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.

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.