Response to 'Desperately Attacking Susan'

After reading a fellow classmate, Amber Quinn, ‘s blog, “Desperately Attacking Susan”, it is somewhat unsettling to see that the questions she raised nearly two weeks ago are still unanswered.  In fact, the answers seem even murkier.  The four Americans are still dead, but the question people in this country are asking is not, “How do we prevent such a thing from happening again?” or even, “Who is to blame for this?” but “How do we hold Susan Rice accountable for reporting what she knew at the time?”

It is so sad that the deaths of the four people in Benghazi have become so politicized and contorted into nothing more than an arguing point for both sides of the aisle.  This clip of Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Rice criticizing Fox News pretty much sums up the whole debacle. 

 

The deadly but relatively small (and unfortunately rather routine) terrorist attack happened to occur mere days before the U.S. presidential election, and therefore became fodder for a desperate GOP to attack the incumbent.  Ms. Rice was merely relaying the info she had about the attacks.  The information turned out to be false, but she did not deliberately mislead the public.  She would have no reason to do so.  It is unfair to punish her for doing her job as best she could.  Even John McCain, who is one of the leadarbitrators in the movement to block her nomination for Secretary of State,confirmed allegations that the attack on the Embassy was a spontaneous spill-over from anti-U.S. protests (rather than a well-planned, carefully orchestrated assault).

  These efforts to discredit Ms. Rice and prevent her nomination are completely biased and politically motivated.  The GOP is only seeking to block Obama at every chance they get, and Susan Rice is caught in the crossfire.  It is a shame that an innocent woman may lose a well-earned chance at a promotion simply out of an attempt at political revenge.

Petraeus Complex

                With the U.S. Postal Service facing bankruptcy, a potential “fiscal cliff” forcing Congress to move quickly or face dire national consequences, and a sudden surge of fighting in the Gaza Strip, it’s no surprise that the news story that has been dominating headlines for the past two weeks has been a sex scandal.  Time and time again, Americans have shown that despite what major events may be happening around us, nothing enthralls us like a sex scandal.  There is just something the private affairs between two consenting adults that titillates us so much that we are willing to sit through weeks and weeks of over-coverage and over-analysis of events transpired, regardless of how trivial the matter is.  Granted, it is somewhat of an issue when the politician is engaging in illegal sexual affairs, such as with Congressman Mark Foley (underage boys) and former Governor Eliot Spitzer (prostitutes), but when the relationship is legal, between consenting adults, and has zero influence on the job the politician performs, it should be a non-issue.  While the affairs of people with political careers, such as General Petraeus, Bill Clinton, and Mark Sanford were all extra-marital, the offense was a domestic issue, and should not have made national news.  In no way did these men’s transgressions influence the way they perform their job.  At virtually no other job could a person face termination because they cheated on their wife.

                Yet some allege that the director of the CIA having an affair does compromise our nation’s security.  The only support of this is two months ago, when Paula Broadwell (Petraeus’ mistress) mentioned during a speech at Denver University that the Benghazi attack was believed to be perpetrated as an attempt to free several Libyan prisoners being held by theC.I.A.  This story has not been confirmed by any other sources and the CIA denied her claims. 

                That is the only situation in which some believe Ms. Broadwell may have gained sensitive knowledge, and even President Obama made a statement last week that there was “no evidence” that any classified information was disclosed that could compromise national security.  Yet despite the lack of any negative effect on the nation or Petraeus’ performance as director of the CIA, he was still forced to step down, and Obama still had to devote significant time and focus away from dealing with Congress on the impending “fiscal cliff”.  With so many critical decisions and discussions to be made on the econonoy with such a sharp deadline, the last thing we need is more distractions.  And yet another distraction is exactly what we wanted – the Petraeus ‘scandal’ has dominated political conversations on the news, political talk shows, editorial pages, and the blogosphere.  It seems to be the only news story people are talking about.  I guess if we want people to start paying attention to foreign affairs and the economy, we need to find a way to tie sex into it.

Politically Incorrect

     After reading fellow classmate Amber Quinn's recent blog about a situation in Arizona last week, I am almost ashamed at how I find this article as amusing as she does.  While it is appalling - a woman ran over her husband and father of her unborn child simply because he did not vote - I first heard the story on morning radio, where the DJs were cracking jokes about the story the entire time.  While the individual situation is upsetting ( the man is currently in critical condition and his wife is facing hard jail time) the truly terrible part is what this country is coming to.  Politics in America has been reduced to a contentious and divisive screaming match where political discourse is no longer an opportunity to share ideas but an excuse to behave selfish and erratic.
     During the election I read an article about how many people (myself included) were having to block and even unfriend people on Facebook for their constant political posts.  I even heard of people refusing to speak to certain family members based on their political standpoint.  During the months of September and October political bickering reached such a fervent boiling point that it consumed nearly every conversation on the airwaves and our personal lives.  Suddenly every exchange of dialogue I encountered was such a heated disagreeable debate that I opted to avoid conversations altogether.
       Things did not get much better after the election.  Once again Facebook was lit up with hateful messages, the spiteful conversations took place between sore losers and gloating winners, and each half of the country blamed the other half for ruining this nation.  In at least one case, someone tried to murder their own spouse.  Over an election.
     Frankly, I don't see enough difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney to make that big of a deal over anything.  Sometimes I feel all of this political hullabaloo is just an excuse for some people to act immature and irrational.  Politics gives people a scapegoat to blame their problems on, an enemy to project their anger towards, and a justification for them to be angry.  By serving as a vent for people's personal problems, politics has a way of bringing out the worst in us.

The Bias-Sphere

     One of my favorite protest signs I saw during the Occupy Movement (hey remember that?) last year read “My Comedy Channel” next to the Fox News logo, and “My News Channel” by Comedy Central’s logo.  The sign is referencing Fox News’ reputation as being an untrustworthy and often deceitful news source, while many people have turned to satirical programs such as “The Daily Show” and “Colbert Report” for their information.  Though the news programs on Comedy Central are meant to be humorous, and often admittedly lean to the lefter side of politics, many still find it preferable to Fox News, which is constantly being reprimanded by PolitiFact and other fact-checking outfits for its biased and often misleading presentation of news.  Yet ever since Public Policy Polling has been conducting a survey asking which news source people trust the most (and watch the most), Fox News has consistently come in at number 1.

                However, among the majority of news grazers who prefer Fox News, nearly 80% self-identified as Republicans.  The second most trusted and watched news outlet was MSNBC, which has often been accused of having a more liberal political lean.  Not surprisingly, many of the viewers who trusted MSNBC the most are Democrats.  CNN, which has often been lauded for its accurate and unbiased reporting, was considerably less watched, and considered less trustworthy among viewers.

                There was a time when the most accurate and fair news source would be the more preferential choice.  Now, however, people don’t care about truth and accuracy as much as they want to listen to news that coincides with what they believe.  People only want to hear what they want to hear, and as the news sources play into this, peoples’ source of information has become more polarized than politics itself.

                With the influx of the internet, verifying the accuracy of a news event has become even more difficult.  With a nearly endless supply of news sources out there, each with their own agenda, it has become almost impossible to receive a news story without any bias.  Never was this more apparent than the most recent election.  Despite being a relatively close race, both  candidates were predicted to win by landslides, depending on which news source you used.  Fox News had all but called the victory for Romney months ago, whereas major news sources such as Huffington Post and MSNBC had forecalled Obama coming in with an easy re-election.

                People’s intake of current events should come from reliable and unbiased sources.  As their information becomes increasingly one-sided, their views on issues will also become more strongly aligned to a particular viewpoint.  While Americans become deeper and deeper entrenched into divisive political camps, they grow farther and farther away from finding middle ground.  Being unwilling to compromise and unable to form a moderate opinion on any issue, many political decisions will end in stalemate. 

                This most recent election was one of the most vicious and negative contests in American history.  Bitter arguments raged between voters, neither side willing to see things from their opponents’ point of view.  As news media continues to sensationalize and polarize their reporting, this country will sink farther and farther away from getting things done.

SAVE our country

                During the past few weeks, political conversation has been dominated by the presidential debates.  The conversations have covered some trivial topics (bayonets, binders, and Big Bird) as well as key issues such as foreign policy and civil rights, but all any of us really care about is the economy.  The economy broke right before Obama took office, and while no one can deny it is improving, it is recuperating at a slow pace.  Some feel Obama has done a great job in turning the situation around, others feel Romney could do better, but we all agree it still needs to get better.

                Some citizens who are actually trying to contribute to an upswing in the economy have come together to form SAVE (Strengthening America’s Values and Economy).  These citizens, numbering in the millions, are comprised of over 1,900 organizations, ranging from faith-based organizations to small businesses, who all share a common goal: to make sure that Congress attempt to fix the budget in a responsible manner.  The group has united and signed a letter to Congress, urging that any budget plan meet 4 guidelines: 1) protect low-income citizens 2) promote job growth 3)increase revenues from fair sources and 4)responsibly make cuts in wasteful Pentagon and military spending.  The group’s goal is that as our economy is rising, we avoid making the same irresponsible mistakes that landed us in the mess in the first place and affected the nation’s lower and middle classes the worst.

                The letter to Congress has set its sights on tax cuts set up by the Bush administration, and proposed that instead of renewing the plan, we lower the tax cut percentage.  They point out that the average millionaire still receives an average of over a million dollars in tax cuts, and propose a new tax rate that would lower the average tax cut for millionaires to $20,130 (still 20 times larger than the average citizen pulling in $45,000).  The group also opposes our nation’s large, wasteful military spending, calling for cuts to the Pentagon.  Under SAVE’s plan, the Pentagon would cut millions from its budget, and as the letter points out, still be receiving more funding than it did at the height of the Cold War.

                However, the organization’s main goal, is to protect the nation’s lower-class citizens, whom are most affected by the downswing in the economy, and continue to be trampled by Congress’s attempts to fix the budget.  The letter from SAVE strongly pleads for Congress to make their cuts more responsibly and opposes some the cuts to domestic programs such as cutting WIC nutrition aid to over 750,000 women and children, cuts to retirees that left over 734,000 without heat, and reducing educational assistance to 1.8 million low-income children.  The bulk of the letter focuses on how our nation cannot recover by making our poor even poorer and placing cuts on our children’s education.

                In her editorial “Congress Still Has Time To Get It Right”, Deborah Weinstein comes out strongly in favor of SAVE’s plan, and hopes Congress will take it into consideration.  I do too.  While the group calims no political affiliation, it does have a strong liberal bias.  Ms. Weinstein, SAVE, and I both agree that this nation’s military budget is unnecessarily high, and ridiculously wasteful.  To get our economy back on track, we need to start targeting these improvident and extravagant expenses before making cuts in necessary programs such as education.  Both Ms. Weinstein and the letter to Congress make excellent claims about how it does not make sense to decrease spending on ensuring our nation’s lower income receive enough food and shelter while giving billions of dollars in tax breaks to the nation’s wealthiest two percent.  This op-ed piece’s goal is to garner support for the group, and while definitely aimed at a more liberal audience, hopefully citizens from both sides of the political spectrum can agree that as Congress makes delicate decisions about our nation’s budget, they have a responsibility to do so ethically, and avoid the mistakes that led to its collapse in the first place.

BOOO! - There's Atheists in America!!

With Halloween approaching, I recently was looking for a good scare.  So I visited the Fox News Opinions Forum and took a tour of this virtual house of Horrors -through distorted perceptions about Obama, shocking revelations of perceived libeal bias in every aspect of our culture, and past all of the monsters of blatant racism and chauvinism.  However, nothing had the columnists and commentors more scared than a recent study conducted by Pew Research that showed Christianity is on the decline in America.

                According to the data, the number of Ameicans who claim no religious affiliation, or “nones” as they are now referred to, has jumped from 15% in 2007 to roughly 20% in only five years.  That means one out of every five American citizens do not claim to participate in any religion.  Not surprisingly, nearly half of those 20% are under thirty, and will most likely not take up a religion as they age, indicating that the number of non-believers will only increase.  To many members of the GOP, this is scarier than any Halloween costume or scary movie.

                While a study about the rise of secularism may not seem like a major national issue, columnist Fulton Waterloo believes it to be the beginning of the end for thiscountry.  Though he claims to be a moderate, the column struggles to appear non-bias by bad-mouthing liberals for three paragraphs and then devoting two sentences to lightly criticizing conservatives.  He even finds a way to cram in a tangent ranting against Obama and his “liberal morality”.  The article is preaching to the coir, as it is intended for an audience already terrified of young people and their progressive sense of morality, so the author does not have to rely much on presenting facts as much as fear-mongering and please to emotion.

                This article is perfect late-October reading, because the tone of this essay can be summed up as “scared.”  Mr. Waterloo is terrified of the future America he envisions: an atheist president banning the practice of Christianity, and an outright moral collapse of citizenry.  He even feels that these “nones” are almost one big conspiracy, following a contrived set of tenets of their own creation.  He states, “However, upon closer inspection, the "nones" do believe in a system of their own manufacturing: gay unions are of equal merit to traditional marriage; the humanity of the unborn child is not recognized”.  He feels secularism is a religion of its own, with a crazy set of beliefs  its devotees fervently adhere to, and their system poses a threat to the rest of the country.

                However, what frightens Mr. Waterloo most about these “nones” is their perceived lack of compassion – a trait he shockingly compares to the conservatives.  He feels that the only reason people do nice things for others is because a Higher Power tells them to, and without a set of religious values commanding people to behave with compassion, people will simply selfishly resort to doing whatever they want and completely disregarding those less fortunate to them.  In keeping with his thesis statement that the nones represent the worst traits of both parties, Waterloo equates this lack of concern for the impoverished and downtrodden to the Right’s characteristic disregard for the lower classes.

                Like most fears, Mr. Waterloo’s none-ophobia stems from a lack of understanding.  Non-believers are not striving to take over the country and enforce their secular ways on those with belief.  Despite representing 20% of the population, there are still no atheist members of the Supreme Court, only one atheist member of Congress, and an atheist president still seems unlikely in the near future.  The nones are still a minority, and they have no intention of taking over, they simply wish to co-exist with the rest of the population.  But to some, like Mr. Waterloo, anyone in this free nation who subscribes to a belief system different than their own poses a threat.  And that is really scary.

Affirmative Action at Risk

              Texas involved in a race scandal?  No way!  Once again, the Lone Star State finds itself embroidered in heated controversy over race relations.  This time, the issue arise from the liberal capital of Texas, Austin.  The University of Texas went before the United States Supreme Court last Wednesday to defend their policy of questioning race in freshman applications to the school. 

                Abigail Fisher, a white female, claims she is the victim of discrimination from the University, as her application was denied in 2008, presumably because of her race.  The University defends its program of recruiting new students based on their race to promote diversity within its campus.             However, the conflict has escalated to the Supreme Court, and depending on the ruling, status of affirmative action in general hangs on the line.  A federal appeals court upheld Texas’ decision to bias their applications based on race, in accordance with a previous Supreme Court decision in 2003.  However, some of the more conservative members, including Chief Justice Roberts, have expressed an interest in repealing affirmative action. 

                However the ruling against University of Texas turns out, it will have major implications for affirmative action in our schools and workplaces.