"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: Rupert Murdoch


By now most of you are aware that FOX News exposed its viewers to the head shot suicide of a carjacker on live TV.  According to an AP report:

Fox News was covering the chase that began at midday Friday using a live helicopter shot from its Phoenix affiliate when the man driving the small vehicle stopped, ran into the desert and appeared to place a handgun to his head and fire.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith told viewers minutes later that the video was supposed to be on a delay.

After a commercial break, Smith said “we really messed up, and we’re all very sorry.”   SOURCE 

Hey, if that’s Smith’s contention, who am I to doubt him?  I think this is more probable than believing, as some may, that they knew they were not on time delay and were simply trying to cover the fact up.  But for those of us who are familiar with perhaps the most biased news network on TV that can claim having the largest number of misinformed viewers,  getting things wrong is a business model for Newscorp, the multi-national company, owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, that lists FOX News as one of its subsidiaries.

You’ll remember Newscorp owned the now defunct British tabloid, News of the World, that has been charged by Scotland Yard for “engaging in phone hacking, police bribery and exercising improper influence in the pursuit of publishing stories”.   The incompetence of this scandal leads to Murdoch himself who now finds himself forced to resign from about a dozen News Corporation boards after being found by a UK parliamentary media committee report “of being ‘not a fit person’ to run a major international business”.

They say the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree and the numero uno acorn at FOX is Roger Ailes , more affectionately known to some as Jabba the Hut.   Ailes has made it his mission to skewer the news to favor right-wing ideologies.  His philosophy is assimilated by those who come on board for the cable news channel and what seems to be a pattern here is either sheer incompetence or deliberate deception where known mistakes are made.

In the case of sheer incompetence, which the airing of the carjacker suicide falls under in my opinion, we have as evidence the “news flash” FOX blurted out about how the  “individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional”  just minutes before the actual Supreme Court ruling declared it constitutional.  Whoops!

On the other hand, for the argument that this was a case of deliberate deception, we find in an earlier screw up where FOX News got busted splicing a six month old video clip to make a compilation clip appear Biden said the “fundamentals of the economy is stong.”   It’s not the first time FOX has put false information out there, only to be caught later and apologize for it.  It’s a practice known as shoot first and express regret later, with the belief that people are easily duped into forgiving the apologist.

It’s not that FOX stands alone in making embarrasing errors, deliberate or otherwise, but that they actually set the standard for how to go about it in so many ways.  Yet they are not to be blamed for this unconscionable assault on journalism.  They are only catering to a market where about 30% of the American viewing public actually demand this kind of reporting.


By and large, language is a tool to conceal the truth - George Carlin

 

 

The amplified political hyperbole that is increasing as the end of the political season winds its way towards the November elections leaves little to the imagination and with hardly any substance for critical thinking.  This art form, that has been mastered by the Republicans for the last three decades, has taught Democrats that they too must incorporate emotional language and over-the-top rhetoric to persuade voters to choose a side.

The claims by extremes on both sides of the political divide that generate bitter feelings become verbal daggers that injure and rupture the civil dialogue that struggles to get some footing in a conversation that should be helping us move forward as a nation in the 21st century.   But who and what motivates this form of communication, to what extent and to what end?

George Carlin sums it up pretty well

 

Carlin makes two cogent points that all of us need to assimilate into our thinking as we decide how we will vote later this year.

  1. “Politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice.  You don’t”
  2. What the “real owners” of this country (wealthy, corporate special interests) don’t want is “a population of citizens capable of critical thinking …”

Both political Parties appeal to the average American but both have too many deep ties to wealthy special interests.  Yet one more than the other has gone out of its way to serve this wealthy special interests above and beyond what seems sane.  Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows this comment is aimed at the GOP, the Party that’s lost their traditional ties with the values and ideas of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and climbed on board the gravy train of the Koch Brothers, Goldman-Sachs, Rupert Murdoch, Exxon-Mobil and Richard Mellon Scaife.  Men and financial institutions who serve their profits and investors over the needs of a public left to fend for themselves when economic hard times hit us.  These are the people who foster the notion that “trickle down” economics really works and who put their vast wealth behind people and organizations who aid them in spreading this message.

Be very cautious then of those who use language that unflinchingly supports corporate special interests in the guise of being “free market” champions while denouncing government as an evil that needs to be shrunk to a size that can be drowned in a bath tub.  Claims by some of an out of control government are more likely to be fostered by those who would create a smoke screen to avert attention from those who themselves benefit greatly from government largess, such as the oil, coal and natural gas industries and many top financial institutions.

Honest application of free market principles along with reasonable restraints and some government oversight is the best combination to ensure greed will be kept in check and opportunity limited only by the people’s lack of energy and drive.  For those who would praise the business model as one by which we should all be governed, keep in mind that besides the fact that many businesses fail, such models do not seek to create a broad consensus but one that benefits and enhances the fortunes of just a few -  their owners and their investors.  Consumers only have a voice after the fact when enough of them come together as a force to prevent corporations from practices detrimental to their health and well-being, making the business model a reactive one rather than a proactive force.

 

Our Constitution does not, contrary to fanatical points of view, countenance unrestrained free markets, nor did the father of capitalism, Adam Smith.  There is no guiding “invisible hand” of the markets that can constrain the insatiable greed of those who monopolize our natural resources and the elected officials who do their bidding.

It is true that capitalistic doctrines do not guarantee that all of us will share wealth equally but it does hold that when the rules are applied honestly and within a reasonable competitive framework, there will be equality of opportunity for all who strive to earn a measure of wealth that sustains them and their family.

Many of those who claim to want to “take our country back” have made a pact with the self-serving interests of Ayn Rand-style, laissez-faire free marketers such as the astro-turf front groups Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works that are heavily funded by Koch Industries.  They have allowed themselves to be enticed to relive an era that may have been simpler in so many ways but forget that it was a time when women  were considered second class citizens, blacks were still in bondage almost exclusively and only white, male property owners could vote.  They use the Constitution as a bludgeon to beat down those people who would argue that it is a living document.  Not as something that was etched in granite, but intended to “form a more perfect union” over time, implying that as the dynamics of our economy and culture changed, the flexibility of the law would adapt to the necessary changes to move forward in the future.

When you’re finished changing, you’re finished – Ben Franklin

 

The Constitution of the U.S. is worded in a broad defining language so as not to inhibit our future growth.  To presume that what it doesn’t specifically say can be interpreted as a statement that disallows a rationale look at issues unforeseen by the men of that time is to imply that the framers were troglodytes rather than the Renaissance men of vision they were  All of us need to be on alert from being lulled into an anti-government state of mind by people who promote the self-interest of a few over the general welfare of all people.

RELATED ARTICLE

It will of course come as no surprise to many that Attila Ann Coulter is quick to Rupert Murdoch’s defense and comparing the hacking of phone messages by NewsCorp’s News of the World London tabloid with that of other mainstream newspapers who are also guilty of some hacking.  There of course is no outrage in Coulter’s claims about the violation of privacy here regarding Murdoch’s Newscorp, just a rebuttal against those Ms. Coulter claims are “demanding the death penalty for Rupert Murdoch right now.”  Really Ann?  The death penalty?  Hyperbole is also ladled on in most of her columns.  It’s extra thick here.

Of course most reasonable people would agree that what has taken place with Murdoch’s tabloid is a far cry different than what other newspapers are guilty of.  The News of the World hacked the private voicemail messages of Murdered teenager Milly Dowler and the parents of murdered Soham schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman along with that of 9/11 survivors and quite possibly the loved ones of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan that worked for Murdoch’s News of the World.  SOURCE

  slain teen Milly Dowler

Set this next this Coulter’s comparison of the NY Times’ release of a private conversation between Newt Gingrich and other House GOP leaders back in 1997 talking about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich.  Courts eventually ruled the taping was illegal but the “hacking” hardly compares to the invasion of non-public officials who had lost loved ones through crime, terror and a war.

These hacked conversations by News of the World were conversations whose outcome would not impact national political conditions and who were not under investigation for ethics violations.  You may condemn the invasion of privacy but you would be hard pressed to find any but the hateful right-wingers like Coulter feeling much sympathy for Newt Gingrich.  Coulter has in the past called a spade a spade regarding wire tapping but in her rose-colored view of the Bush White House’s phone privacy invasions, they were only done against known al-qaida sympathizers.

To sugar coat her case for Murdoch she even refers to him as “an American”, not what he really is, an Australian that became a legalized American citizen.  Nothing wrong with this of course unless you are one of the doofezoids that listen to right-wing extremist like Coulter and the Murdoch-owned FOX network, and were unaware that his origins are not native-born American.

It’s one thing to rail against those who expose those who violate privacy rights that make your people look bad, but it s another thing to defend the same actions when it is your people, a former employer in fact, found paling around with creepy voyeurs.


With the injection of the Tea Party mentality into the American political scene that’s  promoted by the global economic ideals of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals, I am uneasy with how this greater gridlock is effecting our political fabric.



Steven Benen’s “Political Animal” piece in yesterday’s Washington Monthly’s website  has to ring true with every political junky’s perception of today’s voters – they really don’t have a very deep grasp of the issues.  No one expects the freight dock worker or the doctor’s receptionist to be policy wonks on critical legislation but the truth is, even the limited knowledge that voters do have about critical issues is devoid of any substantive criteria.

What we seem to get instead are the fast-food crowd that get’s their daily pieces of information off Facebook, Twitter or the 18 minute round-up on the evening news (the other 12 minutes are devoted to ads); sources that essentially touch the tip of the news-worthy iceberg.  Thirty percent of the nation watches a “news” source – FOX – that has been cited more times than others for manufacturing the news rather than covering it.

Images, rather than objective data that helps one make critical judgments, are all that most voters carry with them when answering polling surveys and ultimately take to the voting booth.  Behind the scenes of all this lies a corporate effort that funds this; mostly as a self-interests motivation  but with some it is an ambition to effect policy in this country.   Most can seem benign and are even humanitarian as they reach out in communal spirit to the public they are doing business with.  But I worry that this is merely a facade for actions that may, intentionally or not, lead to a form of autocratic rule in this country.

This hasn’t escaped notice by elected officials who use political consultants that specialize in framing messages.  Realizing perhaps that most Americans have short attention spans and have shallow but fervent feelings about certain emotional issues, some political strategists send out letters and e-mails to voters along with 30-second radio and TV ads, using words and phrases intended to create a fearful imagery.

Left with nothing more than these fragments about issues and candidates, voters make comments to pollsters that reflect their lack of comprehension.  An example of this is in Benen’s column as he cites a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll: “Americans seem to overwhelmingly agree with President Obama when it comes to a larger policy agenda, but approval of the president is down. They overwhelmingly reject Republican ideas and priorities, but when asked who they trust more when it comes to fiscal responsibility, Americans are split between Obama (45%) and the congressional GOP (44%).”  Why this apparent conflict in views?

Historian Thomas Frank’s book, What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004) tried to tackle the issue of why a lot of Americans seem to vote against their own self-interest.  His analysis essentially boiled down to the ability of conservative political linguists in framing messages around “explosive” cultural issues, such as abortion, illegals (which appeals to the “birther” crowd”) and gay marriage, while painting Democrats as liberal elitists.  A closer look at these efforts to frame social issues will show that this exercise in muddying political waters is funded by a handful of wealthy, often conservative corporate people like Rupert Murdoch, David and Charles Koch and lesser known but equally wealthy individuals.

These efforts have been dramatically successful in damaging factual data on which to base one’s vote by simply attaching the word “liberal” to it in the hopes that the voters would vote against the messenger at the polls.  All of the successes thus far by House Republicans have been cleverly disguised as “the people’s issues”, when in fact they are the issues of special interest, especially the large for-profit corporations

Falsely laying the recent recession at the feet of the Democrats in the last election along with associating our huge deficit with health care reform succeeded in winning back the House for Republicans and increasing their numbers in the Senate.  The ability to exploit susceptible voters during these tough economic times and to do it in a manner that takes advantage of voter naivety is becoming the standard for right-wing politicos.

The fact that someone like Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona can express remorselessness about information he conveyed on the Senate floor that was “not intended to be factual” is evidence of a Party whose focus is less on providing moral leadership and more intent on achieving political power and currying to special interests, to the detriment of democratic principles.   The fact that there was a deafening silence from conservative constituents about this and the blatant lies that are now well documented on sites like FactCheck.org and Politifact.com are further indications that anything goes to control the minds of the ill-informed.

Let me emphasize that this underhanded approach is not the sole property of the Republican Party and it’s ancillary appendage, the Tea Party.   But the level it is being used by them has reached a point that calls into question the ability of our nation to continue to symbolize that “shining city on the hill” as Reagan alluded too or Kennedy’s call to become a nation where a rising tide lifts all boats.

The politics of power and the vested interests of large corporations have made our democracy a weak sister to what it once was.  When a small but vocal astroturf minority can influence large outcomes that do nothing to “take back our country” and instead drives a deeper wedge between us, we are, I think, quickly approaching the threshold where oligarchies and autocracies can gain easier access to the powers of control in our constitutional form of government..

America’s future lies in the hands of a generation who seem, sadly, more interested in material consumption and living vicariously through reality TV stars than effecting public policy.   Clever people who know how to trigger human emotions are all too willing to use their wealth and influence to keep most Americans at this dumbed-down level.

The last social gasp we may hear before democracy implodes around us is “whose fault was all of this?”.   It’s a question whose answer lies in each one’s shallow understanding of how a republic works and what the deeper principles of democracy are.  We take too much for granted because we have been given a great gift that few living today in the U.S. have gone without at all or even a small part of their lives.  The inability of most to fathom what living outside a democratic form of government is like can lead to a transfiguration where only the shell connotes a democracy while the guts of our political mechanism develops into an autocracy.

Perhaps I am too cynical though and the American people, especially tomorrow’s generation are not as gullible as I imagine them.   Perhaps their obsession with celebrity, wealth and looking good is balanced out with a sense of morality and critical thinking that knows when they are being led down some primrose path that says we can have it all if we trust only those who really do have it all.   Perhaps too they will figure that those who have it all are actually hoping that they are never discovered by those whom they exploit.   Perhaps.


The din and clamor of conservatives in Congress, state legislatures, the Tea Party and other political rallies, supposedly wants “the will of the people” to be addressed.  But what is that “will” they so vigorously allude to?

The will of the people …” is a refrain that has been heard from time immortal.  It was behind much of the energy that sparked a revolution in the American colonies in the 18th century as it did in Egypt recently.  Here in America the popular mantra was revived at town hall meetings by Tea Partiers following the election of Barack Obama.  Somehow the will of the people, from which this outcome resulted from, was not the “real” will of the people, or so it was expressed by those in the minority who saw their candidates lose.

This outrage by those on the Right seems to confuse a general population that was just beginning to feel the pain of the awful recession we found ourselves in.  The anger that was festering from job losses and corporate bailouts got assimilated into the right-wing anger of those who were apparently shocked that a black man could be elected to the office of President while losing their majorities in both houses of Congress and many state offices as well.  The shock that conservatism was not the dominant force many thought, somehow created a delusion by fringe elements within the GOP that the will of the people had been hijacked by a “leftist conspiracy”.

If the “will of the people”, as defined by the Right, is to be believed however, then one would expect most people to agree that we need to cut taxes for the wealthiest 2%, slash spending that invests in jobs and our children’s education and reduce the deficit by eliminating Social Security and Medicare.  Yet most polls leave us with the opposite impression.

Now if you’ll remember, I stated before that polls are only as good as the people who initiate them, the way the question is framed, and the sample population used in the poll.  Clearly those polls funded by Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers or George Soros would be suspect by those on opposite sides of the ideological divide these people represent.  But even mainstream polls can be held up to ridicule by wing nuts  if they don’t like the outcome of that poll.

HOW MUCH DO AMERICANS UNDERSTAND ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY?

That being said let me use one recent mainstream poll that seems to show the difficulty in determining exactly what the will of the people is or is not.  In a CBS poll that was taken just last week there are three questions that address the issue of health care reform.

The first question asks Do you think all Americans should be required to have health insurance, or don’t you think they should?”, with 50% saying they should.  Yet in the next question one becomes puzzled when those polled were asked “From what you’ve heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the health care law that was enacted last March?”, with only 33% saying they strongly or somewhat approve of it; the very same law where more people indicated they liked the worst part of that bill – the individual mandate.

What is revealed in the next question brings into to focus why the “will of the people” as those on the Right would have you believe is anything but what they present it as.  When asked, “In the next few years, do you think the reforms in the current health care bill will make the health care system better, make it worse, not change the health care system one way or the other, or don’t know you know enough about the reforms yet to say?”, nearly half (47%) answered that they “didn’t know enough” or were unsure.  22% felt the bill would make things better and 23% felt it would make things worse.   Let me repeat that:  NEARLY HALF WERE UNIFORMED ENOUGH TO MAKE A RATIONAL DECISION ON THIS LEGISLATION.

However, to listen to John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan  and the rest of the GOP caucus, the will of the American people is expressed as something that conveys they do not want this health care reform bill.  The sad fact of the matter is, as this poll shows, that the American people are clueless when it comes to knowing enough about health care legislation to have a will that is based on knowledge of the facts.

Thanks to right-wing pundits in the media, their listeners and viewers think this reform is similar to “socialized” medicine, that it authorizes “death panels”, allows federal funding for abortions, covers illegal aliens, is a “job killer” and will raise the deficit over the next ten years.  Along with some corrections to Democrat’s assertions, FactCheck.org has debunked pretty much all of these myths here, here and here.

THE WILL OF THE MINORITY

So if most Americans really don’t oppose government programs across the board, especially those social safety nets that help keep most American’s heads above water like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, who are these people whose wills are claimed to be violated?

Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the Americ...

Image by elycefeliz via Flickr

The answer that will lead to the likely suspects of Libertarians (many Tea Partiers) and corporate millionaires and billionaires, is one that expresses a philosophy espoused by social and fiscal conservative Ayn Rand which uplifts an idealized notion of one’s self-interests.  Libertarians are pretty much a throwback to the 18th and early 19th centuries when being able to “make it on your own” was more a truism than it is now.

Our new country was in need of adventurous types to go and populate the frontier and make it productive.  Much land was literally given away as late as 1893 in the great Oklahoma land rush and the gold rush in Alaska later that decade.  These hardy pioneer-types developed the land with their blood and sweat and created the imagery of self-sustaining individualists that are memorialized today in the Libertarian political view.  The fact that social conditions no longer resemble the wild and rugged frontier seems to get lost on these people today who easily disregard the plight of crowded, polluted cities and their indigent poor.

They’re not a greedy lot like some of their wealthy corporate partners in crime.  They simply believe that opportunities are still abundant today and anyone who applies themselves will make their fortune.  Apparently unaware that this doesn’t hold true for most people and that they view anyone who still lives in poverty as deadbeats who just don’t try, they are repulsed at the notion of paying taxes that offsets the social inequalities contemporary societies now have to contend with.

This unwillingness to help the least of us who struggle to make ends meet has a following in a relatively small group of people who perpetuate the continued myth about a “land of plenty” and “a land of opportunity”.  What makes their numbers seem larger today than they are in actuality and thus extol the notion that THEY represent the will of the people, is they have convinced many poorly informed apolitical types who have lost their job or fear of losing what they have, that the government is the cause of it and they are here to take more.

Distortions of reality abound on right-wing TV and radio talk shows and stoke that fear by aligning it with racial and religious biases that have traditionally existed amongst low-income people and those whose education doesn’t always include a high school diploma.

A REALISTIC VIEW ABOUT  ”THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE”

The facts are that most people have very little to be taken away and many today are in need of assistance now until they can once again stand on their own feet.  This assistance doesn’t come free but many are misled to believe that the debt that will occur from this tax-payer assistance will not only worsen but is in fact a worse consequence than waiting for trickle down economics to relieve their plight; that view that unregulated wealth will find its way down to the rest of us if we just don’t overtax the wealthy and allow them to run things that serve their best interests.

This is where Ayn Rand’s philosophy, popular with Libertarians, comes in because it is felt that the wealthy will create a productive society since it is in their self-interest to do so.  Sadly, Ms. Rand’s idealized vision of the wealthy people dismissed the human component of greed.  The reality is that the disparity between the haves and the have-nots is greater now than it ever has been.  It was also recently discovered that Ms. Rand herself was a beneficiary of those social benefits she was so often critical of.

For Republicans to presume as they do that they not only know what the will of the people is but that it is somehow steadfastly attached to what the wealthiest 2% want, is a deception that has weaved itself deep into the social fabric of our culture.  They have steadily cultivated this belief and the associations of wealthy interests to the detriment of most Americans.  Sadly, too many working class families often side with them thinking that they share a common belief whose value had merit two centuries ago but has since died with the agrarian culture it began in.


It’s hard to be civil when political adversaries virtually keep inviting you to do the opposite.

 

Those of us left with the good sense to distinguish between right and wrong are going to have to come to an absolute decision about broadcasters on FOX News.  They are either A), ignorant as the day is long or B), deliberately distorting reality and the facts to cater to an equally poorly informed viewer while boosting their ad ratings.  The second option questions the moral turpitude of owner Rupert Murdoch and his President, Roger Ailes.

FOX has indeed the highest viewer ratings than all other cable news shows and based on some of the whoppers that have been presented to their viewing public one would have to conclude that many are absent the common sense God gave a slug.  The most recent example of outlandish views being aired into the homes of many Americans is Sean Hannity’s latest absurdity in a conversation about addressing rising gas costs.

Hannity

Image via Wikipedia

“We have every right to go in [to Iraq and Kuwait] and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for [their] liberation”, Hannity asserted at aFox News featured discussion by the Great American Panel.  He feels it is only justifiable that “these sheiks, etcetera etcetera” should pay back “every American family and their soldiers that lost loved ones or have injured soldiers”

What could possibly be going through anyone’s brain to conjure up such a notion.  Under false pretenses for invading Iraq in 2003 we have already lost over 4400 American service men and women, 30,000 wounded along with $3 trillion and counting.  Does anyone seriously believe that we can “take all their oil and make them pay” us retribution with no further loss of American life and treasure?  Good god, this is the same mentality that said the original invasion was going to be a “cake walk”.

I’m sure Hannity and many of his supporters will merely say he was venting his frustration about the reality that there is no more cheap gas.  But even if this overtly emotional sentiment were true it presumes that  A), increased oil supplies will reduce gas prices and B), our failure to reduce our need for petroleum has nothing to do with this crisis.

New presentation of data in figure 20 of http:...

Image via Wikipedia

And then there’s the annoying little fact about “peak oil” (see adjacent diagram) – that reality whereby geologists have determined that either we have or very soon will reach a point where our known oil reserves around the world contain less than what growing global economies will need.

Now the legitimate argument that is at play here it that when supplies dwindle and demand remains unchanged or increases, prices will go up..  But where Hannity’s argument fails around this economic principle is that oil distribution is global and unless we nationalize oil producers we have no control over how this “retribution” oil will get distributed.  Surely Hannity isn’t advocating abandoning free-market principles to keep cheap gas in his SUV and for his private plane trips.

The real insanity about re-entering combat troops in Iraq and Kuwait is that we no longer would have the support from many of the indigent population.  We would literally be fighting both Sunni and Shiite forces along with giving the rest of the world reason to hate us that much more, including our supposed allies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  And a 5th grader could fathom how this militant action would provide new recruitment material for al-qaida type terrorists.

It’s mind-boggling that Hannity’s show draws over 2 million viewers routinely.  We know they don’t come to watch his weaker “liberal” sidekick Alan Colmes match parries with the ultra-conservative co-host.  How many of them will walk away with this notion that increasing gas prices can be staved off with another investment of human losses and tax payer funding?

Our military is already stretched to its max with it’s all-volunteer military and who could be so naive to believe that there is reserve funding to wage a more costlier war than anything our current costs for Afghanistan and Iraq have thus far indebted us for?  To compensate for this we would have to re-introduce the draft and increase taxes on everyone, especially the wealthiest 2%.  Again, is Hannity suggesting we break with everything he has railed against over the last few years so his fuel expenses don’t put a dent in his 5-year, $100 million dollar earnings?

For anyone who has read some of my recent comments on civil discourse lately they will know that I am trying to avoid confrontations with my conservative adversaries to promote a constructive dialogue.  My comments here may come across to some of them as a failure by challenging Hannity’s sanity (oooh, I like how that rolls out) but that would be a knee-jerk reaction on their part, in my estimation.

I haven’t declared Hannity an “enemy of freedom and liberty” or dehumanized him as many on the extreme fringes do.  I have merely engaged in an intellectual exercise that requires all who find offense with my comments come up with some plausible and morally defensible reason on why we should listen to someone who reneges on his expressed values when it suits his self-serving interests.



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers