Archive | January, 2011

Bachmann’s: “Slavery,” versus Palin’s: “Blood-libel.”

25 Jan

At one time I used to be a Republican, I actually belonged to the Republican Senatorial Inner Circle. Since that time, some ten, or more, years ago, I look at today’s leading GOP potential candidates for office, at least at those candidates who are associated with the Tea Party, and it makes me ashamed to admit that I once was a devout Republican.

It is quite clear to me that Sarah Palin had no idea what was the historic meaning of blood-libel when she use the term, or she would not have used it. Bachmann’s discussion on freedom in this country, followed that her suggestion that by making someone buy something said person does not wish to acquire, one makes such people into slaves, demonstrates that the Minnesota Congress woman does not know her history, nor does she not understand slavery.

Palin and Bachmann may represent the GOP’s “Catfight of the Century,” but so far the two have demonstrated once and once again that neither is qualified to be President, not to even hold any responsible [elected] national office.

Will Israel deal with Iran’s nukes after US lead talks fail again? (Authorized by: www.zyonism.org)

22 Jan

Long ago Ahmadinejad informed the world in general, and President Obama in particular, that he will not seriously negotiate with the United States as long as it has friendly relations with Israel; he never changed that posture, but Obama seems too dense to hear what is being said!
It appears as if the United States, with tacit support by most [Arab] Middle Eastern states, will allow Israel to do its bidding when dealing with Iran’s threat.
Israel options are many.
Sea: Mubarak already allowed Israel to go through the Suez Canal with its East German made submarines to test the Persian Gulf waters.
Air: The Saudis will allow Israel to use its airspace, Iraq airspace, as long as it is still controlled by the US, is also available for Israel, and Jordan is simply too weak, but also afraid of Iran’s nukes to try and stop Israel.
Ground: A number of options are available. First, the Stuxnet which has already caused havoc with Iran’s nuke problem, and will increase with time. Stuxnet, in time, will also disrupt all of Iran’s Command and Control which will reduce its defense capabilities in a very significant manner. Also, there is quite a significant underground movement within Iran that may well support covert action by those who are trying to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat.
All eyes are on Iran’s ability to recover from the first Stuxnet salvo, and depending on their progress, it is likely that Israel will take the appropriate steps to rid the world from Iran’s niclear, and other military threats!

Bachmann versus Palin (Based on Tucson’s aftermath:) Bachnmann – one; Palin – zero!

20 Jan

Congresswoman Bachmann, and ex-Governor Palin are clearly competing for leadership of the GOP, particularly of the Tea Party fraction. Both ladies are extremely attractive and charismatic, but neither seen to posses an overly large amount of cerebral matter, or basic knowledge of the world in which we live.
Bothe Palin and Bachmann are outspoken, neither seems to be too bound by facts or truth, since they are both relatively ruthless politicians.
All that notwithstanding, after the Tucson tragedy, Palin went on the airwaves and continuously made a fool of herself, while Palin was speaking a great deal of nonsense, Bachmann was smart, she kept her mouth shut, in general she kept a low profile.
The opposite postures Bachmann and Palin adopted towards the Tucson event, put Bachmann well ahead of Palin in the race to demonstrate to the general public, and especially to the Republicans, that they posses common sense and can deal with disasters.
In the race towards GOP leadership, the Tucson shooting puts Bachmann well ahead of ex-Governor Palin: Bachmann ONE; Palin ZERO!

Palin’s: “blood-libel;” another step towards ending her political influence?

16 Jan

Using such a despicable term in order to defend herself puts Sarah Palin in one of two groups: Highly ignorant, or totally bigoted (anti-Semitic,) in this case.
I personally don’t think that ex-Governor Palin is an anti-Semite, unless through some strange set of events her Lebanese speech-writer snuck such statement into Palin’s speech…
Palin’s saving grace may be simply to plead ignorance; a valid defense, but one that may well put an end to any chance for national political career.
If the ex-Governor elects to blame a speech-writer that she trusted, and openly, and unceremoniously fire the person. Firing the speechwriter may save some face, but, since one must scrutinize and understand speeches before they are delivered, it is not likely to save Palin’s career as a national political candidate.
The “blood-libel” words, especially when added to some earlier blunders, such as justifying words that she coined, by suggesting that Shakespeare also invented word, may well be enough to remove Sarah Palin from the national political arena,

Crosshairs versus bullseyes: Fox News et al, suggestions that “bullseyes,” and “crosshairs,” are one and the same; are wrong! Crosshairs are a suggestion for the act of shooting, while bullseys are simply targets.

11 Jan

Sean Hannity and many his guests, and also much of Palin staff’s, are trying to suggest that Palin’s use of crosshairs in her communications, direct references to the sights of a gun, are the same as bulls-eye, which only represent a target; are totally irrational. Crosshairs suggest the act of shooting, bull-eyes are simple targets…

Crosshairs suggest action with a rifle, or other fire-arms, and they do incite followers to consider such message as suggestions for shooting!

Palin’s “Tuscon-apology,” accepted! The words:”Crosshairs,” and “2nd amendment solutions,” must be eliminated from political vocabulary.

10 Jan

When Sarah Palin sent her letter of condolences to the family of Congresswoman Giffords before many others did, she did so with good intentions. ex Governor Palin offered her apologies to someone she barely knew, to someone who was only connected to her by her active support of that person’s opponent during the 2010 election. Her opposition to the Congresswoman included her inclusion in her “map with crosshairs,” the map that she published to demonstrate her desire to defeat such candidates.
Sarah Palin appears to be a very descent and compassionate human being. ex Governor Palin is not likely to wish for her followers to [physically] harm her political opponents. The ex Governor of Alaska, however, must have realized that those thousands of admiring followers, that she has, are likely to react to every one of her desires, and to take her words literally, like the Gospel.

ex-Governor Palin must realize that many could have taken her “crosshairs” suggestion, literally, and used the offer of condolences as an apology to the victim, and to the nation. Palin apologized for what perhaps making her crosshairs be a trigger for some followers to include shootings in their political discourse.

Palin’s apology should be accepted even though it might have caused the loss these many lives in Arizona, and to change the United States political landscape. The young lady, that ex Governor Palin is, and others who spoke about “second amendment” solution, simply failed to realize how much impact their words could have on some of their numerous followers.

Bachmann versus Palin: The catfight of the Century.

6 Jan

Two ambitious young ladies, both very attractive, but void of much relevant knowledge, could paint the GOP into a corner from which it may be very difficult to come out unscathed.

Since both Palin and Buchmann are very adept at raising money, and because both represent the Tea Party which was the moving-force behind the GOP win in 2010, Republicans may have a significant conflict on their hands. Now, the fact that the two may well be pitted against one another, the political picture will likely be very cloudy.

Neither Palin, nor Buchmann seem to have either the knowledge, or talent required from a President. In spite of their shortcomings, the GOP will have a major conflict because the two ladies represent not only the Tea Party, but women, a significant force in American politics.

How the GOP will resolve this likely tempest in the Tea Party without causing a significant spilt within their own ranks, is hard to predict. It is, however, quite certain that the two Tea Party creations are not about to exit the scene without leaving a lasting impression on the GOP, as well as on the American political system.

The 2011 Conservatives “Culture of Negativity,” as voiced by Limbaugh Et Al: Part I

2 Jan

Limbaugh’s negativism, or the GOP “Culture of Negativity:”

For a time before Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, Reagan took to the air and was broadcasting the message of America’s conservatives. President Reagan’s message was genuine, it came from the heart, but supported by the mind.

There are those who say that Rush Limbaugh took over Reagan’s role as spokesperson for America’s conservatives, nothing can be further from the truth!

While Ronald Reagan’s message was positive, full of optimism and pride, Rush Limbaugh’s message, and thus of his many followers, is full of negatives, they are preachers of the doom and gloom.

In addition to having over twenty million listeners, Rush Limbaugh has a large number of “clones,” or Rush Limbaugh’s wannabes, if you would. The list is quite large, it is made up mostly of a group of so-called “journalists,” and due to first amendment rights, they are essentially accountable to no one, but to themselves, to their sponsors, but mostly to their audiences. These so-called “media-gurus,” are more entertainers than they are journalists; they are not even political commentators since they seem to put what they perceive to be the desires of listeners, and sponsors, often ahead of their own convictions.

On the left side of the political spectrum, another group, one that counters the Limbaugh wannabes, operates, and functions based on the same politically [miss]guided principles. Many of those on the political left, much like the Limbaugh contingency on the right, are made up of entertainers who function under the guise of being journalists; their main outlets are MSNBC, CNN and untold number of other airwaves outlets, most operating in a similar manner to the Limbaugh’s group that uses primarily Fox News, but also many radio shows.

The two groups of “commentators,” have a number of things in common. The first, and most disturbing, has to with their inability to see anything positive in the opposing groups. They generally seem to overlook that the world is not made up of black-and-white situation; the world is nearly always constructed of various shades of gray.

Another item that is very disturbing is their tendency to revise history, and to make up facts as the move along. Since most of these operatives control the channel of communication that they use (i.e. the microphone, etc.,) it is nearly impossible to challenge them, regardless how far they may be from the truth.

The fact that these media “gurus,” especially those on the right, offer mostly negative messages (by speaking of problems rather than to offer solution,) by broad-brush generalized discussion, which is more based on opinions than on facts, is a dangerous trend. As well-informed, and as well-educated as the American public may be, when untrue, revised, or “facts” made of half-truths, come from the “new-media” (a form of the “bully-pulpit,” if you will,) the information becomes very confusing, and often even dangerous.

In addition to being “revisionists,” many of the media gurus tend to use semantics to maker their points, and to confuse their public. Much of today’s political discourse between right and left has to do with semantics, and is confusing, if not outright misleading. Augmenting semantics as a strategy, with few, if any, exceptions, these media gurus also often bring personal agendas to the table.

The phenomena of Political advocates using the media to spread their message, is not a new approach in democratic societies; it is now, and always was, a part of the political discourse for nations with a democratic form of government. The ease of disseminating information, however, enhances the ability media gurus to spread their views, and to pro-actively shape their public image. Coincidentally, the added ability to improve communication skills that the media gives politicians, often makes “media-politicians,” much more dangerous since they often become more adept at forming and maneuvering public opinion. The fact that live political events can be shown the public, in real-time, is not only new, it is can be a highly effective means for manipulating what may really be happening. What cameras elect to show, and how a commentator chooses to describe events, are but two tools media gurus use to guide the public, and help form its political opinions, and views.

The character of the political arena in the United States, by virtue its ability to cause a great deal of real-time communication, has evolved into a more impersonal environment. Even though some of the images from the past, those such as the ones of cigar smoke-filled back-rooms, may never go away. Secret deals by male dominated politicians do not have the role they did a few years ago. With pocket-size digital cameras, television outlets willing to expose anything that could appear to have negative nature, secrets are nearly impossible to keep. Candidates must be “transparent” on their own since if they try to hide anything of public interest, it will leak out and have much more negative impact than it would have had if it were voluntarily offered by the candidate.

Taking advantage of the ability to communicate, politicians use the true and tried mean of getting public attention, offering negative predictions, the more radical, or outlandish a prediction, the more public attention it is likely to get, providing it is at least somewhat believable. Rumors, even if they are unfounded, often become an effective political tool, as are revised historical facts, or well-disguised made-up statistics. The successful media political gurus are very adept at techniques that are required to “massaging” information so it help their cause, whatever it mat be.

To date, in the 2010, and likely continuing into the 2012 election, the media politicians on the right political spectrum seem to have a significant edge over those on the left. The more successful gurus, such as Limbaugh the leader of them all, offer a number of gimmicks to support their claims. Limbaugh, for example, has a tool by which the percentage of his “facts” are true is measured, using his own yardstick, his facts are nearly always over 90% correct. Glenn Beck, the school dropout, has the Beck University, often brings “academicians” to his show, as he “modifies” historical facts, and manipulates semantics to make his point. The above two effective political media gurus are not unique; most of their cohorts are not much different from these two if they are to be measured by credibility versus the level by which they manipulate facts.

The Culture of [political] negativity:

The 2010 midterm election in the United States, an event that was marked by negativity, was supported by “facts on the ground,” and was delivered by many, but primarily by the so-called “tea party.” The tea party benefited immensely by the right political-media, primarily by Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity of Fox News. Other Fox News personalities such as Bill O’Reilly, and others, helped the tea party but did not quite offer the proactive support that did Beck and Hannity.

Rush Limbaugh the undisputed voice of American political conservatism with an audience of over twenty million, and influence beyond challenge, did support the tea party, but Limbaugh support was more guarded since he desired to maintain a more balanced support from the political right. Rush Limbaugh with his: Limbaugh Institute for Conservative studies is desperate to be respected by academia, especially since he, himself was unable to graduate from any college.

Limbaugh blatant introduction to the “culture of negativity,” came with his “shot across the bow,” as soon as Obama was elected when “the Rush” stated without equivocation that he wanted President Obama to fail!

When suggesting to Limbaugh that the President failing meant the country failure, he responded by suggesting the he meant mostly the President’s policies, but the he nevertheless wanted the President to fail.

A partial list of leading “political media gurus:”

The “Left:”

Rachel Maddow
Bill Maher
Chris Matthew
Laurence O’Donnell
Pete Olderman
Ed Shultz

The “Right:”

Glenn Beck
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Laura Ingrahamm
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O’Reilly

MORE TO FOLLOW