Unfortunately, this is what happens when one filters biblical principles and morality through fear-based 2nd amendement rationalization, FOX News, greed and mafia-like lawyerly equivocation, and bases everything on a self-validating world view, as opposed to a self-evaluating and sel-sacrificing world view. Just thinkin’
Tag Archives: newt gingrich
Gingrich heralded for taking the high road in open marriage claim. Could have attacked and insulted ex-wife over ABC interview regarding admitted infidelities, but bravely chose to send his daughters to attack her instead. The good Christian former candidate, Perry, throws full support behind family values candidate Gingrich. Rebublicans now forced to choose between Open marriage and Gay Marriage.
Is there no reprehensible behavior that the Right will condemn in their current crop of candidates? they are so completely obsessed with getting rid of Obama that they will overlook blatant dishonesty, underhandedness, tax evasion salacious behavior and a serial philanderer who wanted an open marriage with his second wife so he could enjoy “benefits” with a mistress. They are so animated with a visceral disdain for Obama, despite that he has never done any of those things, is a good father and is faithful to his wife, speaking in terms of family values.
Of course the primary attacks against Obama concern his handling of the economy, but Bureau of Labor statistics below clearly show the downturn began explosively under Bush and was at 7.8% unemployment before he even took the oath of office. Recall, it was Bush who poured money into banks in the summer and autumn of 2008 to head off a financial catastrophe.
For those who will say, stop blaming Bush, it is Obama’s economy now, let me just say, that is like arsonist blaming the fireman because he couldn’t stop the house from burning down.
Further, they will say that he’s never run a business, but a campaign is a business, and Obama ran a series of those with spectacular success, obviously. Furthermore, despite the cacophony of vitriol in the rightwing media, and the suspect silence of the corporate media, Obama has had a number of significant successes as President. would they prefer a man like Romney who took over companies, loaded them full of debt as they sucked the wealth from them and then closed or sold off pieces of businesses? How is that responsible capitalism?
The slate of Republican candidates are embarrassingly corrupt men who offer nothing to the nation, and instead thinly veil their own self-serving ambitions. What is most disturbing is that the more ridiculous and corrupt the behavior of their candidates, the more excuses on the Right., which begs the question of what won’t they accept in a candidate.
Contrast with the Left which has been very critical of Obama on a number of issues. I have a great many issues with Obama and his policies, and I am not willing to be so partisan as to excuse or rationalize away those criticisms. while the Left is electing a public servant whom they expect will perform in the interests of the people, the Right seems intent on adopting a cult leader whom they will follow and praise regardless of behavior. The evidence? Rick Perry threw his support behind Newt Gingrich today following the news that this moral majority family values candidate wanted an open marriage with his last wife. Gingrich should have been on his way home ashamed and disgraced by those who would dare to judge.
Generally, I enjoy Chris Hayes weekends on MSNBC, but I constantly must remind myself that Mr. Hayes, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and the rest of their line-up are still part of the problem of corporate and power-elite-status-quo control of the discourse and messaging of critical national issues. While MSNBC is routinely “demonized” by FOX and pundits on the Right as far Left wing, it is not-by a long shot.
To support that, I point to the “buy American” push, particularly by Ed Schultz. Recall, this was a rightwing and nationalist mantra following NAFTA. Just as they did in the lead up to Iraq, MSNBC, for all their Liberal bent has missed the real solution to jobs in America and the necessary equitible trade worldwide, and that is not some pseudo-Ron Paul-esque economic isolationism, but forcing international corporations to adhere to wage and safety and pollution reforms regardless of where they are. If GE-owned MSNBC was truly as Liberal as the Right asserts, they would recognize first that mankind is global, and globalization was the direction of the species from those first steps from an African Valley 2 million years ago.
What prompted this article was a roundtable discussion on Chris Hayes’ Sunday morning show about the 2009 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling that allows Corporations, and Unions, to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and policy, effectively erasing the one man one vote cornerstone of our democracy by overwhelming free discourse through propaganda and false messaging.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
With a decptively benign name like Citizens United, the group is in fact a filthy little cabal of Republican hacks in the vein of Andrew Breitbart, with a bias towards editing for innuendo over fact and truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
That’s the background, but on this morning’s show Mr. Hayes had Jack Abramoff, the convicted lobbyist who was unequivical in saying that overturning Citizens United would never happen, because it is fundamental to Conservatives in this country. The statement went virtually unchallenged. Aside the traitorous acts committed by Mr. Abramoff, which did immeasurable damage to this democracy, why would MSNBC legitimize such a character? Because, at the heart of MSNBC is a large mult-national corporation, with significant interests in issues ner and dear to the true powers in this nation (Hint: It isn’t Right, Left, Libertarian or even American).
The Corporate media is overt and subversive alike in its crafting and molding of cultures and nations. It does so to create markets as to define and secure them.
Advertising creates ideals, standards and affirms stereotypes on one hand, while the media carries and promotes those messages. The recent purchase of The Weather Channel by NBC Universal, Bain Capital and The Blackstone Group highlights the effort of Multi-national Corporations and firms to devour media outlets and control what Americans sees, hears, discusses and votes upon. Blackstone bought Neilsen-the rating people in 2006 along with other partners like the Carlyle Group. Bain, by the way is owned by Mitt Romney, and owns Clear Channel, the largest owner of radio stations in the country. Its “news” talk format is 90% rightwing, with Beck, Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity leading that charge, despite that 90% of the country does not vote Republican. Bain also owns or invests in AMC Entertainment and Warner Music group.
So there is real pressure, and undeniable evidence that Liberal MSNBC is hardly a Liberal thinktank, but instead has slipped into a market not served blatantly by FOX as a means, not to promote Progressive ideals, but as a means, as prescribed by their corporate owners, to nudge the message forward far more subtley that FOX can do. But the effort is the same, and in the end it comes down to control-not politics.
The strategy is to create paradigms not cultures, as paradigms become absolute realities that are much harder to find alternatives to or see beyond. Imagine what it would be to breath fire, or breathe watter as a means of survival, and that air and wind could be as deadly as we find those others. Those are other paradigms. That is what corporations are evolving to in a greater and greater consolidation of power and influence. Think back over the last 50 or 100 years about where corporations were and where they are today, with interlocking partnerships and boards, and their ascent to controlling almost fully govenments worldwide.
Now imagine this paradigm. With all that power to control the message and assert culture, a group of people have challenged that by Occupy parks have the power elite absolutely terrified. Now that is a message!
I have a history with this, having witnessed the Mock execution of a Serbian POW in the mountains above Sarajevo in October 1994. The incident is detailed in my book, Everything for Love. I am certain the young man from the neighboring town of Trnovo was spared because of my presence. I also have no doubt he was taken elsewhere and executed. Without doubt the would-be executioner, an average sort in his mid to late thirties could recite chapter and verse about Serbian atrocities, and likely had one or more family, friends or neighbors killed, wounded or otherwise terrible affected at the hand of Serbs, whether intentionally and cruelly or as a consequence of the war. I could recite those acts as well, and had personally witnessed enough to justify reprisals against those “inhuman” Serbs.
Those would be judgements of the human heart, however, a tinderbox fully at the mercy of vengeance and our selfish soul. It is our intellect and reason, and a moral standard that upholds human dignity, selfless mercy and the standards of human rights-one that is bolstered by laws and ideals that sanction those who violate those laws and ideals.
It has been a point of study into the psychology of war atrocities. Organizing relief, I was fascinated by the utter inhumanity that Hutu neighbors, friends and even family turned on their Tutsi kin in Rwanda. I had looked into the eyes of an elderly man who was so friendly and hospitable to me and others, only to smile gleefully and draw a finger across his throat at the blindfolded young Serb. Study the faces of men and women captured on film at executions and other atrocious acts, and you will find mostly complacent stoicism, but enjoyment and satisfaction in others. Other times there is a tribal, animal sort of orgiastic frenzy akin to videos of great apes and chimpanzees brutalizing others of their species.
The filming and ritual of degrading enemy dead-civilian and soldier alike- is hardly new. There seems to be an impetus to document such deeds, like posing with an animal after a hunt. It is tribal and perverse, apart from the illegalities. Worse it is shameful and wrong for some very fundamental reasons.
Preeminent among those reasons is the very assertion of many in this nation that America is the greatest nation on the earth, the “shining city on the hill,” and “the last best hope for mankind.” How does an act such as this further than notion, or convince our enemies otherwise? And if we discount enemies and other nations, how does this act strengthen those notions for ourselves?
If we truly believe we are the righteous in this conflict, is this how the righteous act? Where does is say in the Bible that in war it is alright to desecrate the enemy’s dead? It is an immoral statement to justify such acts by pointing to the enemy, if not for the reason above, then on the premise that it lowers us to the level of an “immoral” enemy. We demand that police abide by laws, and must adhere to the constitution and civil liberties in those duties. No one reasonably argues that the police can act lawlessly when dealing with lawless criminals, i.e., summary street executions, bombings, lootings of suspect houses or the wholesale beating of say a shoplifter or car thief.
Many on the Right heralded and praised the act with the patently immoral and thoughtless lament that “it is war.” They would not have considered that excuse for Nazi death camp guards or Japanese soldiers during the Second World War. Those criminals were held to account, often at the cost of their lives. War is not a frat party with license for abandon. It is not a right of passage, and even if it was, a soul does not switch off the tribal act of desecrating enemy dead in such a way when they return to “peaceful” society.
I have seen firsthand how acts of violence in war-whether justified or not, resonate terribly well beyond war. These men crossed a terrible line, not just in the act, but in their soul, and by the witness of thousands, and perhaps millions, have pulled us across that terrible line with them. War is not a time for boys to be boys. It should be an aberration from rational human interaction and conflist resolution. It is a terrible and evil necessity, one that a nation should align itself on the side of righteousness and the weak.
I fully comprehend the moral entanlgements and confusion in combat. I have been there. I also understand revenge. I understand the emotions in a battle that would compel one to desire the ultimate fate upon an enemy. That is the specter of vengeance and the unhinged human heart. i confess to those emtions(watching Serb s purposely fire antiaircraft rounds at a mother and two children). I also understand that the world is a harsher and far more dangerous place when we give ourselves fully to that unbridled hate.
In the end, for these three Taliban fighters, who espouse a world and belief system I am very much opposed to, and who I believe must be defeated, the fight was over when the life left their bodies. What those soldiers then did is the worst side of all Americans and was a filthy and unnecessary act that can only be defended by those who have never been to war, or those who are too filled with innate anger and hate to see past the storms of their own heart.
The Play that made national headlines, changed hearts and energized a movement is now available on Best of the Left at the link below:
Please share it with your friends, especially those who still think the struggle of our times is not the co-opting of our great nation by corporate and financial greed.
I have a specific request for 2012. I need someone to convince me that this country is worth saving, or if it is over-burdened with a fatally vapid population. Convince me that the sooner the last of the so-called baby-boomers and Gen-Xers( of which I am one) are gone this society will have a chance of a progressive and purposeful society. I know, I know, the Right has demonized the word progressive, but pause a moment to think about the root of the word, and then think about something that has progressed, like say flush toilets over outhouses, cars over wagons or cellphones with internet as opposed to hollerin’ across the valley.
I was listening to this evil, evil show on FOX called Bulls and Bears, a lop-sided name as there is far more bull than bear. One comment that all the pundits cheered was regarding how unions prevent the historically profitable and powerful corporations from competing in the global marketplace due to those union wages and benefits. And who precicely would we be competing against for, say, manufacturing? It isn’t Europe or Japan. It is regions and countries like Mexico and Central America, India, China and southeast Asia. Add to that the comment from a relative recently, attacking the Occupy Movement by detailing how poor people in this country need to shut up because they live a better life than people in Africa (As if the entire continent were in all the same dire situation). By that logic, that relative won’t be happy until they are as poor as people in Africa. (Nevermind that this relative on the family’s current income in a southern desert state would be “Africa-poor” if forced to live in say Malibu or Manhattan- because your income is relaive to where you exist)
It is an all too common theme I hear repeated among people making less than hundred thousand a year, many who make far less than that. They regurgitate so-called common knowledge fed to them by the Right and Corporate media. They pit their economic woes against people on Social security, welfare or other public assistance, or among evangelicals and other Christians, or Muslims among racial lines, which amounts to little more than fighting over the scraps tossed by the wealthy abusers of the nation and planet.
There was a time when dumbass-no-nothing-neverreadabook-can’tseepasttheirownnose-believeeverythingtheyhearonFOX-flagwaving-can’tgettheirgrosslydimpledassoffthecouch-dunces had no mass outlet to make us all collectively dumber with their insipid opinions. But Reagan and the Clinton saw to that, allowing for the political and idealogical lopsidedness of the media into the hands of a small number of elites. Evidence a number one progressive radio show in San Franscisco being replaced by the obsolete Glenn Beck show because the station is owned by clear channel, which is owned by Bain Capital, which is owned by Mitt Romney.
But Clinton and Reagan aren’t the only ones to blame for media consolidation. Oprah in the early Ninties convinced us all that the news should work for us, not just tell us stuff about foreigners. She gave voice to a slate of housewives who whined about all the violence on the news was bad for their children, and who cares what happens way over on the other side of the world-I want to know where the best shopping malls are and where all the multitudes of child abducters are at any given moment. Of course, while that was going on, we were being set up for 9-11…way over on the other side of the world.
But is wasn’t just Oprah and those other 2 guys. People like Newt Gingrich saw an opportunity to enrich themselves by inventing the moral majority, which was little nmore than a ploy to polarize the nation between so-called Left and Right as a means of tightly focusing a new market for their flood of crap books and Bill O’Reilly products.
And it wasn’t just Newt and Oprah and, R and C. Too many of the American people fell for that crap. They let it happen. They let themselves be rolled over, and are now too dumb not to know first that they are taking it hard in the caboose, and second that they don’t know who is giving it to them (Hint, it ain’t the Black guy in the office who was “born” in Kenya). And then when their kids, and people who have known all along about the shit-storm befalling this nation and planet stand up in mass protest for the 99%, those poor-as-dirt vapid, dumbass couch-idiots cheer the police for pepper-spraying and beating them, or they call them filthy hippies and communists.
A bit harsh? Needs to be said. This country is teetering on dumb and lazy, and I am afraid it prefers it that way, fighting over scraps from the wealthy 1%. If that is the case, we’re just dumbing out freedom and nation to death and we’ve no one to blame but ourselves.
I’m hearing this narrative more and more in the media to describe Newt Gingrich. Somewhere along the line he was successful at re-labelling himself from propagandist and ideologue to historian. The media now perpetuates the fiction he parades as fact, holding him up as some sort of unparalleled expert, but for any reasonably intelligent person with a nominal grasp of actual history Newt Gingrich is a perverse and dangerous nationalist.
I’ve seen his type before in the Balkans and in Rwanda. His particular perversion is a craft, honed by a keen sense of what is acceptable to the mainstream media, and fully aware of the potential ignorance and latent bigotries of his target audience. What is behind his clever toying with hate is not the fabrication of history, but rather its carefull and deliberate manipulation.
Evidence his comments about the Palestinian’s being an invented people. Anyone spending 5 minutes on-line would immediately realize how careless or ignorant his statements were. The Palestinians are no more or less an invented people than Americans, or Serbs, Mexicans or Canadians. These are not races, but the amalgamation of cultures and races and ethnicities with constructed and layered and evolving histories.
A cornerstone to manipulating history is the carefully laid groundwork of a manipulated history with a basis in fact. Fact is the anchor, but as I’ve argued before, facts can just as easily be lies-through omission and purposeful arrangement- as truth. But history is a process, a truth propagandists like Gingrich or Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic ignore. Instead, they pick arbitrary points to start that history, or cherry-pick facts that suit their preconceived intention.
Listen closely, at the heart of every nationalistic history is a single theme. There is an outside enemy, an internal group of otherwise righteous and holy victims, and an internal betrayer. Along with that is the glory myth, an inflated or idealized past (the good old days) that has been or is being stolen. The Nazis, as a simple example and not a comparison, held the Communists as the external and the Jews as the betrayer, with Aryans as the holy victims. The Serbs crafted themselves as victims from the 1389 battle of Kosovo Polje, inventing a Bosnian Prince as betrayer and Muslims as the external enemy-ignoring that they bargained with the Muslims to keep from being exterminated by their Christian Hungarian neighbors.
Slowly, the pressure is increased on the “chosen” group, the sense of being under siege or threat driving up the ambient fear and robbing them of all true perspective accept the one that fits with their fear and ignorance. For perceived safety the group eschews all outside information, especially as it is portrayed as representing the outside enemy or internal betrayer.
Every nationalist and nationalist movement follows this same template. At its core it is exclusionary on the broader scale, and constructed to benefit and enrich a select few who may or may not fully believe in the message on the smaller scale. But what does that tell us about Gingrich in his run for the presidency?
In Saturday’s debate Gingrich made an oddly revealing statement. It was oblique, having to do with infidelities he had while leading the charge against Bill Clinton over the Lewinski affair. He claims he’s changed since then and that “his” god has forgiven him. Did god actually say that he’s forgiven Newt, does Newt take it on faith that he has or does he just assume? What is interesting for a man who has “changed” is that his politics and attitudes about society and the world have not.
Gingrich has always been about division. He flings terms like socialism, communist, and liberal to impune any dissenting opinion, or as veiled terms to describe any group attempting to assert their rights. He promotes the idea of a “Christian” nation which excludes all the other religions held by citizens in this country. His antiquated views on gender and gay marriage is all about what his views on how the world should be: white, wealthy, selfish and aloof.
His views on unions are a direct assault against middle class working people whose hours, wages, benefits and safety all come from the effort of unions to raise the level of working families. He accuses teachers and public workers in Wisconsin and Ohio and across the country for wanting a living wage, secure benefits and a dignified retirement after a life at work, while ignoring corporate abuse and greed at the tax payer’s expense. He advocates racial profiling, such as profiling Muslims at airports or checking the citizenship of “Questionable” persons in routine police stops. And he has called the hundreds of thousands of Occupy Protesters-men and women of every age, education level and income level, filthy hippies who need a bath. And he supports the predatory abuse of banks in foreclosing against millions of homeowners.
Given all that, where is the change in Newt Gingrich? He entered politics and stoked the moral majority fools as a means to get rich and become powerful. He helped invent the current marketing parade of political tripe masquerading as books that feeds his fortune from the fear and paranoia of his audience.
Think back upon the men who founded this nation. Would any of them have had anything to do with a greedy, flabby, flat-footed, elitist clown like Gingrich? What would have become of the fledgling republic under a man who sought division as a means to enrich himself, as Gingrich has done being forced out of Congress by fellow republicans? And finally, does he inspire or aspire to compassion, and the idea of America as welcoming and good, or an America that is cruel and exclusionary?
One thing is clear, and that is the historical Gingrich would not have signed the declaration of independence of the constitution, because both were clearly power sharing assertions, and very clearly socialist in nature, far more in keeping with the message of the Occupy movement than in the narrowly divisive ideology he espouses now. But then again, any real historian would know that.
Achievers. The one percent. Winners. Those who are so adamant about not raising taxes on corporations the wealthiest in the nation would have us believe that there is some inherent quality, something unique and sacrosanct in this supposed talent. Set aside the responsibility to the nation fostering a nurturing environment for business(political and social stability, laws, courts, infrastructure, an educated and healthy populace) argument. Talents are for the arts, or sports, for positive intellect and in healthy and uplifting relationships.
“No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe;” wrote John Donne in meditations XVII, in 1624, “every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”
Achiever is in itself an insult hurled at the rest of us by the selfish and greedy. It implies that the jobs we go to daily, the place we’ve arrived at in life is not an achievement. It screams that raising children, running a home, going to school, struggling with poverty, prevailing through an illness is somehow a lesser achievement. It presumes one person’s experience is greater than another’s. It pits one person’s struggle against another’s, which is a fool’s game.
The way it is used becomes an assertion of power and right and privilege. Their achievement is presumed to have value above all others. It is an assumption of rule and of a ruling class, which is antithetical to the declaration of Independence and of the Constitution.
It also betrays a lie the so-called achievers pretend to themselves. It is the ultimate lie because it ignores the very thing Donne wrote about. Life is impossible alone. A soul alone writing a novel relies upon the history making the computer usable, upon the society nurturing freedom of thought, of the luxury of not having to forage through the day for food, shelter and sustenance, and even of the craftsman who constructed the desk and chair upon which that novelist writes.
A month ago I wrote a play. I am proud of that play, but as such it is little more than a semi-interesting collection of two dimension words upon a page. In the coming weeks a passionate and talented cast will bring those words to life, moving them around in three-dimensional space, adding inflection and history and textures I would never have imagined. We will perform on a radio station, the play expanded and re-envisioned by a producer who will add sound effects to create a new and as yet unrealized world. We will perform upon a stage built by dreamers who wished for a space that actors might create as yet unimagined works and as yet unwritten words. Those stages are maintained by electricians, lighting experts and others who make each performance possible.
Sadly, what has happened in America is that the one percent has all but convinced us that only the writer matters, and that all the rest should bow before them. The Occupy movement asserts a different reality, one consistent with the constitution, in which all citizens are imbued with a god-given dignity and that all of us have a responsibility to maintaining the greatest measure of human dignity that can be maintained. The limit placed on that dignity is a measure of the cynicism inherent in a heart.
No man is indeed an island, except in his own heart, and upon that island is loneliness and nothing more. There is an old pop song that says one is the loneliest number. If there is salvation from that loneliness, it must be among the 99%.
Here’s how things break down right now at the CNN National Security debates on CNN, hosted by the same Heritage Foundation that promotes Rush Limbaugh and FOX News. This of course being the 720th Republican debate since August, which some might say amounts to a media saturation to drown out the Obama Administration. Some might say that. But we are learning some incredibly important things in this paranoid white-guy fest. For example:
1. Ron paul is amazingly lucid at moments, his positions cogent and logical up until the point he drives that car around crazy curve right into nut valley.
2. Try picturing Rick Santorum’s mother spitting on her fingers and slicking back his hair before the debate, and that his underwear is bunched at the top of his pants and he is wearing white athletic socks. “Vladimir Putin, meet the President of the United States, Ricky Santorum.”
3.We also learned from Santorum that Africa, once considered a continent by egg-headed Geographers, is in fact a country.
4. Rick Perry taught us that the Monroe Doctrine which prohibited European powers from interfering in the Americas also applies to that other great European power, Mexico.
5. Iran has lots of mountains. Thanks Herman Cain. Also, Iran has lots of mountains.
6. Amazingly we learned from Michelle Bachman that BARACK OBAMA CHANGED THE COURSE OF HISTORY. Much like superman. She will not change the course of history, but instead will allow it to meander and skip and frolic and, oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about her husband.
7. Iran has lots of mountains. All right Cain, we heard you already!
8. Newt Gingrich is an expert in history, especially the history he rewrites.
9. Mitt believes that amnesty for illegal aliens is a magnet. I agree. Now that American and multi-national corporations have left America, why would anyone want to stay in those poor corporate-raped foreign nations?
10. All of the GOP candidates believe that immigration is a national security issue. Be afraid America of all those dangerous busboys, cooks, cleaning ladies, economic refugees and gardeners.
11. Gingrich stated that “if we were a serious country” we’d drill everywhere in the US for oil. That would collapse the global price of oil, he said. Wasn’t he saying the oil companies had a right to their record profits and subsidies a year ago? Now he wants to collapse the industry? How many jobs would that cost?
12, Wolf Blitzer referenced the continuing violence in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. No mention that twice the protesters won, first deposing a brutal dictator, and then forcing an end to military rule in favor of freedom for Egyptians.
13. Apparently no one at the Heritage Foundation or any of the candidates look at newspapers or anything other than FOX News. If they had, the questionwould have seemed silly regarding a pro-Islamist/Al Qaeda group in Somalia which is now under full-scale military attack from Ethiopia, is hardly a credible threat to anything beyond the sand dunes and ruins of what was once Somalia.
14. And something I never realized before, and that is that China is a significant threat and enemy to the United States, unless we are talking about cheap Chinese-made Walmart crap, in which case China is good.
And finally, I learned that if Governor Huntsman was a Democrat I might just consider him a second choice to whoever I was actually supporting.
Who speaks for the average man on the Right? Sarah Palin $12 Million last year. Rush Limbaugh, $28 million. Michael Savage, $18 million. Megyn Kelley, $5 million. Michael Medved, $35 million. Neal Boortz, $800 thousand plus. Bill O’Reilly, $20 million. Glenn Beck, $32 million. Sean Hannity, $25 million. Michael Savage, $18 million net worth. Ann Coulter, $8.5 million net worth.
How do they warrant such salaries? Because of their immense popularity? Because they are better than the rest?
In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine was established. Diversity in broadcast communications and media was encouraged and valued through the 1970s. In 1970 the Radio & TV cross ownership rule prevented large media organizations from owning a TV and radio station in the same market, again to promote and protect media diversification and a broad spectrum of views. In 1975, the rule was added preventing the ownership of TV and newspaper in the same market.
In 1980, President Reagan began a push, complicit with his corporate patrons, to reverse this legislation. Under the first President Bush that effort was continued. The court case Meridith Corp vs. the FCC ruled the FCC had no power to regulate and enforce the fairness doctrine. Bill Clinton was no friend of media diversification. The effort continued until most FCC rules were eliminated through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, thanks to a Republican Congress, Clinton and their corporate donors.
America instantly saw a 1/3 decline in diversification. Corporations continued that theft of public ownership of the airwaves. 7 corporations now own 75% of all radio and TV. the purpose from the start was to eliminate dissent, the free flow of information and unbiased discourse. Evidence the fact that no one in any corporate media in the lead up to the Iraq Invasion ever posed adequate dissent to questions over weapons of mass destruction, and criminality to trick the American public into war. Evidence the complete fabrication that poor people with bad home loans caused the financial crisis of 2008-07, without telling the true story of credit default swaps and speculation on those bad debts far in excess of the actual value of the entire US housing market. Evidence the lack of credible questions and accountability over the 9-11 atrocity. Evidence the assult against Global Warming, the effects of which, through drought and floods and severe climate anomalies we are only just beginning to suffer. Evidence the echo chamber continuation of Obama’s birth certificate foolishness. evidence that Sarah Palin is not a diner waitress at a truck stop in Alaska. Evidence the slanted reporting on the tiny Tea party illusion against the massive anti-war and now Occupy movements. Evidence…