March 21st, 2005
How important a factor is quality of life to the Terri Shiavo tragedy? Or is absolutism the only item that some people care about? That is, quality of life doesn’t matter, as long as her body can be maintained functioning by any artificial means necessary. And, of course, there’s the other issue, how much intrusion by the federal government should we permit into what is an extremely personal matter, best resolved by the immediate parties involved?
Finally, do keep in mind that the only reason why certain groups (in the federal government and elsewhere) are focusing so intently on this one case is because they belive that they can score political points — given the “circus” they’ve created around what should’ve been a private matter. This, unfortunately, is the sad truth.
For instance, note that while other cases (i.e., 03.15.05 – Texas infant removed from life support with backing of Texas law) are ignored by the federal government and the media, Shivo’s tragedy garnered a special Congressional session. Again, the only reason why this occurred is because the party in control of Congress believes they can politicize the issue, and thereby score political points with their supporters. Back to the Texas law mentioned above, Texas Futile Care Law, the law was signed into the books by then governor George W Bush (after reaching a compromise and in consultation with the National Right to Life organization — [article]).
Interestingly, at the heart of the Texas Futile Care Law, cited above, is this rationale:
“(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).”
In other words, if the patient can’t afford to pay for treatment, and if no other hospital is available to take the patient, the hospital can seek to refuse treatment — including life support. (Which is exactly what’s occurring in this other Texas case.) Now, if the party in control of Congress and of the White House truly cared about the issue, and not merely about scoring political points with their supporters, why aren’t they calling for special sessions to step into this and other cases as well?
November 21st, 2004
As to what I found fascinating and puzzling about the poll, which has been conducted yearly since 1976, with pretty much the same results, are the following:
- 34% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) belive that “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.”
- 25% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago.
These two percentages are simply incredible to me. The presence of such significant percentages of the U.S. population that hold such an alternate and un-factually based understanding of the natural and modern world creates conditions that ripe for exploitation.
November 4th, 2004
Many wonder what it will take to restore social civility to Washington, to get Republicans and Democrats mingling again. Rock-ribbed Republican Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, proffered a solution, telling us that Democrats must accept the finality of their powerlessness. “Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.” Norquist assured us that he meant neutered “psychologically” and his metaphor was “facetious.” Of course: Let the healing begin. [ref]
For those that still believe that Republicans are in fact interested in “working together,” there you have it: from the mouth of one of the generals of the conservative movement in this country. They expect us to roll-over, be neutered and merrily remain in silence. Or, as some would have it, take it upon our own hands and opt for self-exile in Canada. This is not the time to roll-over; instead, find like-minded friends and neighbors, join your local Democratic party and let’s get our country back on the right track.
September 10th, 2004
1. The so-called liberal media are just a bunch of fucking wimps that are just scared shitless about being labeled “liberal,” so they never expose the factual conservative dominance of our media industry.
2. Let me explain what I mean by “factual conservative dominance of our media industry.”
Basically, the conservative movement (through its various think-tanks, foundations, wealthy donors, etc.) learned to game the system/media some 30 years ago, when the conservative movement began its re-ascendance in our country (culminating in Mr. Reagan’s election and continuing to the present). (As reference, look up: The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute — there are others, but these are the principal ones, specially the American Enterprise Institute.)
Furthermore, conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s knew the following: A) They no longer belonged in the (Southern) Democratic party, as the party advocated Civil Rights and the enfranchisement of African Americans; B) They needed to jump ship, so they essentially hijacked the Republican party (note the lack of so-called Northern Rockefeller Republicans in today’s GOP); C) Conservatives of the period devised a strategy to flame the embers of White-male resentment against the politics of the late 1950s and 1960s, accordingly the Southern Strategy was born.
And this, essentially, is the genesis of the modern Republican party. Note how today’s Republican power base is contingent on these two factors: A) The South, and; B) Let’ say, the subtle, encouragement of White-male resentment against a popular culture that many of them feel rejects the White-male iconography.
Of course the preceding brushes over the past 40/50 years in very broad strokes, but I had to provide it as background to support how the “factual conservative dominance of our media industry” has occurred.
i. The conservative movement has laid down a well disciplined, and well funded, infrastructure that’s geared to challenge (and dismantle) the legitimacy of: academia, the news media and a certain brand of popular culture.
ii. To compete against academia, conservatives established think tanks and funded conservative intellectuals. Moreover, to challenge the news media conservative created what was, at the time, new media outlets: talk radio and direct mail (note that Republicans were the first to set up what still is the most extensive and sophisticated voter data-base in the country). Thirdly, popular culture is often used by conservatives to drive wedge issues among the electorate (i.e., homosexuality, feminism, guns, etc.).
iii. Its taken about three decades, but the combination of the factors I listed above have lead to what I referred to as Mr. Brock’s Republican Noise Machine model:
a. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
b. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
c. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O’Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there’s enough of buzz behind it.
d. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is “newsworthy.”
Now, the key part about the preceding model is this: After 30 years of a concerted and well organized effort to convince the public that the so-called liberal media cannot be trusted, journalists and the public have complete internalized this notion, and don’t even challenge the assumption. Furthermore, it is under these conditions that “Liberal” has become a “dirty word” and, conversely, “Conservative” has become the preferred ideological label for a significant segment of the public, specially White-males. So, finally, we have a system wherein American journalists are afraid to be perceived as having a liberal-bias, for fear of proving the myth true; and, the general public simply assumes that they know what they know, and simply assume that the so-called liberal media must have a liberal bias.
3. Because strong ideological conservatives in the media know that what I have described is true, they know that the wimpy mainstream media journalist will not mount a direct and frontal challenge on the conservative modus operandi. And, if such a challenge were to be raised, conservatives in the media (and the public) would simply charge such journalists as being liberals, thus proving the myth; and, unfortunately, a lot of members of the public would simply accept the charge without questioning it.
Now, here’s what I wrote in another post about the true media bias:
“[T]he media is driven by “commercial” and “sensationalistic” interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us — all U.S. citizens — have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they’re doing of covering substantive issues.”
I also offered the following as sources for further reading, and to provide an alternative view-point on what we think we already know:
