Oct
28

VIDEO: Greg Palast debating election theft

mediainfidel Election 2008, Greg Palast, debate, voter suppression 1 comment

Here’s Greg Palast recently on Riz Khan’s show on Al Jazeera English [click the link for their youtube channel].  He’s on debating David Freddoso from National Review.  Unsurprisingly, Freddoso defends the policy of purging millions of voters because of the possibility a couple (mostly mythical) individuals might commit voter fraud.  Of course he’s light on any facts whereas Palast demonstrates how real journalism works.  Too bad none of the handful of conglomerates that dominate cable broadcasting in the United States run Al Jazeera English where Americans might actually get to see one of the best American investigative journalist out there.  His main broadcasting home is BBC.  Go figure.

Part 1:

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

Part 2:

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

, , ,
Oct
16

The real America

mediainfidel Election 2008, debate, media Add your comment

This is a short video produced by American News Project, and it powerfully demonstrates the America missed by the debates and overlooked by the corporate media.  Thanks to Left I on the News for the link.

Technorati Tags: ,

,
Sep
10

Obama’s Response to Lipstick On A Pig “Controversy”

mediainfidel Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, John McCain, Republicans, debate, elections, media Add your comment

Obama points out the tactics and goals of the Republicans during this election: anything but issues.

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

, , ,
Sep
04

Issues and the US Presidential Race

jeff Democrats, Republicans, debate, elections, media, politics Add your comment

Updated below

Rick Davis, a long-time Washington lobbyist and currently John McCain’s campaign manager, recently told The Washington Post, “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” It was a somewhat rare and candid admission by a high level party operative to how the political process actually operates in the United States. While Davis’ comments might seem specific to this election, both major parties have for years preferred to avoid real issues – universal health care, the militaristic state, corporate crime and domination, a growing prison-industrial complex, to name a few – instead choosing to emphasize the personal qualities and style of candidates, especially when it comes to presidential elections. As in advertising, which permeates American’s consumerist culture, the PR surrounding political campaigns is more about feelings and emotions, faith and brand identity than it is about the issues most important to the public.

Mainstream media coverage plays right along with the charade. In fact, it is the perfect vehicle for the branding of hollow political figures. Talk mostly revolves around questions like “Did he or she win over the public with this or that speech?” “How was the presentation?” “Does he come across as an elitist?” And on and on. It’s simple pundit-driven “journalism,” easy to produce, providing the illusion of substance while serving corporate masters.

When public opinion conflicts with elite interests, the public is silenced. Those seeking office know who their paymasters are, and if any issue supported by large portions of the population but opposed by corporate power gets through media filters, it is framed in such a way to be stripped of any substance. For example, take universal health care. For years large majorities of the American public have been in favor of it. So large in fact it can’t be ignored or easily swept under the rug. Ever since Bill Clinton – who was elected in large part for proposing universal coverage – eventually bowed to the insurance industry and HMOs and failed to make the necessary changes, any and all subsequent reform proposals, if even made, only give lip service to the idea of health care for all while doing everything to avoid making the real changes necessary.

Such is politics and democracy in America, a corporate friendly environment indeed.

UPDATE:

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has a slightly different take on this subject than I do.  Where I see the depoliticization of politics as a much more bipartisan issue, he points to the Republicans as the main culprits:

Ever since Ronald Reagan’s election, this is what the Republicans do every four years. They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda. They converted our elections into tawdry reality shows long before networks realized their entertainment value. And every four years, Democrats seems shocked and paralyzed by all of this and desperately delude themselves into believing that mean-spirited “negativity” and nastiness will alienate voters, while the media swoons at the potency of these attacks.

While he certainly is correct in his assessment of the GOP’s approach, it seems to me one of the reasons the Democrats cave in is because they are unwilling to push a truly democratic, issues-based politics to the fore.  Basically limited to rhetorical promises at best, Democrats are easily exposed as the hollow populists most of the country sees them to be.  You see, they play the corporate game as well, which limits the depth and reach their campaigns can actually go.

Greenwald takes the stance of a “realist,” which is understandable.  He knows that “cultural tribalism, resentment and alienation are very powerful influences in how people think.”  This is certainly true, but is the most effective response more tribalism, more attacks, an increased focus on qualities and style?  I doubt Greenwald thinks so.  But it’s not so clear what he proposes the Democrats should do.  He rightly deplores the empty, personal attack strategy of the GOP, and calls for a more combative (defensive?) approach:

Democrats have clearly decided (yet again) to cede that lowly playing field to the GOP and are hoping (yet again) that those personality and cultural issues are not enough to outweigh the country’s dislike of Republican policies…. If John McCain remains — even from the mouths of Democrats — the Honored, Honorable, Principled, Heroic Maverick, the GOP chances will be as high as they can be.

As I see it, what is needed to win is not more attention to personality and qualities, but rather a greater focus on the fundamental changes we know are needed.  But the liberal wing of the corporate power structure will never be able to go that far.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

, , , , ,
Dec
20

The inspired word of God

mediainfidel Atheism, Christianity, debate, religion, skepticism Add your comment

Here’s an edited version of an email exchange I recently had with a Christian fundamentalist. I’m no expert in arguing against the existence of god, but the source I principally relied on makes some great points that the person I debated has yet to respond to. Questioning these basic tenets of the fundamentalist is an important stance to make from my perspective because quite often the next step they take is an argument based in “human nature.” It’s a way to explain why they believe humans as fallen beings, evil, hopeless without god’s grace. Perhaps more interesting – at least to me – is how this religious-based argument of a fallen human nature tends to pose as a justification of the status quo, gross inequalities, hierarchy, social control, even human rights violations, you name it. This pops up every time I get into any political exchange with a fundamentalist – though I think the human nature angle is at the root of most ideoligically-based arguments whether liberal, conservative, atheist, or not.

The following points I make basically paraphrase Dr. Niclas Berggren’s essay “The Errancy of Fundamentalism Disproves the God of the Bible”

The fundamentalist asks: Do you believe in the God of the bible?

From what I understand there are, and have been, many differing interpretations of what exactly the “God of the bible” is. The history of Christianity is a history filled with scism and disagreement – often leading to violence – about how to properly view what/who God is. Is god omniscient, all-powerful? Loving? Does (s)he intervene in everyday human affairs? Or only in important events? Or not at all? (You get the drift.)

So the question needs further explication. Is one talking about Catholic views? Babtist? Episcopalian? Pentecostal? Etc.? Dr Berggren makes a great point in naming only a few of the conflicts within christianity:

“…the list of intra-Christian controversies could be made much longer: suffice it to mention the papacy, the doctrine regarding Mary, the trinity, baptism, speaking in tongues (where, interestingly, Fundamentalist Baptists and Fundamentalist Pentecostals disagree), the issue of creationism, predestination, purgatory, consciousness after death, and so on.”

I asked my interlocutor what his biblical interpretation of God actually is, what it consists of, pointing out that whatever it was many Christians in the world would no doubt disagree with that interpretation – and not merely on inconsequential grounds, but in fundamental ways. That very fact shows me there are some problems with the god-of-the-bible starting point. Assuming something as self evident that is anything but.

Questioning my debater further I continued, if all the others are wrong – as I’m sure you believe – what proves YOU right? Why should I see your particular version out of many within christianity as correct and all the others as misguided? These are important considerations when discussing religion – all religions.

The fundamentalist: Do you think the bible is the inspired word of God?

No. The bible was obviously written by human beings with all the inconsistencies, contradictions and what-not this fact entails. Do you mean to insinuate the scriptures are inerrant, perfect, without fault? To prove such an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary proof if anyone is to believe it.

If god is perfect, wouldn’t god’s word be perfect? But what about translation? Why wouldn’t this perfect being ensure that the translations were perfect also, without difference or mistake? So it is up to you – the believer – to explain why this perfect being allowed imperfect translations to occur. If you cannot, there cannot be a god as you know it.

Also, wouldn’t an all-knowing, perfect god be able to provide the world with a way to unambiguously decide the veracity of the bible, without question?

I know you’ll answer some of this with the idea of free will and the centrality of faith. But if we have free will, how did god force humans to write his revelation without errors? The idea of force excludes free will. Also, doesn’t the bible say that no one can avoid sinning? (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12 and 1 John 1:8-10) Free will and forcing one’s vision on others to write are not compatible. Why not present his word in another way, not counting on fallible human beings?

You would agree that humans are fallible right? So if god allowed humans to write his inspired word, isn’t there a better than good chance some mistakes were made?

I’m going to quote Dr. Berggre concerning something you’ve brought up quite a few times before concerning some of these problems:

“…are we not limited in our wisdom and capacity to comprehend divine matters? Even if the reasoning above appears correct, we may not be able to trust it. This is a rather frequent argument from Christians when they encounter things which they are unable to understand; these things are then termed ‘mysteries.’ However, if we surrender our ability to reason and make things intelligible, what can we possibly resort to in its place? Blind faith in ‘mysteries’ unsolved? That hardly seems a more reliable approach.”

There’s also some wonderful evidence the fundamentalist must address address. Evidence that proves the bible to be inconsistent:

“We will look at three Bible passages: Acts 13:17-22, 1 Chron. 29:27-28 and 1 Kings 6:1. The first two in conjunction inform us that Solomon’s reign began at least 530 years after the Hebrews left Egypt. But 1 Kings 6:1 claims that Solomon’s reign began 476 years after the Hebrews left Egypt – a discrepancy of at least 54 years.”

I think these are important points with regard to Christianity (and only touch a massive iceberg) and need to be addressed by all Christians, not just fundamentalists. Please try to enlighten me and show me the mistakes of Dr. Berggre’s essay. They could very well be wrong, but he makes excellent points using empirical arguments.