Web Commonerprogressive politics, social commentary, and ramblings on pop culture

One day after FOX News released their latest findings inferring that “Americans” do not want Barack Obama’s healthcare plan, FOX News figureheads, Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace, jumped on the air to do some usual fact-twisting, spin-laden analysis, asking why the White House might be snubbing their network in its latest press junket to promote the president’s proposals …

According to O’Reilly, FOX News is the only network today that really matters, thanks mostly to a mysterious migration of so-called “independent” voters recently to Fox’s viewership. In the interview, O’Reilly and Wallace do their best to pretend that the network’s coverage is fair, yet Wallace appears surprisingly unrestrained while making statements like the Obama administration is the “biggest bunch of crybabies” that he ever saw, or blatantly circumventing fact by stating that the number of participants in the recent 9/12 tea-party protests in Washington DC added up to a “million, or hundred thousand, thousands, or tens of thousands.”

Almost in the same breath, O’Reilly attempts to drive home the point that the so-called “power shift” in the media is now with FOX News and talk radio, all because so-called “independents who make the calls” are, apparently, in bed with a news organisation that consistently distorts factual data, intentionally manipulates its audience, and injects subjective opinion into every story that it reports. Of course, what O’Reilly neglected to point out is that the Republican party is in shambles, desperately seeking to separate itself from the party’s pathetic reputation garnished within the last ten or so years, and undergoing an elusive transformation that gives way to a new, so-called “independent” mindset.

By redefining themselves as Independents, disoriented Republican dissidents see an opportunity to save face after enduring eight solid years of embarrassing let-downs under a leader who originally gave them great hope and inspiration. In reality, these so-called “independents” continue to think very much like old school Republicans, which means that they still need to rely heavily on their beloved news network to act as an official microphone for their new and developing political branch. Fortunately for them, specific, strategically placed personalities at FOX are available to serve as official spokespeople for the new, smoke and mirrors faction, despite the reality of their audiences being little more than recycled Republican viewers.

Traditionally, professional journalists steered clear of announcing party affiliation in a more objectively driven industry, holding to an unwritten rule that a journalist might project bias into coverage by revealing their personal views concerning specific policy issues. This is precisely why Bill O’Reilly makes it a point to highlight Chris Wallace’s past credentials, siting 11 years with ABC News, and subsequently mentioning Wallace’s biological father, 60 Minutes staple, Mike Wallace, all to link the FOX News Sunday host’s connections and experience to his assumed ability to host a “fair and balanced” television news show in 2009. Of course, the game is not what it used to be, and broadcast news has come a long way since the days of Mike Wallace and the halfway-objective journalist. Today, personal opinion-driven talking heads rule the 24-hour news circuit and, of course, FOX played a tremendous role in creating that environment.

One of the most prominent and popular characters to embrace so-called “independent” voters at FOX News is Glenn Beck, who took up full time residence there after moving his freakish road show to the network following a two-year stint with CNN. Launching one of the most strange and all-together scary live broadcasts in American television news history, Beck regularly uses the medium as an outlet to spew outlandish conspiracy theories that target the Obama administration and their so-called socialist agenda. He often touts his audience as one that represents all political persuasions, encouraging them to set aside petty political differences, and calling them to arms in a fight to take back a corrupt government. Of course, behind the scenes, Beck is well aware of the fact that his core following primarily consists of bitter, paranoid, and virile Republicans and Republican outcasts frustrated with corruption and bureaucracy, which actually came to a head at the hight of the previous administration. Of course, there is also another sliver of his audience who likely represent nomadic passerby’s, popping in and out on occasion, hoping to witness that predictable moment of self-sacrifice when Beck finally goes off the deep end.

Meanwhile, those who isolate themselves as independents on their voter registration cards are moving away from traditional broadcast news outlets, along with progressives, and taking residence online instead, mostly out of frustration for a devolving medium in television. Unfortunately, the people left behind are those who demonstrate a stubborn unwillingness to embrace new technologies, and subsequently have little choice but to follow FOX’s coverage as competing network ratings fall and content suffers as a consequence. Their pockets ere empty, and they see a government spending unprecedented amounts of money in a sweeping quest to restore the country’s economy. They turn to so-called independent voices like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, or Chris Wallace, and what they hear in those voices, no matter how fantastical or irresponsibly manipulative, stirs emotions into patriotic action and renewed political vibrancy.

Spending a good portion of my day tracking an erroneous article about a new Fox News poll is not my idea of a good time, but sometimes a person has to bite the bullet and endure a little self-induced torture, simply to get the necessary results that they’re so desperately seeking. Yesterday, I found myself halted half-way through a daily ritual of scanning the latest headlines on Google News after coming across a new poll indicating, “Americans Prefer Current System to Obama’s Health Care Plan.” This should be interesting, I thought, and rashly clicked the link.

As expected, the site brought me deep into the heart of FoxNews.com’s political section and their so-called “fair and balanced” coverage of today’s news. I read the article, by Dana Blanton, which concludes that a poll released by FOX News on Thursday, September 17, found that, “Most Americans see no upside for their family in the health care reforms being considered in Washington and don’t believe President Obama when he says his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit.” Given the detailed wording of these and other claims, I decided to let the raw data speak for itself.

Of course, the raw data was not available, and neither was the full poll results. In fact, clicking these links on the page got the following disparaging result:

Page Cannot Be Found

Okay, maybe Safari simply had a brain freeze, so I clicked the ‘back’ button and tried the links again. Still nothing, and at this point, the blood started boiling inside my head. Isn’t it irresponsible for a major news network to publish fact-based claims based on polling data that is not available to the reader? This point of contention was enough to propel me into registering at the news conglomerate’s website for the first time and expressing my reservations concerning the report:

by webcommoner[Sep 17, 2009 5:01:02 PM]
Surprise, surprise … links to view the “full poll results” and “raw data” explaining who, exactly, was polled are dead. Page Cannot Be Found How convenient, and how incredibly irresponsible. 5:00 PM EST

I checked back regularly throughout the day to monitor changes, even reinstating my search on Google News several times, but to no avail. Each time that I returned to the site, the raw data and poll results links remained broken, and more and more commenters saw it fit to note this obvious indiscretion. In fact, one of the last comments on the thread posted by edrivcol2112 at 3:47 AM on September 18, still demonstrated Fox’s indifference to these complaints, despite its grammatic fault:

“Fix the link showing the poll numbers are admit this is a fabrication, Fox News.”

The following morning, a subsequent Google News search yielded even more FOX News Poll stories, all based on the same raw data that was inconveniently absent the day before. Of course, this time, the “Americans Prefer Current System to Obama’s Health Care Plan” story linked to a new and separate page, finally making the poll data available to readers, but apparently ditching the comments that previously accompanied the story. Buried somewhere within the depths of FOX News obscurity, I thought, is a page with accompanying comments that question the story’s validity based on data missing from their website, and only a handful of people know.

Having a quick look at the results, which are now available, I scanned through the raw data and found information that is likely typical of a “fair and balanced” FOX News poll, including nothing that indicates whether or not their sample is random or where the telephone numbers that they used to perform the poll actually came from. Then, of course, there is a significantly high percentage of Independents interviewed, which seemed strange given the size of that party’s constituency, and a proportionately skewed ratio of blacks to whites questioned, which is concerning given the fact that the poll addresses issues of race. Finally, it seems convenient, at the very least, that blacks and whites appear to be the only ethnic groups available when the poll was conducted, which reflects data dating back to January, 2009.

A scan of the questions asked indicate a gross manipulation of verbiage, likely used to evoke emotion and provoke specific answers, like when interviewers ask, “how much attention do you feel Congress pays to what regular Americans think when it decides what to do.” Shouldn’t pollers excuse themselves from injecting subjective classifications concerning who is and who is not a “regular” American? Or, how about when FOX asks its subjects if, “you are more likely to: Vote for the Democrat to help Barack Obama pass his policies and programs,” in the next congressional election. Project much? The question that takes the cake, though, is the one that asks, “what do you think the president should be spending more time on right now – fixing the economy or reforming heath care,” as if he is unable to do both at the same time or, better yet, that both are not linked. I could go on, but you get the point.

Then, of course, there is that explosive cherry bomb that most pollers always seem to neglect when it comes to reporting coverage based on poll results, which is the fact that those questioned are only among “likely voters.” FOX then deems it appropriate to relabel these individuals, “Americans,” in their reporting and headlines, rather than call them what they really represent, a small cross-section of a much larger population. So, does FOX’s label for this group inherently imply that unlikely voters are un-American? Of course, scrutiny of the numbers themselves likely requires an infinite amount of patience, time, and due diligence that I am unwilling to yield at this point, and my guess is that FOX News viewers share the same sentiment, if they even care at all to check under the hood and see what’s driving the engine. Undoubtedly, Fox’s, “We report, you decide,” cabal not only depends on that notion, but lives and dies by it.

That’s right, folks. It would appear that our president is human after all … not a superman, not a robot, and not a deity. Just a complex, interdependent, and structured mass of flesh and bone. In a moment of bold and sincere honesty, he let his guard down and revealed himself in a manner that might seem shocking to some Americans:

“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

This response came from Barack Obama after a reporter asked, in a nationally televised press conference focusing on the president’s healthcare proposals, about the recent arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge and what it says about race relations in America. Gates is a literary critic, educator, scholar, writer, and editor with a number of notable achievements under his belt, including honorary degrees and awards. He sits on the boards of various arts, cultural, and research institutions, serves as the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard University, directs the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research and, finally, he is a personal friend to the Obama family.

It took only seconds after hearing that word, “stupidly,” before I realized the political firestorm it would muster. I could hear the media blitzkrieg that would follow as radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity took to the airwaves the next day. They would tear the president to shreds on their syndicated “talk” shows, fulfilling assumed roles as civilian officers and arresting Obama for his criticism of the nation’s good men and women of law enforcement. They would brand him a crony for favoring an esteemed intellectual who they likely consider, at least under their breath, to be just another “affirmative action baby” and, as loudly and surely as they accused Sonia Sotomayor, they would label the president a racist. It would come swift, it would come hard and, most importantly for them and their party, it would stir their base into a feeding frenzy, serving up the perfect storm of criticism that would toss a looming cloud over the president’s entire agenda.

Regardless of what the pundits might say, the harshest criticism actually came in the form of a rebuttal from Gates’ arresting officer. In multiple radio and TV interviews, Sgt. James Crowley told the local press that he supports the president “110 percent,” but believed that the president should not have waded into a local issue without knowing the facts. Those “facts,” available on the filed police report, which quickly surfaced on the Internet, indicate that the officer arrested Gates outside his home after he exhibited “loud and tumultuous” behavior. The report states that Gates, seemingly understanding his rights, refused to step outside his home when first prompted by Crowley, who identified himself and indicated that he was investigating a reported break-in. What followed was a back and forth exchange between the two men inside the home, with Gates accusing Crowley of being a racist before finally approaching the officer outside and subsequently being arrested for disorderly conduct.

Admittedly, not knowing the facts of the case and, apparently, not having personally read the police report, Obama would have been smart to steer clear of dispatching judgment so quickly concerning the arrest, but he is our first African American president. I don’t blame him for doing it. More than any presidential candidate or president in recent history, Barack Obama has addressed the subject of race, racism, and the racial divide head-on in speeches to any number of varied populations, from massive, diverse crowds of constituents to middle easterners, Europeans, and Africans to African Americans. Where other presidents, since the years following the civil rights movement, fell short of addressing racial tensions in proper historical context, this president confronts and acknowledges it with the same attention afforded an actual elephant in the room. Hypotheticals flooded the mind as I pondered his and Gates’ current situation. Would circumstances be different if Gates was a white man? What if Obama was white? Would the reporter still ask him about the incident?

The reality of this matter is that, in the eyes of many Americans, Barack Obama is an African American first and a president second. Since race remains a divisive issue in the United States, Obama is forced to address it in manners that other presidents could easily avoid. Still, some pretend to ignore this reality, expecting the president to act as if wearing some sort of impenetrable force field that serves to repel discussions of race and inequality. It’s not fair and, as long as racial discrimination flourishes, we should not expect Barack Obama to ignore it. Minorities are too often driven to the brink of paranoia by their daily experiences in America, constantly being surveyed and seen as different. Evidence of undue racism rears its ugly head on a personal level constantly, and the country experiences it in bulk all too often. It may be watching the American judicial system acquit four LAPD officers after brutally beating a man in broad daylight, or television coverage of thousands neglected in New Orleans after Katrina makes landfall. It might be watching white mothers who kidnap or kill their children only to pass the buck on to the usual scapegoat and stereotypical violent, black male, or seeing nooses strung over tree branches in the wake of racial injustice in Jena. Finally, it might be listening to Republican party supporters fulfilling their personal want or need to holler racial epithets aimed at a presidential candidate in political campaign rallies across the country.

Racism against minorities thrives in America, even in 2009. It’s still here, still real, and still dangerous. The same is true with racial profiling and, for these reasons, I am not surprised to hear our first minority president impulsively jump to conclusions and express relative concern for a friend and fellow African American, whose experiences in this country are uniquely bound and shared to the point of understanding an all-too-often ignored oppressive force that comes at them from every angle. Nobody knows for sure how much race actually played a role in Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s arrest last week but, I’m personally sure about one thing … what Gates said to Mr. Crowley and his Cambridge neighbors as officers led him away in handcuffs is correct. This is what happens to black men in America and, if I walked in his shoes, I might think twice about an officer’s motives as he passed through that threshold between his world and mine. Until the country reaches a point where all Americans can walk its streets without being stopped by an officer or gawked at with little more reason than the color of their skin, I will continue to sympathize with Gates’ and Obama’s concern or, more appropriately, their frustration.

Republican talking points seem ablaze after the weekend brought news of the Iranian government’s violent attempts to curb protests ten days after a presidential election left voters questioning the validity of their recently cast ballots. Today, Arizona senator and former presidential rival, John McCain, took advantage of an opportunity granted to him, ironically, by Barack Obama’s veep during last year’s campaign when Joe Biden told a group of donors, “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.”

“The world is looking,” Biden continued. “We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Immediately, McCain fired back by saying that Biden’s statement irresponsibly invited such a test, yet he now seems poised to engage the president in a war of words that suggests an irrational desire to set the wheels in motion for Obama’s “test” to finally flourish. Yesterday, he publicly called into question the president’s response to the conflict in Iran. The president, while condemning the use of violence to quell the protests and expressing deep concern over reports that the election might be fixed, took a neutral stance on dealing with it by stating that the US will speak for the opposition’s fundamental rights to assembly and free speech, but stopping short of military intervention or further sanctions that would serve to enhance the Iranian government’s justification for the use of more violence.

Reading an AP article on protest crackdown before Congress, John McCain, whose knee-jerk reaction to last summer’s Russian invasion of the democratic country of Georgia would have had us launching an invasion the next day, grievingly focused attention on a young woman killed by Iranian authorities while protestors captured her murder on video. The woman, known to the world as “Neda,” was quickly designated a martyr by those sympathetic to the cause of Iranian protestors, but might as well be dubbed, “Neda the Plumber,” in McCain’s own circle. The Arizona senator shamelessly used the Iranian woman’s story as a backdrop to demonstrate his leadership in calling for the president to take a stronger stance against Iran.

However, Barack Obama seems poised, instead, to heed the advise of former president, George Herbert Walker Bush, who recently expressed caution against enflaming tensions with the Islamic republic over the protests. In 1991, Mr. Bush learned the consequences of encouraging homegrown resistance and subsequently failing to follow through on military aid, which led to the massacre of Iraqi revolutionaries. Regardless of influence, there is no denying that Obama continues to demonstrate an incredible capacity to keep cool under immense pressure. Only 154 days in office, no issue on his plate is more toxic than the nightmare of nuclear proliferation, and John McCain seems bitterly fixed on using the conflict as an opportunity to demonstrate a judgmental weakness on the part of the president. Of course, this comes from a man who displayed disturbing lapses in judgement throughout last year’s presidential campaign, including the choice to nominate a highly unqualified running mate and hasty decision to inject himself into congressional negotiations concerning the economic meltdown with no useful insight.

McCain’s motives may be wrong, but Joe Biden’s statement was right. The crisis in Iran is the international test that he anticipated for Barack Obama, and the president’s patience in dealing with it is paramount to his success. Our relationship with Iran has been on shaky ground for decades, with example after example of diplomatic missteps that gave Iranian authorities opportunities to propagate the politics of hatred and mistrust among their citizenry. Then, the Bush administration cut off diplomatic ties with the country entirely. Today, its leadership progresses towards the development of a nuclear weapon that threatens the prospect of peace everywhere and, as usual, Barack Obama must practice reasonable restraint under mounting pressure from the irritable and irrational, whether it’s coming from characters like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or John McCain.

Meanwhile, a new generation of highly motivated Iranian citizens, who matured under false pretenses of freedom, are expressing disapproval over an oppressive regime that they helped muster. It’s their fight, and increased rhetoric from the party that gave us George Bush and Dick Cheney will only lead us down the path towards political and diplomatic self-destruction. Put plainly, it’s ‘dem fightin’ words that John McCain, his party, and the extremist Iranian dictatorship expect from Barack Obama, and their flawed logic follow familiar tones that draw from mistakes made in the past. They are part of an old-school train of thought, which could neither anticipate or fully comprehend the idea that the Internet might play such a significant role in shifting the tides of change. The president knows better than to lead by their example, and understands that the way forward is by learning from past mistakes in order to fully embrace the promise of progress. By exercising reasonable restraint while aligning himself and the American people with the plight of those who stand their ground in the fight for freedom, he will pass the test with flying colors.

In January, shortly before Barack Obama took the oath of office, legendary Hip-Hop pioneer KRS-ONE phoned into the Alex Jones Show and offered an interview. Jones hosts a syndicated radio program and he is a conspiracy theorist who propagates warnings to his listeners daily. These warnings predict that the world will fall victim to a global restructuring of power, a New World Order. Currently, there exists a sect of followers in the world who blindly submit to such theories, and the primary prerequisite for this class of individuals, it appears, depends mostly on the group of people they seem to hate (or fear) the most. It could be foreign entities, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, socialists, communists, or capitalists.

Regardless of who they believe is piloting the black helicopters that they claim are flying overhead and transporting weapons in preparation for a government take-over, they are content to recess into the cracks and crevices of civil society and stockpile weapons arsenals and ammunition. They exist in all shapes and sizes, but the one specific message that seems to reign consistent across all of their rhetorical musings is revolution by force. They are your paramilitary militias, neo-Nazi skinheads, Underground Weathermen, Black Panthers, Branch Davidian sympathizers, Oklahoma City bombers, anthrax mailers, Minutemen, and even your modern-day tea baggers.

While Alex Jones may not align himself with any of these specific groups, the whispered undertones of his message remain the same. He sits within a circle of conspiratorial shock jocks who willfully pollute the airwaves with piercing propaganda, and he is among a privileged few radio personalities who rose to great heights by lying for a living, utilizing the power of language to manipulate vulnerable minds. Previously, I wouldn’t dream of associating KRS-ONE with this same category of misfits, but his recent alignment with Jones on the subject of New World Order conspiracy theory made me think twice.

It can be unsettling, at least, to learn that a single interview might crumble the perceived understanding a person has of someone they admired for so long. To some degree, I believe that Jones used KRS-ONE as a prop to embellish his own distaste for so-called “bad” Hip-Hop and its “shoot ‘em up” culture. Despite his praise of the emcee on the air, it seemed apparent the guy was not a familiar fan of KRS-ONE’s work, referring to DJ Scott La Rock as simply, La Rock, and fumbling to get KRS-ONE’s own stage name right, calling him KSR on several occasions.

In the interview, I was surprised to learn that KRS-ONE dismisses Barack Obama as a mere puppet. Last year, I was proud after stepping into the voting booth and casting my ballot, not for an African American, but a person who I felt represented me and my generation better than any politician before him. Barack Obama is young, intelligent, educated, humble, aggressive, cultured, and admittedly imperfect. He had a reputation for standing up against strong and powerful forces, and he knew how to organize people into action. He was my candidate for President and, like many others, I did whatever was in my power to ensure his election.

When Obama’s administration took office, they inherited the largest deficit this country had the misfortune of experiencing, which was the unfortunate bi-product of a pro-capitalist, anti-socialist regime that raped tax-payers, nullified the Constitution, and metaphorically crapped on the world’s carpet as they tromped through its house uninvited. Nobody in their right mind would want to be the person responsible for cleaning this mess. Still, rather than offer the man some benefit of the doubt, the legendary Blastmaster gave Americans, specifically blacks, his harsh assessment of Barack Obama as a cunning agent of the devil. At this point, I’m positive that I could hear my neo-conservative, fanatically religious in-laws cheering loudly within the deep recesses of my brain.

I get it, man. I really do. The rich don’t care about the poor, Barack Obama is just another politician, and young people won’t get anywhere by placing hope in anyone but themselves. It’s a message that all people should heed, but there is something inherently wrong with encouraging young people to stop the violence in one ear and telling them to have their guns ready for the revolution in the other. It’s a counterproductive and damning message, which implies the country cannot overthrow the incredible forces of industry through non-violent means. Nobody argues that democracy is perfect, but when it works the way it should, suddenly a nation of millions have clean water to drink, health labels on their food, traffic lights at dangerous intersections, and maybe even clean air to breath. These things only happen when people have faith in their ability to govern, and that is Obama’s message.

In the Jones interview, KRS-ONE compares the presidency to a management position at Burger King, which is ultimately beholden to the franchise owner. In America, he says, the banks and corporate executives own the franchise. This is where I respectfully beg to differ. In the real world, it is the American people who hold that title and the inherent problem lies in the fact that too many of us don’t care, understand our potential for influence, or take advantage of the powers granted to us by the Constitution. The evidence lies in the number of citizens who actually vote, and how often they contact their so-called representatives.

Barack Obama is “our” president because we put him there. African Americans are one of many groups that elected him and, for the first time in their history, a great majority of blacks now share the awesome burden of holding their President’s feet to the fire. KRS-ONE points out in the Jones interview that Americans should not stand idly by and “mindlessly” follow Barack Obama. An excellent point. Still, he doesn’t seem to offer any useful advice for newcomers to the system that lies outside the realm of conspiracy-driven doomsday scenarios that predict a New World Order.

I once read that KRS-ONE dreamed of taking over a small town and building it into a Hip-Hop City. I’m curious to know who would manage that city, and how they would tend the store. How would they work with their neighbors to accommodate the flow of commerce and exchange of ideas? Would they publicly repudiate technology, apparently a tool of the New World Order? This is really what the new world fear is all about. Globalization is, as KRS-ONE would say, “truth.” Human beings populate the Earth at an exponential rate, and cultures collide as a consequence. Yes, it is frightening, but it’s also reality. Ignoring lavish theories about a looming New World Order, the problem we actually face today has everything to do with how we construct a system that maintains our sovereignty while responsibly addressing the influence we have on those outside our borders.