Monthly Archives: November 2012

Is Fox News Helping the Democrat Party?

There is an interesting Huffington Post article today (linked below) that suggests Fox News is doing the Republican Party a disservice by painting the GOP as a bunch of ignorant radical conservatives. Depending on your perspective, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I think Fox News has been making it easy for the Democrat Party to win over votes from people like me for a few years now. Like taking candy from a baby.

We’ve all been brainwashed to believe that the “conservatives” think MSNBC and CNN are mouthpieces for the “liberal” agenda while the “liberals” think the opposite about Fox News. Maybe these stereotypes are true, or maybe we think this as a result of good advertising. Just like Coke and Pepsi. Do we really know who decides how Fox and CNN are portrayed to their market audiences and whether a political party agenda is behind it at all? My guess is that it has nothing to do with pushing a political perspective but rather about showing content (which happens to be political) that draws consistent ratings,  just like any other television entertainment programming.

But let’s say for fun’s sake that it all really is about politics. That Fox really is the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and CNN really is the mouthpiece of the Democrat Party. If that is the case, the Democrats are winning. And Fox News is helping them.

When you wikipedia the Democrat Party, you see that most educated people who live in cities are generally thought to vote Democrat. Why are the educated people voting Democrat? You would think that educated people would probably be more likely to choose the party that favors a decentralized federal government, capitalism, and a focus on the economy and national defense. Especially when a Republican administration is more likely to leave the social issues to the states, effectively rendering irrelevant a stereotypical educated person’s conflicts with the GOP’s conservative stance on social issues. Or at least I, as an educated city person, even with my bleeding heart social views, think that the basics of the republican ideology make a lot more sense for me as a libertarian minded voter than do the democrat ideologies. But most of my peers do not, and it seems that the common perception of the Republican Party’s stance on social issues is to blame.

So who is to blame for the common perception that the Republican Party is for those with ultra conservative social views? The news networks. All of them.  Fox News most of all. When you really think about it, the obvious question must be raised: is it possible that Fox News could be the ingenious product of a Democrat Party think tank, meant to exaggerate and propagate negative stereotypes about the Republican Party?

“It is in the interest of the Democrats, not the Republicans, for there to be a loud, extremist, heavily white faction in the Republican Party, constantly pushing that party rightward. One of the reasons Mitt Romney was so unable to pivot back to the center was due to the drumbeat at Fox which contributing to forcing him to the right during the primary season. Even after the primary season, when Fox became a big supporter for Romney, the rift between official editorial position and the political feelings of Fox viewers and hosts, was clear.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/is-fox-even-helping-the-r_b_2210775.html

In response to “The War on Men” by Suzanne Venker

This article from Fox News (below) is just a playground of fun. It is the latest piece from the War Against Men school of thought. I assume that this lady is a veritable Ann Coulter Lite who writes inflammatory pieces for notoriety and a paycheck, but we all know what assuming does, so in case she is serious, I just want to point out a few things:

1) the epidemic of wieners amongst the men of my generation probably has more to do with the invention of Xbox than the fact that more girls are going to college;

2) the only women I know who are “angry at men” are angry at particular men for doing particular sexually inclined things with other women;

3) I’m not sure what “consequences of sex” women are “saddled with” nowadays since the invention of birth control; and

4) I’m pretty sure the statement that “men want to love women, not compete with them” could be more accurately reworded “men want to bang women and aren’t worried about competing with them” or, alternatively, “women love men and aren’t worried about competing with them.”

I’m no radical feminist, but my automatic reaction to this piece (besides being entertained by it) is to note that if the author followed her own advice, she’d be barefoot and pregnant in a kitchen somewhere instead of writing for a major news network. Just a thought.

Enjoy:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/

The war on men

By 

Published November 26, 2012

| FoxNews.com

The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.

Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.

The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late. Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women.

As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.

Women aren’t women anymore.

To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.

In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.

Now the men have nowhere to go.

It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.

But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?

You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.

Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.

It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.

“Tea party activists blame losses on Republican establishment.” Headline from yesterday’s LA Times. Whether this is true or not, this is a widespread perception of the Tea Party, the idea that they are pure conservatives and that Mitt Romney was not conservative enough for them. That is why I think it would be next to impossible to convince my peer group of socially liberal economic conservatives that the Tea Party is the way to go. I can’t even convince them that the Republican Party is the way to go. If the GOP wants anything to change, they need to introduce a fresh face with a socially moderate agenda who can pull in the libertarian vote and the vote of the socially liberal economic conservatives who voted for Obama this time.

The Republicans need an answer to Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, someone who emphasizes that a Republican administration would leave these issues to the states and whose answers to their personal opinions on the social issues are not that far off from Obama’s. Someone who doesn’t wear pleated khakis and sweater vests. It may be a cold day in hell before we ever get a Republican candidate like that, but if it happened, I think the GOP would not only maintain their current support from the conservative right (who else are they going to vote for? the Democrat?), they would also gain the votes of a lot of libertarians, independents and moderates they didn’t have in 2012. Call me crazy, but we’ve tried everything else. Give us a Condoleezza Rice.

Angry Tea Party activists say Mitt Romney was too moderate and that the GOP undermined ‘true conservative’ candidates:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tea-party-20121111,0,4516315.story

Condoleezza Rice: GOP sent ‘mixed messages:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83627.html

Give us a Condoleezza Rice

What really happened in Benghazi

I wrote this on September 13th when it seemed like everyone was either oblivious to or in denial about what happened in Benghazi on September 11th. It blew my mind that the White House barely dignified this attack and that the news coverage was basically nonexistent. I pieced these facts together at the time from a series of newspaper articles in the attempt to figure out what exactly happened. It turns out I wasn’t too far off.

Two days ago on September 11th, the American consulate in Libya was attacked by armed militants who got inside, burned it and dragged the American ambassador, the official representative of America in Libya, out into the street and murdered him along with a Navy Seal, an Air Force veteran and a third, unnamed American citizen also presumably in foreign service. These militants were armed with guns, mortars and rocked propelled grenades. Simultaneously, a previously secret American safe house nearby was attacked by armed militia, killing three additional Americans and injuring thirty Americans and Libyans.Some sources report alternatively that the ambassador died from smoke inhalation suffered during the burning of the embassy and that his body mysteriously disappeared for a few hours after that, but the NYT makes it seem clear that he was dragged from the embassy and through the streets to his death, as evidenced by an actual photograph taken of him in within the mob just prior to his death (Photo: http://nyti.ms/SD7Md7). [Update: it turns out that the smoke inhalation theory was correct and that the mob carrying his body through the streets was supposedly friendly and in the process of getting him to a hospital].

The American embassies in Egypt and Yemen were also attacked by angry mobs chanting “Death to America” and burning American flags, but the embassies themselves were not breached. Protestors did make it through the outer gates in Yemen, breaking security building windows and burning cars while shouting, “We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God.” The protestors outside the embassy in Egypt were throwing stones and managed to tear down the American flag.

There were also more peaceful, respectful protests outside the American embassies in Kuwait, Bangladesh, Iran, Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan.

This was all quickly and decisively declared to be a direct reaction to an obscure 2012 anti-Muslim film about Muhammad called “The Innocence of Muslims.” This movie was created in California by a man who calls himself Sam Bacile, a name which is a known pseudonym used by Copts and Evangelical Christians in Syria, Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt. Bacile told the Wall Street Journal that he is an Israeli Jew, but the Israeli government has no record of him ever existing, nor does the State of California. Bacile spoke Arabic on set and told the cast that he was Egyptian. The entire eighty person cast and crew insist that this guy grossly deceived them about the content and purpose of the film, drastically changing the scene and script and overdubbing later.

The original film was first screened on June 23rd to an audience of ten people at a space rented for private screenings on Hollywood Blvd. Fourteen minutes of the overdubbed video was posted to YouTube in July. It appears that a Coptic blogger (whose Egyptian citizenship had already been revoked for promoting an attack on Egypt) brought it to the Arabic speaking world later that month. On September 9th, the leader of an Egyptian political party denounced the film, the US Embassy in Cairo issued a statement about it being misguided (big mistake in my opinion), and a two minute excerpt dubbed in Arabic was played on Al-Nas, an Egyptian TV station. It spread from there until the attack in Libya on Sept. 11.

Of all of the ridiculously offensive films, cartoons, articles, blogs and statements out there about every religion that has ever existed, this one 14 minute blurb on YouTube spawned simultaneous, widespread, murderous violence against America and Americans in at least 9 countries within 24 hours. And of all of the protests, the only one in which the angry mob happened to be carrying guns, mortars and rocket propelled grenades was the one in Benghazi which also coincidentally happened to occur at the exact same time as a strategic, armed attack on a previously secret American safe house nearby. Don’t forget that many of the angry mobs at other embassies were protesting peacefully; even the notably more violent mob in Cairo was primarily armed with ROCKS.

Someone was obviously pulling the strings here, possibly creating the video for this specific purpose (ahem, fake name Sam Bacile who uses a known Egyptian Copt pseudonym, speaks Arabic and is from Egypt but says he’s an Israeli Jew. Funny how his YouTube video was introduced to the conflict zone by an Egyptian Copt blogger…) or at least deliberately spreading it with the focused intent to incite the masses to violence in the name of religion, the most inflammatory, volatile and obvious justification for senseless violence and killing.

What has bothered me the most is the US response, or lack thereof. We calmly described what happened in extremely vague terms and stated that the killers of the ambassador would be brought to justice. We completely ignored the second, simultaneous Libyan attack at the safe house and the American deaths there. And we apologized for the content of the video despite the fact that we already said it had absolutely nothing to do with America or the American government. By even addressing the video, we legitimized the acts of violence in its name and put ourselves in a situation in which we had two choices: 1) apologize for the video and therefore validate its existence as a legitimate and understandable, if unacceptable, reason for attacks on Americans and American soil, or 2) get angry and allow extremist religion to fan the flames of irrational hatred and incite us to another war. So the American government ended up apologizing for a video made by a nonAmerican citizen, therefore giving it legitimacy as an excuse for attacking American soil and killing Americans. Great.

Maybe this was just an unfortunate series of entropic snowballing events which just happened to occur simultaneously at the American embassies in nine different predominantly Muslim countries on September 11th, the most violent of which involved heavy weaponry and symptoms of clear advance planning and also happened to take place at the exact same time that a secret American safe house nearby was violently attacked in what was described by a top Libyan security official as “highly organized and possibly aided by anti-American infiltrators of Libya’s young government.” It seems pretty obvious to me that a focused and motivated mind used this flimsy joke of a blasphemous video clip to stir up the idiotic masses to violence, clearly hoping to at least mask an organized strike against Americans in Libya and probably intending to incite a far larger scale rift and even possible armed conflict with the United States. The question is who – Islamic extremist or Egyptian Copt hoping to pin it on Islamic extremist?

Read about it yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/africa/libya-attacks-came-in-two-waves-official-says.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57512187/former-navy-seal-glen-doherty-one-of-4-americans-killed-in-attack-on-u.s-consulate-in-libya/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/mideast-turmoil-spreads-to-us-embassy-in-yemen.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4280316,00.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-protests-idUSBRE88C0J320120913

To the Tea Party:

I feel the need to follow up the original post with a clarification for those of you of the Tea Party inclination who found a lot of the stereotypes contained therein offensive or disheartening, at the least. The original post, “We are not the Tea Party; We are the Free Party,” was written for a very specific audience with a specific purpose and was not directed at the Tea Party in any way. I was speaking to the 20-40 something young professionals who are overeducated and cynical or naive enough to buy into or at least relate to the stereotypes of both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party described below. My purpose was to address their disillusionment with both political parties, identify the common values they generally share which are consistent with the core values of the Republican party, and emphasize that it is possible for us to mobilize and carry out a reformation of sorts as the Tea Party did with the result of uniting behind a Republican candidate in the next election.

When I referred to the Republican Party as holding ideals that are “bigoted, racist, sexist,” etc, I was speaking to the stereotypes perpetuated by the liberal news media platforms. Unfortunately, these stereotypes really have taken hold in the perspectives of a lot of my peers. I am not saying that this is right or that I think this way, but I am saying that this is a major problem that must be addressed to motivate this group of people to vote Republican in the future.

Please note that when I described this stereotype of the Republican Party, I was not referring to the Tea Party. The reference to the Tea Party in the title of the piece and in the final paragraph is meant to cite the Tea Party as an example of a group of people who were less than thrilled with what they were getting from the Republican Party and who therefore started and continue to maintain a movement of successful reform within the GOP. I am holding the Tea Party up as an example that such reform and rebranding can be successfully carried out.

You may ask why I do not urge my peers to join the Tea Party or other less well known libertarian or independent movements. I do not because the unfortunate stereotypes of the GOP have already stigmatized the Tea Party amongst this group of people, and I don’t have the idealism or energy to believe that it would be possible to pull a large enough chunk of Democrat or Republican leaning members of my peer group over to the libertarians to do anything other than take away important votes from a Republican candidate in 2016. I do think that the national news media political pundits have painted the Tea Party as extremists or as another version of the same negatively stereotyped Republican right. Although I do not hold that perspective, the audience I am trying to reach in the original post unfortunately does buy into this stereotype, mainly because they believe what they hear from the talking heads. The purpose of this blog is not to challenge these stereotyped perspectives but to bypass them entirely with the same ultimate goal.

I wrote this piece in direct reaction to my dismay with the results of the election on Tuesday night. I could not understand how so many of my peers could vote for Obama in the name of certain social issues when a semi-socialist Democrat administration would likely mean possible economic collapse or at least the continued growth of the federal government, something which I believe threatens the protection of those very “rights” with which they are so concerned.

Rather than exhausting myself and dying early from the stress of trying to convince my peers that the Tea Party is a cause they should join, I think the best way to motivate this group to the same ultimate end is to emulate the Tea Party’s successful model of reinventing and rebranding a type of Republican ideology that appeals to the more socially  liberal and economically conservative values of this group of people. There are a lot of ways to accomplish the same thing, and I think this is the best way to really cut to the heart of the matter with my peers.

We are not the Tea Party; We are the Free Party

Based on what I saw on the social media platforms, the political blogs and the “news” channels over the last year, this was the most hopeless, personal and divisive presidential race I have witnessed in my lifetime. It wasn’t just the far right and far left enthusiasts or the ignorant extremists trying to intellectually (and emotionally) destroy each other, it was my peers, the new wave of 20-40something year old young professionals who were not thrilled with either candidate, who were posting very personal, bitter content that was often more about hating one candidate than loving the other. We have a problem. This election wasn’t about personal or political beliefs coming to a head, it was about the fact that our generation, the new wave, the up and coming core of this country, who are just now realizing that the results of a presidential election affect our real lives, have been left staggering around blindly because we have no good options. To generalize, we are social liberals and economic conservatives without a party.

The Democrats look great on the social issues when compared to the Republicans whose idiots run around talking about legitimate rape, anti-marriage amendments, racial profiling immigration policies, employer limited contraceptives and women in binders. The Republicans look great on everything else when compared to the Democrats’ policies that have us at an alarmingly increasing 107% debt to GDP ratio and a budget that may never be balanced, where 47% of Americans pay no taxes, where 49% of Americans receive some sort of government assistance, where national bankruptcy and widespread poverty are knocking at our door, and where a centralized federal government increasingly regulates and takes power from the states, threatening the very liberties that the Democrats’ social policies favor right now. There is no good option.

As always, the talking heads on the major news media programs spent the election year gleefully splashing around in this giant kiddie pool of hot button issues, rousing both viewers’ emotions and national ratings while guiding a significant population of this country’s votes. A lot of us were so taken aback by the hideous things the talking heads told us were said on the Republican side of the fence that we considered voting Democrat just to oppose a party that is portrayed as a bunch of bigoted, sexist racists; we toyed with the question of whether a slick looking Harvard JD/MBA with a proven budget balancing talent from a party of bigots might be better than four more years of a Harvard JD who is a big government socialist at worst and an academician idealist (like many of us) with a mediocre plan for fixing the economy at best. If we went by the facebook posts from our friends and the email forwards from our grandparents, we had a choice between a homophobic, sexist elitist and the antichrist. We had no good option.

None of my friends who were thrilled with Obama the first time seemed to be so this time, but a lot of them chose to vote for him again either because of an inherent distrust of Romney or disgust with Romney’s stated personal beliefs about gay marriage or abortion/contraceptives. Most of my friends who voted for Romney were less vocal about it, seemingly almost embarrassed of their choice because of his and the Republican Party’s stance on the hot button issues, the same hot button issues that the talking heads splashed around in for a year, effectively polarizing the country (while achieving high ratings) and inciting voting patterns based on issues that should be mostly irrelevant at a federal level. Romney himself even repeatedly noted that although his beliefs on abortion, gay marriage, the legalization of marijuana, immigration, etc, were very conservative, they were issues that should generally be left to the states, not the federal government.  Obama more graciously noted his less conservatives stance on many of these issues, but he stood by the notion of a federal government which is big and powerful enough to start making those decisions for the states, as it has in the world of healthcare.

{I won’t even go down the healthcare reform path into the maze of my conflicting political and professional convictions; suffice it to say that I prefer that healthcare be left to the states, but we already have existing federal healthcare policies that needed massive reform, Obama was the first president to be able to pull that off, and while the vague and far reaching language in much of the Act scare me, I know that its passage was a tremendous achievement for the Obama administration and hopefully our country; despite my discomfort with big government, I hope that we are able to amend and further shape this Act into something that will actually benefit our country and save us from the previously inevitable decline into a scenario where the poor are denied even basic care and the rich can barely afford it. I just hope it accomplishes this (and more) without destroying our medical profession and bankrupting the system. Again, I get hives just entertaining the conflicting voices of the internal libertarian, lawyer and public health professional within me on this issue.}

So here we are, nursing our post-election hangover and idly scrolling through our facebook home feed, muttering expletives at the people who are still talking about the election, particularly the self righteous, whether gloaters or complainers. We are slightly jealous of our hard core friends who backed one candidate or the other to the point of religious zealotry; we wonder how they arrived at that point and whether they just ignored the facts, never knew the facts or allowed emotion to trump the facts. We wonder if this is just how American politics go, if this is how it has been for previous generations and if our helplessness induced apathy is just part of the deal. We wonder if it really even matters who gets elected, whether a different candidate would really make any different choices when presented with the top-secret facts about which we’ll never know and which we fantasize look something like Seasons 1 and 2 of 24.

This is a call to my peers. There is absolutely no reason for us to blindly stumble down this crusty, stale old path that has nothing to do with us. There is no other country in the world where personal liberties and freedoms are as protected as they are here. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY. We are the ones who are going to be left with this mess in 20 years if we don’t defend our interests now. If we try to vote independent or libertarian, our votes are wasted in this two party system. We need to reform one of the parties (or both) into something of which we are not ashamed.

I vote that we reform the Republican Party because I value decentralized government and individual freedom above all else. The problem with the Republican Party is the longstanding bigoted, racist, sexist old ideas that are used to motivate the older generation of conservative, religious right wing voters. I reject those ideas in the name of freedom and in the name of America. We are a country founded on the idea that all people are created equal, that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that government is created to secure those rights and derives its power from the consent of those whose rights it was created to protect. This is what America is about, and this is the purpose of the government.

Founded by anti-slavery activists, the Republican Party’s strength is sound economic theory, high value of the free market and individual achievement, strict construction of the Constitution, and the idea that a smaller federal government that gives more power to the states is one which best protects our freedom and allows us to flourish as a nation. The ultra socially conservative path that the Republican right has taken in recent years has alienated so many of our generation, evolving to the point that it has smothered this country’s and its own founding principles holding individual freedom and liberty above all else. I propose that we, the new wave of “moderates,” loosely defined as the socially liberal and economic conservatives, take back the Republican Party in the name of freedom.

The Tea Party was able to reform a portion of the Republican Party to fit its beliefs; they demanded what they wanted, and they got it. While our ideals are very different from theirs, we stand in the name of freedom, the founding principle of this country and of this party, and that is something that no American in their right mind can argue with. We believe in a decentralized government, one which allows us to determine by state the extent to which we will allow the state governments to regulate our bodies, our businesses, our right to bear arms, our right to marry who we want without government interference, our access to contraceptives, our taxes, and our public programs. Giving power to a federal government to impose regulations across our massively colorful and diverse population is insane. Even the EU knows better than that. We are the United States, and the principle upon which we came together was freedom from an overbearing government that interferers with our personal liberties. We are not the Tea Party; We are the Free Party.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers

%d bloggers like this: