations. I wouldn’t want to flatly apply a stereotype to any group and expect any given member of that group to live up (or stoop) to that stereotype. Instead, I would prefer to look at the actions and words of individuals and perhaps make judgments about why they might seek to associate themselves with that particular group. There is a value to that when it comes to understanding the popularity and impact of the Tea Parties.
The findings of the Times/CBS News poll were not exactly surprising to those either on the right or on the left. A conservative group, they primarily vote Republican. The vast majority disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance (84% of the movement compared with 33% nationwide). The majority have an unfavorable view of the government as a whole, with 96% disapproving of Congress’s performance. They are also largely better off financially than the general population, which may explain why the majority don’t approve of health care reform or want the government to spend money on job creation. Half of those polled criticize the administration for its focus on helping the poor.
While over 80 percent are optimistic about their own economic situation the vast majority are pessimistic about the economy as a whole. This is an interesting disparity and may be difficult to understand. It certainly makes the intensity of the anger expressed about the way government is handling the problems of the financial industry and the economy harder to comprehend.
It is also interesting to see the apparent disregard for the plight of the poor. Much has been made lately of the fact that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes. Lost in this debate is the reason for that fact. The growing wealth gap has accounted for the increasing number of poor who do not earn enough to pay income taxes. Those who talk of turning back the nation to the 1950s (an era for which many claim nostalgia) should bear in mind that the salary of the average corporate CEO in the 50s represented a 20:1 ratio with the average laborer. The current ratio of compensation is nearly 1,000:1. This out-of-control wealth gap is the cause for the situation of which many Tea Partiers complain. Organizer Jeff McQueen told an interviewer, he is part of the “50 percent stuck paying for the other 50 percent.” He expressed his dissatisfaction with the way that the country had changed since the 50s and 60s. It is interesting that his rage seemed to be leveled at the current administration since the state of the economy has been evolving through a disproportionate favoring of corporate America over the common citizen for decades.
While I don’t think the fact that nine in 10 Tea Partiers are white means that they are racists, I think the fact that many (over a quarter) believe that the administration favors blacks over whites implies a racial element is at play. That 25 percent of respondents would vocalize a concern that there is a racial imbalance in a time when political correctness makes most wary of declaring racial bias is telling. I firmly believe that there is a component of racism in the “Birther” movement. And Birthers have aligned themselves with the movement, with 30 percent of Tea Partiers convinced that Obama was not born in this country.
I think that the rage that is evident among the movement is based not on the fact that a black man has been elected president but on the fact that there is a liberal in the White House. However, nearly every time I acknowledge that Tea Partiers are angry about the 2008 election I get accused of calling someone a racist. In reality, my comment is based on the individuals I know who have voiced their support of the movement because they see the country shifting to the left and are angry about that.
A friend of mine has become very active in the Tea Parties and has even achieved a leadership position in the region. He has always expressed his conservative views. However, since the election in 2008 he has become incensed about liberalism and how he sees it as a negative impact on the direction of the country. While I hesitate to paint people with a broad brush, the views expressed by my friend echo many of the views of those who speak out at Tea Party events or express their views through chants or signs. I see the commonality of attitudes as a result of conservative media personalities and punditry. While many organizations that help to mobilize the Tea Partiers publicly discourage followers from expressing partisan politics, the talking points disseminated from their websites tend to echo the Republican base.
The growing popularity of the Tea Party movement and its impact on the political landscape may be exaggerated but that it will be felt in November is undeniable. That its motivation and instigation appears to be driven by anger and rage is troubling.
If You Can’t Beat It, Paint It
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 29, 2010
There is an old saying in the military that goes something like: “If it doesn’t move, paint it.” Unfortunately, there is a version of that same philosophy being demonstrated within the liberal portion of the mainstream media and the leadership of the Democratic party. It goes something like this: “If you can’t beat the message, paint the messenger.”
For a good example of this policy, you need look no further than my fellow columnist’s paint job he just applied to the Tea Party movement. It seems ironic to me that the people who, at first, tried to ignore the movement as irrelevant now seem to think this coalition of engaged citizens has some irresistible power over the political machinery of this nation.
In fact, the reaction from the left toward the Tea Partiers has been a classic example of the method used when dealing with any group that disagrees with the liberal agenda. They followed the same process against the Moral Majority in the early 80’s. The first step of the process is to ignore the followers and hope they just go away, if that doesn’t work and they start to grow in numbers the next step is to laugh at them, similar to the way a playground bully will poke fun at anyone who makes her or him feel uncomfortable. If the movement grows past the joke stage, the only thing left to do is to paint it with a broad brush, disregarding the fact that any movement, like any church, civic group, organization and even any family, consists of many individuals with many different motives and passions.
My brother spends many words in his column telling us about a survey done by that beacon of “objective and accurate” journalism, The New York Times. Within the bowels of that survey, he discovered many so-called facts about the respondents. I will say here that I applaud Keith for his disclaimer that he is reluctant to draw stereotypes from a survey, however, I believe he devoted the remainder of his diatribe to doing just that.
I believe that Keith – and the New York Times – would have been better served by logging onto the many websites of the various Tea Party organizations in our state and/or the Tea Party Nation website to get the information about the issues that have driven them to action.
Apparently it is easier to just paint the movement as rich, privileged, uncompassionate, lily-white, anti-government, Obama-birther malcontents rather than give it the due diligence of covering it as an issue. If these NYT “reporters” and Keith had taken the time to investigate the websites or – perish the thought – actually attend a Tea Party meeting, they would have likely discovered the following facts – rather than just delivering a jaundiced “straw man” argument.
First of all, they would have discovered that most of the anger is directed equally among the trio of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, which should have put to rest the notion that it is all “race-driven”. Speaking of the race card, now that Keith has subtly played it one paragraph while denying it the next, I will state here that, as far as I am concerned, Obama is bi-racial and his policies are detrimental to Americans of every color and race as he spends us deeper and deeper into a deficit that all American children will have to pay.
They would also have discovered that, while the majority of Tea Party members may have come from the Republican Party member base, it does not follow that they approve of all Republican politicians. In fact, a quick study of most Tea Party sites will show more anger at the RINO’s (Republican-In-Name-Only) that have sat back and done nothing to thwart the liberal agenda of the aforementioned trio, and/or have even added their names to harmful legislation.
In conclusion, let me say here that I do not get too excited by published surveys and polling numbers. I find it to be sloppy journalism and, for the most part, irrelevant to the issue under discussion. Even though it seems that every news hour contains at least one reference to the “latest poll numbers” and daily tracking data, I tend to ignore that part of the report for some of the reasons stated above. In other words, surveys are only as good as the questions they ask and the number of respondents interviewed.
I challenge my fellow columnist and any industrious, objective reporter from the Times (if such a species exists) to do more than just publish survey results. I challenge them to put down the paintbrush, close the joke book, and truly investigate the issues under discussion.
From Broader View Weekly, April 29, 2010
There is an old saying in the military that goes something like: “If it doesn’t move, paint it.” Unfortunately, there is a version of that same philosophy being demonstrated within the liberal portion of the mainstream media and the leadership of the Democratic party. It goes something like this: “If you can’t beat the message, paint the messenger.”
For a good example of this policy, you need look no further than my fellow columnist’s paint job he just applied to the Tea Party movement. It seems ironic to me that the people who, at first, tried to ignore the movement as irrelevant now seem to think this coalition of engaged citizens has some irresistible power over the political machinery of this nation.
In fact, the reaction from the left toward the Tea Partiers has been a classic example of the method used when dealing with any group that disagrees with the liberal agenda. They followed the same process against the Moral Majority in the early 80’s. The first step of the process is to ignore the followers and hope they just go away, if that doesn’t work and they start to grow in numbers the next step is to laugh at them, similar to the way a playground bully will poke fun at anyone who makes her or him feel uncomfortable. If the movement grows past the joke stage, the only thing left to do is to paint it with a broad brush, disregarding the fact that any movement, like any church, civic group, organization and even any family, consists of many individuals with many different motives and passions.
My brother spends many words in his column telling us about a survey done by that beacon of “objective and accurate” journalism, The New York Times. Within the bowels of that survey, he discovered many so-called facts about the respondents. I will say here that I applaud Keith for his disclaimer that he is reluctant to draw stereotypes from a survey, however, I believe he devoted the remainder of his diatribe to doing just that.
I believe that Keith – and the New York Times – would have been better served by logging onto the many websites of the various Tea Party organizations in our state and/or the Tea Party Nation website to get the information about the issues that have driven them to action.
Apparently it is easier to just paint the movement as rich, privileged, uncompassionate, lily-white, anti-government, Obama-birther malcontents rather than give it the due diligence of covering it as an issue. If these NYT “reporters” and Keith had taken the time to investigate the websites or – perish the thought – actually attend a Tea Party meeting, they would have likely discovered the following facts – rather than just delivering a jaundiced “straw man” argument.
First of all, they would have discovered that most of the anger is directed equally among the trio of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, which should have put to rest the notion that it is all “race-driven”. Speaking of the race card, now that Keith has subtly played it one paragraph while denying it the next, I will state here that, as far as I am concerned, Obama is bi-racial and his policies are detrimental to Americans of every color and race as he spends us deeper and deeper into a deficit that all American children will have to pay.
They would also have discovered that, while the majority of Tea Party members may have come from the Republican Party member base, it does not follow that they approve of all Republican politicians. In fact, a quick study of most Tea Party sites will show more anger at the RINO’s (Republican-In-Name-Only) that have sat back and done nothing to thwart the liberal agenda of the aforementioned trio, and/or have even added their names to harmful legislation.
In conclusion, let me say here that I do not get too excited by published surveys and polling numbers. I find it to be sloppy journalism and, for the most part, irrelevant to the issue under discussion. Even though it seems that every news hour contains at least one reference to the “latest poll numbers” and daily tracking data, I tend to ignore that part of the report for some of the reasons stated above. In other words, surveys are only as good as the questions they ask and the number of respondents interviewed.
I challenge my fellow columnist and any industrious, objective reporter from the Times (if such a species exists) to do more than just publish survey results. I challenge them to put down the paintbrush, close the joke book, and truly investigate the issues under discussion.
What is Definition of “Responsible Speech”?
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 15, 2010
When our founding fathers met during those late summer days of 1787 to construct the document that would guide the growth and maturity of our infant nation, they were very careful to follow some stringent guidelines. They admitted the task before them would be difficult and heretofore unaccomplished by any other group of human engineers. They realized they were drawing a map of uncharted territory. The idea that a government could exist with its powers granted not by its military subjugation of a people or by its monarchical lineage, but solely by the consent of its governed populace was truly a unique and foreign idea.
The beauty of the preamble to that document, and the efficient use of powerful verbiage in the Amendments that were added two years later in December of 1791, show us that the men who met in those days were divinely guided and assisted in that endeavor. I think all of us will agree that our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are unequaled among any other civilization’s charters of organization.
It is therefore troubling to me when I hear our chief executive say that the free speech of two of our citizens is “troublesome” to him. I speak, of course of the response by President Obama to a question put to him during a recent interview on CBS. When asked about the current climate of discontent that seems (to the mainstream press, anyway) to be unprecedented and without cause, Obama replied with the proper nouns of two of the most vocal and well-paid critics he has. He mentioned Rush Limbaugh, a very successful and well-compensated radio talk show host who is enjoying the revenues generated by several willing advertisers, and a cable TV personality by the name of Glenn Beck, who also shares in the comfortable lifestyle due to the advertisers who willingly add their signature to the checks that go to keep his show on the air.
Now, we all know that Mr. Obama is not the first president who has had his critics. In fact, our first president, who, by the way, happened to be the first white president, had his critics also. He had several people who published unsavory things about him and some who stood on the street corners of Philadelphia and mocked his capabilities and questioned his decisions, yet he added his name to the very document that guaranteed those people would not have that free speech denied.
Today, we see and hear many people who agree with Obama that people like Limbaugh and Beck are “troublesome”. They like to cite the difference between free speech and responsible speech. As we were all taught in civics class, we have the right to talk about anything we want but we have certain responsibilities that we must adhere to. For example, I can speak about the dangers of fire and tell you how to be careful with woodstoves and fireplaces and in doing so, I would use the word “fire” in several ways and in several contexts, but if I shouted the word “fire!” in a crowded theater in which only one door was available for exit and no fire existed, obviously I would be held liable for the injuries and/or deaths that occurred. That would definitely be “troublesome” speech and would be beyond the realms of responsible speech.
However, if I spoke about political subjects and if my political views caused people to become stimulated to the point of action, would I be crossing the line between responsible and irresponsible speech? In other words, if political speech is coupled with emotional catch words and phrases that spark a response in the listeners, much like the shouted “fire!”, am I still being responsible?
Some critics of Limbaugh and Beck think that they have overstepped that boundary and therefore their speech must be somehow regulated or at least stifled. My contention with that argument is that any regulation of their speech would be a regulation of all manners of speech and any stifling of Limbaugh would be a stifling of us all.
In other words, I am no fan of Keith Olbermann and I find many of his rants and diatribes to be “troublesome” to me. For example, when he paints the entire Tea Party movement as a racist enterprise he is casting aspersions upon me and many people I respect, yet I have no desire to see him stifled, his dismal ratings should work to stifle him soon enough.
To those who think that the rhetoric of Limbaugh is “troublesome” I would encourage them to take the few minutes to search out the speeches of men like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere and others who spoke with great passion and emotion, and yes even some derisive and insulting comments, about the former King of England. They are the men who knew that all liberties were granted by a beneficent Creator and if one is squelched then none are safe.
I would also say, find an audience and speak out. Put your rhetoric up against theirs in the free market and see to whom the listeners turn and to whom the advertisers pay. Oh yeah, I forgot, you already tried that, it was called Air America.
From Broader View Weekly, April 15, 2010
When our founding fathers met during those late summer days of 1787 to construct the document that would guide the growth and maturity of our infant nation, they were very careful to follow some stringent guidelines. They admitted the task before them would be difficult and heretofore unaccomplished by any other group of human engineers. They realized they were drawing a map of uncharted territory. The idea that a government could exist with its powers granted not by its military subjugation of a people or by its monarchical lineage, but solely by the consent of its governed populace was truly a unique and foreign idea.
The beauty of the preamble to that document, and the efficient use of powerful verbiage in the Amendments that were added two years later in December of 1791, show us that the men who met in those days were divinely guided and assisted in that endeavor. I think all of us will agree that our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are unequaled among any other civilization’s charters of organization.
It is therefore troubling to me when I hear our chief executive say that the free speech of two of our citizens is “troublesome” to him. I speak, of course of the response by President Obama to a question put to him during a recent interview on CBS. When asked about the current climate of discontent that seems (to the mainstream press, anyway) to be unprecedented and without cause, Obama replied with the proper nouns of two of the most vocal and well-paid critics he has. He mentioned Rush Limbaugh, a very successful and well-compensated radio talk show host who is enjoying the revenues generated by several willing advertisers, and a cable TV personality by the name of Glenn Beck, who also shares in the comfortable lifestyle due to the advertisers who willingly add their signature to the checks that go to keep his show on the air.
Now, we all know that Mr. Obama is not the first president who has had his critics. In fact, our first president, who, by the way, happened to be the first white president, had his critics also. He had several people who published unsavory things about him and some who stood on the street corners of Philadelphia and mocked his capabilities and questioned his decisions, yet he added his name to the very document that guaranteed those people would not have that free speech denied.
Today, we see and hear many people who agree with Obama that people like Limbaugh and Beck are “troublesome”. They like to cite the difference between free speech and responsible speech. As we were all taught in civics class, we have the right to talk about anything we want but we have certain responsibilities that we must adhere to. For example, I can speak about the dangers of fire and tell you how to be careful with woodstoves and fireplaces and in doing so, I would use the word “fire” in several ways and in several contexts, but if I shouted the word “fire!” in a crowded theater in which only one door was available for exit and no fire existed, obviously I would be held liable for the injuries and/or deaths that occurred. That would definitely be “troublesome” speech and would be beyond the realms of responsible speech.
However, if I spoke about political subjects and if my political views caused people to become stimulated to the point of action, would I be crossing the line between responsible and irresponsible speech? In other words, if political speech is coupled with emotional catch words and phrases that spark a response in the listeners, much like the shouted “fire!”, am I still being responsible?
Some critics of Limbaugh and Beck think that they have overstepped that boundary and therefore their speech must be somehow regulated or at least stifled. My contention with that argument is that any regulation of their speech would be a regulation of all manners of speech and any stifling of Limbaugh would be a stifling of us all.
In other words, I am no fan of Keith Olbermann and I find many of his rants and diatribes to be “troublesome” to me. For example, when he paints the entire Tea Party movement as a racist enterprise he is casting aspersions upon me and many people I respect, yet I have no desire to see him stifled, his dismal ratings should work to stifle him soon enough.
To those who think that the rhetoric of Limbaugh is “troublesome” I would encourage them to take the few minutes to search out the speeches of men like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere and others who spoke with great passion and emotion, and yes even some derisive and insulting comments, about the former King of England. They are the men who knew that all liberties were granted by a beneficent Creator and if one is squelched then none are safe.
I would also say, find an audience and speak out. Put your rhetoric up against theirs in the free market and see to whom the listeners turn and to whom the advertisers pay. Oh yeah, I forgot, you already tried that, it was called Air America.
Free Speech vs. Responsibility
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 15, 2010
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Those are powerful words and words for which I am always grateful. I owe every word I ever submitted to the editors of the Broader View Weekly to a single paragraph that provides for a broad range of liberty. It is because of the foresight of the crafters of the Bill of Rights that my brother Gordon and I are able to raise our distinct voices in protest – not just in hushed tones or personal e-mails but loudly and for public distribution.
So I cherish the freedom of speech and would never seek to inhibit or regulate it. I don’t believe that President Barack Obama would either, any more than I believe President George W. Bush sought to limit free speech when he said, of the Dixie Chicks, “…They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out…” (or when his former press secretary Ari Fleischer said, of the press after 9/11, that they should “watch what they say”).
However, there are certain personalities who see every criticism of their opinions, influence or tactics as either a return to the Fairness Doctrine (which sought to balance the broadcast of opposing views) or a desire to limit the free speech of a chosen few through some sort of targeted attack. Even before Obama took office, Limbaugh used his radio talk show to ramp up fury over his speculation that the administration would bring back the Fairness Doctrine; in fact, that it was at the top of Obama’s agenda. As recently as last week, Glenn Beck claimed, in his own radio show, that the administration had targeted him in a coordinated attack as an enemy of the president. Beck claims that people close to the White House have called for a boycott of his television show and that the president himself is trying to silence him.
Of course, this is all part of the personae of these two personalities: one moment they claim to be inconsequential to public, the next they are so self important that they can barely contain themselves. They claim to be the only purveyors of the truth and feign paranoia that the “liberal” media and the government are trying to shut them up. This contradictory self-image may be part of the ego necessary to spend three hours each day on talk radio, but it also serves a certain tactical role. Faithful listeners begin to think they are privy to a rare source of information (which they perceive to be factual and accurate). They also begin to relate to the hosts in a way that is endearing. The fate of the radio personality becomes entwined with the fates of the listeners, and not just implicitly. Last week, Beck told his listeners that the administration had come for him and, in no uncertain terms, that they were coming “for you”.
Fear and rage are a big part of the package for Beck, Limbaugh, and their ilk (such as Sean Hannity and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly). Every perceived threat is exaggerated. On, March 22, after the House of Representatives passed the health care bill, Rush opened his show with the words “Today America is hanging by a thread. Today, freedom is under attack.” Glenn Beck’s constant assertions that he has never seen such abuses or overreaching has built a following that parallels the Tea Party movement. Beck uses his show to whip his “9/12” minions into a frenzy and draw them to his website and events.
None of the major players in talk radio are subtle about where rage and fear should be focused. Limbaugh talks about the evil liberals and continually claims they are liars bent on the destruction of America and her way of life. Beck demonizes progressives and attaches a religious component that amounts to righteous indignation. They each provide specific targets of collective anger. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are blamed for many of the nation’s troubles, but the prime enemy of conservatism is President Obama. Sean Hannity refers to him as the “Anointed One” implying that he was illegitimately elected (apparently because the press couldn’t stop fawning over him). Rush Limbaugh affects a sneering, whining, and mocking tone every time he mentions the president. Glenn Beck describes him as pure evil.
The First Amendment guarantees these men the right to voice their opinions, however critical, of the president. In his column, Gordon implies that Obama sees those voices as so “troublesome” that their rights should be suspended. I think the implication is wrong, but I find the intensity and nature of the discourse “troubling”.
The arena of public opinion is currently a tinderbox of anger. The hurting economy, jobless rates and other hardships leave Americans searching for answers and leave many looking for scapegoats. If talk radio is effective at anything it is providing scapegoats. Hosts like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are providing fuel to the growing flames of discontent.
It is difficult to deny the influence and power that these men wield. But with great power comes great responsibility, and that these radio personalities attempt to deny that responsibility is troubling as well. In light of recent vandalism and threats of violence by the Tea Party crowd, many conservatives are trying to distance themselves. It is interesting to hear these folks try to maintain a level of fear and rage that keeps the faithful tuned in, while trying to appear conscientious.
Not all conservatives have taken the same tack. Bill Bennett, whose views I don’t share, responded to an audience member who criticized him for not hating Obama enough by quoting former President Richard Nixon (also no hero of mine). In his farewell speech, Nixon said “Others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” Instead of exacerbating the turmoil, Bennett turned a lens of reason on the situation and encouraged his audience to do the same.
We should treasure the freedoms we share and respect the rights of others. But when it comes to our freedom of speech we should bear in mind the power of words and use them responsibly.
From Broader View Weekly, April 15, 2010
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Those are powerful words and words for which I am always grateful. I owe every word I ever submitted to the editors of the Broader View Weekly to a single paragraph that provides for a broad range of liberty. It is because of the foresight of the crafters of the Bill of Rights that my brother Gordon and I are able to raise our distinct voices in protest – not just in hushed tones or personal e-mails but loudly and for public distribution.
So I cherish the freedom of speech and would never seek to inhibit or regulate it. I don’t believe that President Barack Obama would either, any more than I believe President George W. Bush sought to limit free speech when he said, of the Dixie Chicks, “…They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out…” (or when his former press secretary Ari Fleischer said, of the press after 9/11, that they should “watch what they say”).
However, there are certain personalities who see every criticism of their opinions, influence or tactics as either a return to the Fairness Doctrine (which sought to balance the broadcast of opposing views) or a desire to limit the free speech of a chosen few through some sort of targeted attack. Even before Obama took office, Limbaugh used his radio talk show to ramp up fury over his speculation that the administration would bring back the Fairness Doctrine; in fact, that it was at the top of Obama’s agenda. As recently as last week, Glenn Beck claimed, in his own radio show, that the administration had targeted him in a coordinated attack as an enemy of the president. Beck claims that people close to the White House have called for a boycott of his television show and that the president himself is trying to silence him.
Of course, this is all part of the personae of these two personalities: one moment they claim to be inconsequential to public, the next they are so self important that they can barely contain themselves. They claim to be the only purveyors of the truth and feign paranoia that the “liberal” media and the government are trying to shut them up. This contradictory self-image may be part of the ego necessary to spend three hours each day on talk radio, but it also serves a certain tactical role. Faithful listeners begin to think they are privy to a rare source of information (which they perceive to be factual and accurate). They also begin to relate to the hosts in a way that is endearing. The fate of the radio personality becomes entwined with the fates of the listeners, and not just implicitly. Last week, Beck told his listeners that the administration had come for him and, in no uncertain terms, that they were coming “for you”.
Fear and rage are a big part of the package for Beck, Limbaugh, and their ilk (such as Sean Hannity and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly). Every perceived threat is exaggerated. On, March 22, after the House of Representatives passed the health care bill, Rush opened his show with the words “Today America is hanging by a thread. Today, freedom is under attack.” Glenn Beck’s constant assertions that he has never seen such abuses or overreaching has built a following that parallels the Tea Party movement. Beck uses his show to whip his “9/12” minions into a frenzy and draw them to his website and events.
None of the major players in talk radio are subtle about where rage and fear should be focused. Limbaugh talks about the evil liberals and continually claims they are liars bent on the destruction of America and her way of life. Beck demonizes progressives and attaches a religious component that amounts to righteous indignation. They each provide specific targets of collective anger. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are blamed for many of the nation’s troubles, but the prime enemy of conservatism is President Obama. Sean Hannity refers to him as the “Anointed One” implying that he was illegitimately elected (apparently because the press couldn’t stop fawning over him). Rush Limbaugh affects a sneering, whining, and mocking tone every time he mentions the president. Glenn Beck describes him as pure evil.
The First Amendment guarantees these men the right to voice their opinions, however critical, of the president. In his column, Gordon implies that Obama sees those voices as so “troublesome” that their rights should be suspended. I think the implication is wrong, but I find the intensity and nature of the discourse “troubling”.
The arena of public opinion is currently a tinderbox of anger. The hurting economy, jobless rates and other hardships leave Americans searching for answers and leave many looking for scapegoats. If talk radio is effective at anything it is providing scapegoats. Hosts like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are providing fuel to the growing flames of discontent.
It is difficult to deny the influence and power that these men wield. But with great power comes great responsibility, and that these radio personalities attempt to deny that responsibility is troubling as well. In light of recent vandalism and threats of violence by the Tea Party crowd, many conservatives are trying to distance themselves. It is interesting to hear these folks try to maintain a level of fear and rage that keeps the faithful tuned in, while trying to appear conscientious.
Not all conservatives have taken the same tack. Bill Bennett, whose views I don’t share, responded to an audience member who criticized him for not hating Obama enough by quoting former President Richard Nixon (also no hero of mine). In his farewell speech, Nixon said “Others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” Instead of exacerbating the turmoil, Bennett turned a lens of reason on the situation and encouraged his audience to do the same.
We should treasure the freedoms we share and respect the rights of others. But when it comes to our freedom of speech we should bear in mind the power of words and use them responsibly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
