the oswald interview

the retired assassin grimaced

as he tried to explain how he became

a spirit spent on a soul-less paradigm

he wore expensive glasses with both lens cracked

there were bird feathers

a string of baby saliva

and lord knows what else

that stood out on his junk-wire beard.

he had the face of a world

that gave birth to a still-born Africa

he spat that the only way to kill Ecclesiastes

was to write poetry from right to left on

parchment without lines

to change the flow of red rivers, he said.

with a mischievous grin and snicker he quickly added

that he stole the idea from one of his victims and

that he probably got the details mixed up, or left some out.

besides, he mumbled, the sun really doesn’t make a distinction

between whats old and whats new…

Darrell Issa, meet Ronald Reagan

“I’d rather see Jackson in the Cabinet than any of the more than 100 characters in the Reagan-Bush administration who variously have been accused or convicted of wrongdoing, making it, in my view, the most corrupt administration in my [life].”

The quote is from a column that appeared in the October 17, 1996 Chicago Sun-Times. The columnist was Dennis Byrne, who at the time was a member of the Sun-Times editorial board. The quote was actually taken from a column that he had written a few years earlier that was in response to how upset Republicans were by the fact that then-presidential-candidate Michael Dukakis was considering naming Jesse Jackson Jr. to his Cabinet.

It’s no surprise that the GOP engages in the same type of high-minded hypocrisy today and that it’s magnified by sadistic amnesia, or at the very least an insidious form of ignorance. I was reminded of the quote when I heard that Republican Congressman Darrell Issa proclaimed that President Obama was “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.” Of course in the interest of self-serving civility he amended his original comment and said that he was actually referring to the Obama administration and not the President himself.

Mr. Issa’s remarks would be laughable if they were not so disgraceful and shameful in their disregard of history and truth. As Mr. Byrne mentioned in his column there were more than 100 members of the Reagan administration who had been either accused or convicted of wrongdoing.  According to Wikipedia, “The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president at the time.” That bears repeating: Over 138 officials that served in the Reagan administration were either investigated, indicted, or convicted of wrongdoing.

But of course you wouldn’t know that from all of the worship and praise that Reagan received during the recent celebration and commemoration of his 100th birthday that took place across the nation. The media’s hyperbolic hugging of the man was so omnipresent that you could be forgiven for thinking that he had died, been buried, and was resurrected on the third day.  

How can this be? How is it that a man who was at the helm of what has to be considered the most corrupt presidency in U.S. history be worshipped like a god in this country? I believe that the late Walter Karp- who was a journalist, historian, and contributing editor for Harper’s Magazine– can provide some perspective on how such a pervasive scope of malignant amnesty can be granted to the likes of a Ronald Reagan.

An article by Mr. Karp titled “All The Congressmen’s Men: How Capitol Hill Controls The Press” appeared in the July 1989 issue of Harper’s Magazine. Here’s an excerpt from that article:

On February 26, 1987, Reagan’s “special review board,” known as the Tower Commission, issued its long-awaited report on the Iran-Contra scandal. An hour’s reading revealed a President obsessively concerned with, and intensely curious about, Iran-Contra matters, and determined to keep those matters in the hands of close personal advisers. To the press, however, the three members of the commission said exactly the opposite. In public statements, interviews, television appearances, and private meetings with leading editors, they insisted that Reagan was victimized by a “management style” that kept him in complete ignorance of everything blameworthy. That disgraceful lie, which in effect accused the President of his own defense, was endorsed at once by Democratic leaders and duly became the day’s news, as if the report had never been written. When the Iran-Contra committees of Congress issued their report on the scandal, congressional leaders told the press at once that the whole sordid chapter was closed. The press did as instructed and closed the books at once on the most extraordinary abuse of power in presidential history. The report itself was ignored; a wealth of newsworthy information, impeccably “sourced,” sank into journalistic limbo. The report termed Reagan’s private war against Nicaragua “a flagrant violation of the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution,” but that grave charge, worthy of blazing headlines, was scarcely noticed in the press and ignored entirely by the Times. What rule of journalism dictates such base servility to the powerful? No rule save the rule of the whip, which political power cracks over the press’s head.

Again: The press did as instructed and closed the books at once on the most extraordinary abuse of power in presidential history.

Again: The report termed Reagan’s private war against Nicaragua “a flagrant violation of the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution,” but that grave charge, worthy of blazing headlines, was scarcely noticed in the press and ignored entirely by the Times. Mr. Karp is referring to the New York Times, the same paper with the motto “All The News That’s Fit to Print.”

I guess the fact that the president of the United States violated the very Constitution that he swore to uphold was not newsworthy or “Fit to Print”. It appears that the press (i.e. corporate media) has determined that it’s in their best interest to promote the worship of false gods rather than to expose the dangers of such worship. How does that saying about the blind leading the blind go again?

There’s a True Sheriff in Town

 

A couple of days after the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson AZ I was walking through the supermarket where I normally shop, observing the other shoppers going through the mundane motions of daily living and I wondered just how many of them really cared that Gabby, as she is affectionately called, was laying in a hospital bed fighting for her life. I wondered if they had an iota of an inkling of just how volatile the situation is in this country.

An article recently written about a cognitive study done by researchers at The University of Michigan- as reported in the Boston Globe newspaper- highlighted some of the findings of that study. The major point was that:

Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

The article goes on to say:

In light of these findings, researchers concluded that  a defense mechanism, which they labeled “backfire”, was preventing individuals from producing pure rational thought. The result is a self-delusion that appears so regularly in normal thinking that we fail to detect it in ourselves, and often in others: When faced with facts that do not fit seamlessly into our individual belief systems, our minds automatically reject (or backfire) the presented facts. The result of backfire is that we become even more entrenched in our beliefs, even if those beliefs are totally or partially false.

And here’s the cherry-on-top to sum it all up:

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” said Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher of the Michigan study. 

During the news conference following the shooting Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was stating facts when he said:

“I think it’s time as a country that we need to do a little soul-searching, because I think it’s the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business…that may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences.” 

What Sheriff Dupnik was basically saying is that the confrontational, inflammatory, and hateful language present in the political discourse in this country these days has created the type of climate that can produce murderous acts such as the one that occurred in Tucson.

I am one of the many people who agree with him totally and see his candid and heartfelt remarks as heroic, especially in light of the pervasive cowardice and complicity that is being shrouded as objective commentary. Watching pundits and politicians tip-toe around the issue has been a deeply sickening experience. And watching individuals from the right engage in pathological partisanship is both infuriating and terrifying.

Anyone that even suggests that liberals or the left have engaged in the same level of divisiveness as the right is either irreparably ignorant or consciously wicked. The evidence to the contrary is so absolutely overwhelming that the contrast wouldn’t be worthy of discussion if the national psyche wasn’t so grotesquely fractured.

One question that I haven’t heard either asked or answered in the aftermath of the shooting is this: Can anyone truly say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jared Loughner was not influenced in any way by the vitriolic rhetoric that Sheriff Dupnik was referring to? The answer is no, and that should be enough to trigger at least a modicum of human remorse or compassion. But human remorse or compassion is not the reaction coming from the right.

But that’s no surprise. As Mr. Nyhan pointed out, it’s absolutely threatening to admit that you’re wrong, especially when you’re engaged in a titanic struggle for control of the government of the most powerful country in the world. The question is: How can a society realistically hope to survive if facts and truth cease to have value to its citizens, especially those that have power or influence?

Again, thank you Sheriff Dupnik for telling it like it is.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this horrible tragedy, their families, and everyone affected. May God have mercy on this nation.

The world brought to us by WikiLeaks

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”  Thomas Jefferson 1787

This is quite an illuminating quote from one of the founding fathers of this country who, interestingly enough, was often personally and viciously attacked by the press during his time. But apparently he understood something about the nature of man and government that compelled him to maintain the position he held regarding the relationship between the press and government until the day he died.

Another quote that I believe is relevant to any conversation regarding the recent WikiLeaks revelations and the rightness or wrongness of those leaks is attributed to the journalist I.F. Stone. He is quoted as saying that “All governments lie.” I don’t believe that any reasonable person will try to argue with that truth, especially since it’s amply supported by history.

I.F. Stone is cited as the only American journalist that challenged the Johnson Administration’s account of the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took place in 1964. The incident turned out to be a fabrication of an attack on two U.S. warships by the North Vietnamese, but was used as justification for the escalation of U.S. military engagement in the Vietnam War, which claimed the lives of 58,159 U.S. soldiers, an estimated 1 – 3 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, an estimated 200 – 300,000 Cambodians, and an estimated 20 – 200,000 Laotians. All of this has a tragically familiar ring to it, doesn’t it?   

Sticking with the Vietnam relevance to all of this, the video features commentary and historical perspective from Professor Noam Chomsky who, along with Howard Zinn, helped government whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg edit and release the Pentagon Papers, described as the top-secret internal U.S. history of the Vietnam War. In a 1996 New York Times article commemorating the 25th anniversary of the release of the Pentagon Papers it was noted that the papers “…demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance.”

Regarding the Pentagon Papers Professor Chomsky said that they revealed things that “…the American people should have known that the government didn’t want them to know…” and he states that pretty much the same thing is true as it regards the diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks recently released. What is probably the most profound point that Professor Chomsky made during the interview is that “One of the major reasons for government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population.” I take that to mean that if the people find out what dirt the government is really up to they will take it upon themselves to get rid of that government.

The point of debate central to all of the discussion about the leaks is the people’s right to know. What are the consequences of the American people knowing or not knowing about what their government is up to? Take for example what Robert Scheer, editor of Truthdig.com, recently wrote regarding Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. Scheer points out that Senator Feinstein has called for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, “to be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.”

Scheer notes that Feinstein strongly supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and now she “has the audacity to call for the imprisonment of the man who, more than any other individual, has allowed the public to learn the truth about those disastrous imperial adventures—facts long known to Feinstein as head of the Intelligence Committee but never shared with the public she claims to represent.” But later in the article he offers an even greater indictment of Senator Feinstein, stating that “the inconvenient truths she has concealed in her Senate role would have indeed shocked many of those who voted for her. She knew in real-time that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, yet she voted to send young Americans to kill and be killed based on what she knew to be lies. It is her duplicity, along with the leaders of both political parties, that now stands exposed by the WikiLeaks documents.” 

There you have the consequences of the American people not knowing the truth about what it’s government is up to: Dead American soldiers. Dead Iraqi soldiers and civilians. Dead Afghan soldiers and civilians. Add to this those who have been physically, psychologically and emotionally maimed by these wars and only then can one begin to comprehend the level of human devastation that has been wrought by those who have taken it upon themselves to be lords over the people they are supposed to serve.

Today is the 30th anniversary of the death of the music legend John Lennon. One of his most popular songs was Give Peace A Chance, released in 1969 and considered an anthem of the anti-war movement in the 1960s. I’m sitting here thinking that the only way peace can have a chance is to give truth a chance and the only way that will happen is to recognize truth when it is revealed within today’s wilderness of facts. With a nod toward’s Mr. Scheer’s site name, it’s something worth digging for.

Big Pimpin’: No longer easy

“If the word has the potency to revive and make us free, it also has the power to blind, imprison, and destroy.”

Ralph Ellison  

In Ralph Ellison’s book Invisible Man the main character narrates the book as an unidentified black man who is invisible to society because he is seen as a stereotype and not as a living and breathing human being. The opening chapter of the book presents the main character as an exceptional student who was chosen as his high school’s valedictorian and was asked to give his graduation speech- which was based on a paper that he wrote about the struggles of the average black man- to the upper-class white people of the small southern town where he lived.

But before he was allowed to demonstrate the God-given ability and intellect that earned him the title of valedictorian he was forced to engage in a humiliating spectacle that featured him being blindfolded and made to fight nine of his classmates, all of whom were also black and who were also fighting blindfolded.

Mr. Ellison called the spectacle “The Battle Royal” and I believe that the powerful symbolism that he illustrated with that scenario can be easily applied to certain elements in the world of Hip Hop that have existed for some time now. When you reflect back on the MC battles and beefs that have taken place through the years and that have led to people being hurt and killed and consider that the tragedies stemmed from individuals being blinded by fame and fortune (as well as self-hatred), all the while providing a grotesque form of entertainment for many who were far removed from the realities of being black in America (i.e. white fans), I believe that one would be hard-pressed to argue with the analogy. Add to that the denigration and vicarious vixenization of black mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, wives, grandmothers, and lovers, through the use of lascivious lyrics and images in videos and you pretty much have the ingredients for a self-genocidal gumbo.

Which is why when I came across the article in The Wall Street Journal where superstar rapper Jay-Z expressed regrets about the lyrics of one of his biggest hits, Big Pimpin’, I took notice. Here is Jay-Z’s response to a question that he was asked during the interview regarding how it felt to see his lyrics written down on the pages of his book, Decoded:

Some [lyrics] become really profound when you see them in writing. Not “Big Pimpin.” That’s the exception. It was like, I can’t believe I said that. And kept saying it. What kind of animal would say this sort of thing? Reading it is really harsh.

Talk about profound. This very public, and apparently very painful, admission of egregious error is truly stunning, and it’s significance should not be lost in the trash heap of yesterday’s hot topics.

I’m not going to waste time speculating on just how genuinely disgusted Jay-Z is with the lyrics that he conceived that served to glorify what is probably the most vile and dehumanizing vocation there is this side of chattel slavery. Some have already cynically suggested that it’s easy to admit to mistakes when your estimated worth is $450 million and your wife is the beautiful Beyonce’, who is a superstar and icon in her own right.

But this goes far deeper than mistakes. This is about mentality. Rather than speculate on how for real Jay-Z’s regret is I choose to focus on the clout that he has amassed in the music industry and how he can use that clout to undo some of the damage that he and other rappers have done to the psyches and souls that they have affected with their words. As Mr. Ellison indicated, words can revive and make us free. Here’s hoping that Jay-Z doesn’t become invisible to the light that he has shined upon himself. 

Infected by the talking points puppets

As I watched Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Republican Representative Eric Cantor being interviewed on MSNBC last night I got the feeling that I was watching a really bad “B” horror movie, the type that comes on well after midnight when most people are asleep.

These two politicians’ robotic repetition of  inane and unconscionable talking points were such an affront to human intelligence that at one point, while he was interviewing Ms. Bachmann, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was compelled to ask her “Are you hypnotized?” I suppose that he couldn’t ask her if she was high. Of course the video of that exchange has gone viral.

But that’s not the only thing that has gone viral. The Matthews/Bachmann spectacle is indicative of what the political discourse in this country has degenerated to.  Though last night’s results were by and large typical by mid-term election standards, it’s obvious that the contagion of regurgitated rhetoric was prevalent enough to instigate a power shift in Washington that will more than likely result in gridlock over the next two years.

So, in all likelihood the mangled mindset that is illustrated in the “Hi, I’m a Tea Partier” video will play a major role in paralyzing the government of the United States, negatively impacting millions of citizens. Need I say more?

Democracy in crisis: A Terrible Answer

Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies – Ralph Waldo Emerson

It’s amazing how we as human beings have the unlimited capacity to hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see. We can tell ourselves how much we are devoted to the truth, how fair we are, and how much we care about others, but it seems that there is something inside all of us that makes us susceptible to skewed vision that can make us incredibly shallow and self-centered.

Whether the foundation or catalyst for the skewed vision is love, abuse, ego, fear, prejudice, ignorance, etc., our perception becomes reality, no matter how much reality tells us otherwise. And therein lies the danger. 

I truly believe that we are living in dangerous times. There are many who may make light of the present social and political climate in this country, who may dismiss the behavior of some of the candidates that ran for office in the mid-term elections as merely public and shameless displays of incompetence or idiocy, who may look at the occasional incidences of violence as the random acts of a few psychos.

But history attaches a far more frightening potential to these developments that are dominating today’s headlines, which is the point that Professor Chomsky is making in the video. He makes the point that there is so much suffering and disillusionment in American today and people are looking for answers regarding what’s going on. Unfortunately Rush Limbaugh and people of his ilk are providing “an answer.” As Professor Chomsky profoundly puts it, “It’s a terrible answer…but it is an answer.”

In an article that appeared in The Progressive magazine earlier this year, professor Chomsky was quoted as saying, “The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime.”

Just to put the rise of the Tea Party in historical perspective, let’s consider another quote from Professor Chomsky that appeared in that article: “In 1928 the Nazis had less than 2 percent of the vote,” he said. “Two years later, millions supported them. The public got tired of the incessant wrangling, and the service to the powerful, and the failure of those in power to deal with their grievances.”

Something to think about…

The Real Story of the 2010 Election

For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and they that are lead of them are destroyed.

Isaiah 9:16

I believe that it’s safe to say that if the absence of knowledge can lead to destruction, then the absence of truth almost assures it. The video pretty much speaks for itself; but I also want to share a newsletter that I received from Media Matters on Oct. 29, 2010, which I believe will provide relevant narration for the video.

The focus of the newsletter is Fox News and its “…massive influence over the coming elections…” It’s a scathing indictment which takes the position that the emergence of Fox News upon the national consciousness is “…perhaps the most significant development in the country’s political landscape over the past two years.”

And it’s hard to argue with that point, when you consider the present climate in this country and the fact that Fox News has the power to influence millions of citizens “…with shameless smears, lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated stories.” The danger underlying this development goes far deeper than the violation of journalistic ethics.

When you have blatant hatred and bigotry being openly and freely expressed under the guise of objective reporting and malignant messages that are reaching the hearts and minds of millions who, for whatever reason, are receptive to those messages, to simply dismiss all of it as the behavior of a bunch of buffoons and clowns would be error of the highest magnitude.

For those of us who truly cherish the freedoms that we enjoy in this country, that’s a level of error that we cannot afford to engage in…

Media Matters: The real story of the 2010 election By most accounts, the Democrats stand to lose seats in both the House and Senate this coming Tuesday. There are, of course, a wide range of explanations for why this is the case.However, in endeavoring to explain how the GOP has seemingly managed to reverse its political fortunes in such a short amount of time, media outlets would be remiss not to mention one of the most important factors. In fact, we don’t need to wait for Tuesday’s results to pinpoint perhaps the most significant development in the country’s political landscape over the past two years.One of the two major political parties in the country is run by a “news” network.Since President Obama’s inauguration, Fox News has transformed from simply the mouthpiece and oppo research shop of the Republican Party into its headquarters. For the GOP, Fox fundraises, campaigns, gives strategic advice, picks candidates (and then provides them a comfortable platform to reach millions of voters, free of charge), throws and promotes rallies, gets out the vote, and, perhaps most importantly, sets the narrative.They do all of this while continuing their time-honored tradition of tearing down liberal initiatives and politicians with shameless smears, lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated stories. But before we get to Fox’s massive influence over the coming elections, some back-story is necessary. Less than two months after Obama’s inauguration, Fox News senior vice president Bill Shine gave an interview with NPR about how the network’s ratings were soaring at the time. During the interview, Shine noted that some people were “rooting for [Fox] to go away” after the election, but “[w]ith this particular group of people in power right now and the honeymoon they’ve had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?” Fox’s programming has effectively answered Shine’s rhetorical question with a forceful “yes.” Right out of the gate, Fox led the charge against the stimulus, eschewing the views of economists to attack deficit spending and rewriting history to attack FDR and the New Deal. The network was certainly “the voice of the opposition” on health care reform, spewing countless falsehoods about both our broken health care system and the proposals to fix it while promoting disruptions of health care town halls and GOP initiatives to kill reform. And of course, Fox operates as a perpetual dishonesty machine, trotting out a steady stream of overhyped scandals and faux-outrages to dent the administration and Democrats (mustard on Obama’s “fancy” hamburger, anyone?) The network was integral to fostering discontent with Democrats and the administration through their relentless promotion of the Tea Party movement. Fox gave the Tea Party a huge assist last year in the run-up to the original protests, which Fox took ownership of by sending several of their top hosts to throw “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties.” Since then, Fox has shown that there is no Tea Party gathering too small to treat as a news event, and their personalities continue to regularly appear at Tea Party events around the country. But Fox has done far more this cycle than foster an environment conducive to a GOP electoral victory, having assumed a more hands-on role in Republican electioneering. In addition to Fox’s parent company donating $1.25 million to the Republican Governors Association and another million to the GOP-aligned Chamber of Commerce, more than thirty Fox Newsers have supported GOP candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances in at least 47 states, as we detailed in a report this week. While it would be nearly impossible to run through Fox’s influence in all of the individual races this year, their “coverage” of a select few races is indicative of the network’s complete transformation into GOP headquarters. The network tipped its hand for how it would handle covering elections in the “voice of the opposition” era during the run-up to January’s senate election in Massachusetts. Not only did Fox portray Scott Brown as a heroic Founding Father-like figure while smearing his opponent, it also actively aided Brown’s campaign by hosting him repeatedly in the days leading up the election and allowing him to direct viewers to his website so they could find out how to “help with donating and volunteering.” After Brown’s victory, the network was jubilant.   With the successful trial run out of the way, Fox copied the Brown blueprint in several other races around the country. In the Nevada Senate race, Fox has spent months promoting Sharron Angle and attacking Harry Reid. While Angle has mostly refused to grant interviews to news outlets, she has made an exception for Fox. In fact, their welcoming atmosphere led Angle to brag about how “friendly” outlets like Fox help her with fundraising. Fox personalities have also worked overtime to aid her race. Fox contributor Sarah Palin endorsed Angle and her PAC gave $2,500 to the campaign. Fox contributor Karl Rove’s GOP slush fund (aka American Crossroads) has indicated it will invest in GOTV efforts to aid Angle. It is also aired an ad targeting Reid. Fox’s Dennis Miller appeared at an October fundraiser for Angle. And then there’s Dick Morris. Fox’s human ethics scandal has repeatedly fundraised on Angle’s behalf while also touting on-air the anti-Harry Reid group that he’s advising. And as Election Day rapidly approaches, Fox kicked off this week by launching an evidence-free smear of Reid. After Reid’s office responded to Fox’s desperate attempts to create a new “political scandal,” Fox’s flagship news program, Special Report, deceptively quoted a statement from Reid’s office in order to continue to push the story.  And, just in case their blatant efforts to get Angle elected fail, Fox already has their backup plan in place. This week, Fox News has been hyping comically flimsy allegations of “voter fraud” in Nevada. As top Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston explained to a confused Bill Hemmer, the fraud allegations are merely a “preemptive” strike so the GOP can “cry fraud” in the event Angle loses. But a candidate doesn’t even need to be in a close race in order to receive the benefits of FoxPAC support. In Delaware, Fox News has thrown their full weight behind Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, Karl Rove’s short-lived detour questioning O’Donnell’s qualifications for office notwithstanding. Rove quickly got with the program and endorsed O’Donnell. He was joined by fellow Fox personalities Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin. The network’s hosts have heaped praise on O’Donnell while playing dumb in order to claim her opponent has admitted to being a “bearded Marxist.” While it would be difficult to list all of the effusive O’Donnell praise, one characteristic outpouring of affection came from Fox Business host Stuart Varney, who labeled her precisely the kind of “new face, new blood that we need to get in there.” Following in Angle’s footsteps by bragging about the love she gets from Fox, Christine O’Donnell told GOP insiders at a strategy meeting that she has “got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys.” A host who was concerned about maintaining any credibility may have bristled at being portrayed this way, but Sean Hannity has long-since demonstrated his lack of concern for ethics. Far from being upset, Hannity is still welcoming O’Donnell on his show. The Ohio gubernatorial race features Republican candidate John Kasich, who just so happens to be a former Fox News host. Kasich repeatedly used his platform as a Fox host to position himself for a run, and continued to appear regularly as a Fox contributor and host from the time he announced that he was paving the way for a gubernatorial run in March 2008 until he officially declared his candidacy on June 1, 2009. Since declaring his candidacy, Kasich has continued to reap benefits from his cozy relationship with the network. Several Fox News personalities campaigned for him and openly root for him. Two Fox hosts – Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee — have told Kasich that they “love” him. Hannity has appeared at a fundraiser for Kasich, invited Kasich onto his show to plug his website, and reportedly “pledged to give $10,000 to Kasich’s campaign should he run, as well as have his wife give another $10,000.” Rupert Murdoch and his wife also donated $10,000 each to Kasich, and Murdoch initially explained News Corp.’s donation to the RGA as resulting from his “friendship” with Kasich. After Kasich’s opponent (accurately) criticized Fox as a “propaganda network” that is “committed to getting Republicans elected,” Bill O’Reilly responded by attacking him for “whining.” Those are just three races. I haven’t even detailed Fox’s love for “rock star” Marco Rubio, or the fact that Glenn Beck (along with the rest of the network) has transformed his show into a GOTV operation for the GOP. So when reporters sit down to explain the results of next Tuesday’s election, it’s important that they include the role of Fox News in shaping the outcome. And if you think the last few months were bad, just wait until Tuesday’s election wraps up and attention shifts to 2012 and the GOP’s presidential primary. Fox currently employs no fewer than five potential contenders for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, and things could get awkward as they try to figure out which of their friends they want to help elect. It looks like FoxPAC is just getting started. This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Ben Dimiero, a research fellow at Media Matters for America.

Black Dating in a Hip Hop Society

It might be wise to attach a disclaimer to this post: The views expressed in this video are not necessarily the views of The Muse Minefield (namely me). And there is some explicit language.

I simply see the video as a creative look at the complexities of the black male/female relationship today, particularly as it pertains to the Hip Hop generation. But after all is said and done it’s one man’s (who refers to himself as GQnupe) perspective that, from what I can tell, has attracted some attention and has sparked spirited debate.

Sometimes debate is good. Here’s hoping that it leads to more meaningful dialogue than it does deepening division. Hey, we can always hope…right?

Kanye West: Running away from the killer jackass

Sometimes the most precious lessons that we learn in life are the ones that almost destroy us. And if we don’t properly appreciate those near-death experiences (whether they be physical, spiritual, professional, etc) and learn from them, there’s always the possibility that the death that was delayed will burst forth like a violent echo that proclaims us as fools.

Without question Kanye West is a brilliant and gifted artist. I just finished watching his “Runaway” video on MTV, and also a portion of the interview that followed. Kanye has been blessed with extraordinary vision, along with the ability and fearlessness to express his vision in a way that inspires many. I truly respect that about him.

But here’s the thing about vision, especially here in America. Even the greatest vision is vulnerable to market forces, and having vision doesn’t necessarily assure your viability.

According to an article that I read today, in reference to the 2009 MTV VMA – Taylor Swift incident: “There is some evidence that West’s public appeal has not rebounded since VMA-gate. A recent analysis by e-Poll Market Research showed the percentage of people surveyed who currently have a positive view of West sits at 16 percent- down from a high of 58 percent in 2004.” 

That’s what some people refer to as falling from grace. It was the Taylor Swift incident that prompted President Obama to call Kanye a “jackass” in off-record remarks immortalized by ABC’s Terry Moran through Twitter. When the President of the United States calls you a “jackass” and most of the world nods in agreement, that’s a clue that there are things in this world that are bigger than any vision that you can ever hope to conceive.

To his credit Kanye has publicly apologized to Taylor Swift. But there are a couple of quotes in the article that indicate that he still hasn’t properly appreciated his near-death experience. He was quoted as saying, “I realized my importance only after my position was savagely taken away from me.” But as MTV personality Sway stated during a phone interview for the article, “Nobody took away his career…What they took away was his reality.”

We have to be careful about creating our own reality. Another quote from Kanye in the article: “Blogs are where people who could never be you try to tell you how to do you.” That’s real deep, Kanye. But the last time I checked the President doesn’t even have a blog…

Welcome to the Circus: Jimmy McMillan

Even a circus has its serious moments, where the entertainment is underlined by the dangers associated with acts that thrill and excite us. I have no idea who this guy is, where his candidacy is going, or what may be revealed about him down the road.

But I do know that the danger underlying this latest viral sensation is that the issues that he is bringing up, the issues that really matter to everyday people whose voices are being drowned out and who are also dying from the condition of being unheard, will merely continue to serve as props for the same old tired acts…

June Cleaver and A Little Black Boy in K Town

As I remember how I used to enjoy sitting in front of the television and watching the escapades and adventures of Beaver Cleaver on Leave It To Beaver when I was a young boy I’m also trying to recall exactly how it felt.

I can’t imagine that my experience of growing up in “K-Town” on the West Side of Chicago could provide much in the way of establishing a brotherhood with “the Beave.” But I guess the fact that he was a little kid putting up with his parents was enough for us to bond spiritually. There are certain things that are universal, I suppose.  

Something that I do remember is that I never saw Beaver getting a spanking or whipping. Nor did I ever see Beaver’s parents, Ward and June Cleaver, argue. Now, that was very unlike my personal experience. Don’t get me wrong: I was far from abused and grew up in a household filled with love and laughter, and I’m blessed that I’m able to enjoy that same love and laughter today. It’s just amazing how sanitized television was back then.

Actually, Leave It To Beaver was so sanitized that during it’s 5-year run only one African-American had a speaking role, and that was in only one episode, which aired during the show’s last season in 1963; an African-American actress by the name of Kim Hamilton played the role of a maid in that episode.

But hey, over time I’ve discovered that things are not always as they seem. It could very well be that June Cleaver and the maid bonded off camera in ways that people could never have imagined back then. Just check out June breaking it down to the brothas in the video.

Now that I think about it, I may have seen her driving through K-Town during the ’68 riots…

Wow, did I actually just see that on a mainstream talk show???

It’s been my experience that rarely do you see radical analysis of the political landscape take place on mainstream news or talk shows. In this country we’re usually subjected to just enough constipated conversation, distorted debate, and contrived conflict to allow us to happily wallow in our ideological or indifferent or indecisive slop.

That’s why when I saw this segment of Morning Joe earlier today it was somewhat refreshing.  It was both delightful and depressing, as well as politically incorrect, commentary on just how ugly, dangerous, and destructive politics can be. For all of us.

Regardless of your politics, Dylan Ratigan’s “rant” raised questions that it wouldn’t hurt to have answers to:

What is the difference between Wahhabism and Islam? And if there is a distinction, why isn’t that distinction being made by the U.S. government and in the mainstream media, or by Muslim leadership, when those wars are being discussed or analyzed during public discourse?

Why is the U.S. at war against Iraq and Afghanistan, and not Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers originated from, which was acknowledged by Saudi Arabia?

What exactly is the nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi governments?

Whether you are Republican or Democrat or Independent, conservative, liberal or progressive, whether you are Red, White, Blue, Black, or Green, there are certain questions and answers that should be standard requirements for debate just as driver’s licenses are required for us to drive.

After all, it’s all about the common welfare of Americans and saving lives- especially those of the soldiers and civilians in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan- isn’t it?

The Cigar Guy Am I

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that we are living in a world where 15 minutes of fame can easily be forced upon us, whether we want it or not, whether we like it or not. The recent web craze of trying to figure out who the “Cigar Guy” was in the crowd at the Ryder Cup tournament is just the latest incident to drive this point home in a frightening manner.

I say that it’s frightening because, while there are those who crave attention no matter what the cost (choose any reality tv show), there are many of us who would rather not be exposed to viral fame.

It’s gotten to the point where you can be out anywhere, minding your business, acting goofy and having fun, or doing the most mundane and boring thing imaginable, and wind up having your image Photoshopped all over the globe, onto images that you might not want to be associated with. How crazy is that?

Sure, fame might appear to be fun from afar, but when it comes knocking on your door unexpectantly, it could turn out to be a totally different animal. Just ask Steven Holmes.

That’s the 19-year-old kid living in England whose life was turned upside down when megastar rapper Kanye West decided to follow him on Twitter, calling Steven “The Chosen One,” because he would be the only person that Kanye would follow.

It was a megathrill for Steven…for a few moments. You know what they say about fame, how fleeting it can be? Well, in this case the script was flipped: Steven fled from fame. Once it got out that Steven was Kanye’s only Twitter pal, Steven was overwhelmed by requests for interviews from the media and constantly hounded by his old and newfound Twitter pals, desperate to touch the hem of Steven’s viral garment. Steven wanted no part of the fame, saying that it was “vacuous,” and that “not everybody wants to be famous.”

You can also ask Steve Bartman about how it feels to catch a case of viral fame. If you can find him. Back in 2003 Steve made the mistake of trying to catch a foul ball at a playoff game between the Chicago Cubs and the Florida Marlins. At the time it happened there was a widely held view that he prevented the Cubs outfielder- Moises Alou- from catching the ball to get the batter out.

When that didn’t happen and the Cubs went on to lose the game, Steve was basically blamed for extending the curse on the Cubs that has prevented them from winning a World Series in over 100 years.

The next day Steve’s name and face were all over the place. He became the most reviled and despicable human being to ever walk the earth. It was astonishing. (If the U.S. government really wanted to find Osama Bin Laden, they should have enlisted the most rabid Cub fans to search for him during that time period, telling them that Steve and Osama plotted the Cubs playoff collapse. There wouldn’t be any talk of Bin Laden today.)

But seriously, going after a foul ball at a baseball game turned out to be a life-altering moment for Steve Bartman, in a very bad way.

During a segment of the NBC Today Show devoted to the Cigar Guy craze (Wow), the Cigar Guy- now identified as a London investment analyst named Rupesh Shingadia- was quoted as saying that he was “embarrassed and overwhelmed” by all of the attention he was receiving.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Steve Bartman was sitting somewhere saying to himself, “Really? You have no idea…”