Celebritizing of politics isn't good

Before leaving for a brief sojourn through South America, I noticed something troubling on the news. On one channel, hordes of photographers followed Britney Spears around snapping shots of her every move while she was out and about somewhere in LA or New York. Bored with the usual pop drivel, I flipped to Fox News and there was a very similar scene of flashing bulbs and a legion of paparazzi.

But Fox News was not covering Britney Spears, they were covering Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin. The scenes were almost identical, both women were being swarmed by countless reporters--every move being photographed.

This type of celebritization of political identities is not just a problem for Palin though. Our soon-to-be President Barack Obama is widely treated like a celebrity and was even criticized about it by the McCain camp in a very successful campaign advertisement. At moments, Obama's campaign (and McCain's for that matter) seemed to craft Hollywood-esque scenarios to capture the attention of the audience...the voters.

When elections become nothing more than popularity contests and public persona is more important than policies and principles, democracy suffers.

Are media feeding copycat suicides?

The troubling report in today's Denver Post about a rash of teen suicides in Douglas County strangely says nothing about last week's huge national story on the Florida teenager who took his own life while an audience watched via live webcast. Here's the Nov. 26 Post story. The AP dispatch on Abraham Biggs' self-murder was carried by the Denver Post online and in print beginning Nov. 21.

Copycat suicides, like copycat school shootings, are a well-documented phenomenon of the sick times we live in. Science writer Malcolm Gladwell, for example, discusses the problem in detail in his 2002 best-seller, The Tipping Point.

The Post did not, to my knowledge, carry a still photo of the tragically deranged Biggs, nor did it link to video of him. But if you Google for "Abraham Biggs suicide video," you get more than 54,000 hits. Horrifying.

Some of those are from unedited wildcat websites of the sort that are now ubiquitous and getting more so. Restraint on the part of those new-media actors can only come from internalized moral scruples of decency. Good luck there.

But shouldn't the responsibly edited news outlets such as the cable and broadcast TV networks be expected to hold themselves to a higher standard?

Fox News Channel, for instance, claims some fidelity to traditional values, but when tabloid sensationalism is in the air, they don't seem to resist very well. They didn't on the Biggs story, from what I saw.

What Biggs did is indisputably "news," as are the technology that he used in doing it and the passively curious or in some cases actively macabre reactions of online witnesses. It had to be covered, and analyzed, up to a point.

But news organizations, in helping give the deceased his wish for global fame, have not only coarsened the moral tone of our times. They have also incentivized more such incidents, arguably abetting a number of deaths that need not have occurred.

Our word "obscene" comes from the ancient Greek ethos that recognized certain human emotions or actions as unworthy of portrayal to an audience -- hence confined to occurring off-scene and receiving no more than secondhand description on stage.

This was done in the interest of (1) preserving dignity for all concerned and (2) protecting onlookers from the very real danger of moral contagion. Those obscenity concerns are as valid in modern America as they were in ancient Athens.

Poor Abraham was diagnosed with severe mental illness, but I'll bet what he did was hastened by just such contagion from the culture. Other Abrahams are all around us right now, in Douglas County and everywhere else. You shudder to think what messages they are receiving from the celebrity he's been given. Obscenity rulings from our courts, or enactments from our lawmakers, are too much to hope for in this licentious age. Self-policing by those with the biggest megaphones, perhaps pushed by a revolted and fed-up public, is the best hope I can see.

High-level delusions about Islam

The New York Times has done it again, how many times now? A scoop about our war with the jihadists endangers American lives. Editors piously cite "the public's right to know." Never mind national security, or for that matter national survival. This time it was a Nov. 9 story headlined "Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda." It’s easy to guess the mechanism at work: Progressives in the State Department leak information to Times reporters. State Dept Officials believe it is their duty to hold “this irresponsible war monger right wing President in check” with strategic embarrassing leaks, of which this latest is only one of many. The President, defeated and dispirited, does nothing.

The State Department is of the “Academic School” for the study of Islam. They study Islamic art, architecture, literature and poetry, maybe the obsolescent Medinan Suras. They do NOT study Jihad, nor can they predict Islamic behavior except as a reaction to the West (the “blame America First” position). This is the school as taught in most of the Islamic Studies Centers at the major Universities, and funded by the Saudis. It is the study of Islam as done by the “Dhimmis”, the semi-slave non-Muslims who have already submitted to Islam.

If American society and Western Civilization are to survive, there must be some “change” in this regard, although we are not likely to find any change for the better with the incoming administration. An obvious step is to convert the “Academic” school to the “Foundational School”.

The Foundational School studies the SAME foundational documents of Islam as the believers themselves! This means not only the Qu’ran, but the “The Hadiths”, or the “Sayings of Mohammad” and the “Sira”, “The life of Mohammad”, the perfect man whom we all must emulate, (but I will pass on the 9 year old wife).

The Foundational School CAN predict Islamic behavior by understanding the Theology that drives them! This is the key to understanding political Islam. And by the way, there is no difference between religious and political Islam, as the Islamics themselves will tell you. When the Imams preach “Death to America and Death to the Jews” in their houses of worship, it gives us a very good reason to treat Islam as a political movement and not allow them to hide behind the veil of religion.

The Foundational School also studies the full history of Jihad and its victims, some 270 million killed over the centuries. It is the School of “The Kafirs”, the “hated ones” who have NOT submitted to Islam!

Once the State Department converts to the Foundational School, and gets rid of their Wahabbist translators that are keeping them blind to true Islamic intentions, possibly their instinct for survival will kick in and America will have a chance.

Why Palin drives the media nuts

Wikipedia defines psychological projection as "a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as 'Freudian Projection.'" Bill Clinton liked to rail against "the politics of personal destruction." His party's leaders regularly point fingers at the opposition claiming they're "mean." Clinton was a master of exactly what he complained about and the others are right behind.

Take a close look at that definition of "projection" up there and ask yourself whether it doesn't fit today's liberals like a hand in a well-fitted kid glove. Consider, for example, their reaction to nomination of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin's candidacy for vice president.

Politically aware Lefties had to know from the get-go that Palin would be an awesome force descending on their plans to dominate. Their reaction has been just what one with many years' experience watching liberal leaders would expect: a thermonuclear effort at personal destruction. Destruction of the governor and, not incidentally, her family.

Leave aside the ugly little e-mails allegedly from an individual Alaskan here or there that have gone "viral" on the Internet. Among the prices we pay for having the Internet is the ease with which an authoritative name, or invented credentials, can be fraudulently attached to any message. The more titillating the better. Plus, given the number of backsides Palin has had to kick en route to her 80% approval rating, it shouldn't be hard to find a local critic eager to retaliate - whether or not hiding behind a nom de plume.

Think about the mainstream media (MSM), which appear to collectively adore Sen. Barack Obama and generally display a distinct Leftist bias (think The New York Times and MSNBC). Two subjects come to mind: "gotchas" and experience. Consider the play on Obama's gaffes versus Palin's. He's the guy who skated away from a claim of having campaigned in 57 states and wasn't through all of them yet. Imagine the continuing din if Palin seemed confused over how many states are comprised by our country. That's just for starters.

Experience? "Everyone knows" Palin isn't qualified. Too young. Governs too small a state and for too short a time. Blah, blah, blah. Fair enough, Big Boys of the MSM, but what about Obama?

Let's see. Both are close to the same age. Obama wants the Oval Office. He has a bit of legislative experience remarkable only for its radical Left positions and, as part of the traditionally corrupt crowd that controls politics and patronage in Cook County (Chicago), his claim to be a reformer is difficult to believe. (See, for example, "Soldier for Stroger" by David Freddoso here.)

Palin has an 80% approval rating in governing a real state, and she won that governorship by challenging and defeating a tainted incumbent - a good ol' boy - of her own party. Following her election, she continued to take on political and business interests (e.g., oil companies) that are traditionally connected by liberals to her own party.

What about potential disqualifications?

For 16 years, Obama and his wife worshipped with a profane, ultra-racist, America-hating preacher man named Jeremiah Wright. Obama finally "threw Wright under the bus" after a nationally televised appeal to tolerate the intolerable failed to get Obama past his Wright wrong. That made everything for the Left and the MSM right once again.

Another important Obama distinction the MSM doesn't talk about is his long friendship with Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers. Not just friendship, but they worked together in advancing Leftist causes in the Chicago area. Obama's first political campaign began with a party in the home of Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, both former fugitives from justice from their Weatherman terrorist days who avoided prison on the technicality of prosecutorial misconduct. Great pals for Obama, the former lecturer on constitutional law!

As a governor, former mayor and member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Palin has certifiable qualifications for public executive office, but Obama's the one running for president.

Going into her debate with Obama's veep candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, Palin was thought to have been totally softened up by relentless media criticism and satire. TV news anchors Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric conducted chip-on-the-shoulder interviews with Palin, which were followed up by others in the MSM feigning horror over errors and openly speculating that McCain would call on her to step aside.

Poor Biden. Palin was anything but softened up. Biden has been in the U.S. Senate for 34 years, three-quarters of Palin's life, yet she had him on the defensive for most of the 90 minutes. The outmatched Biden gave it the old college try, twice reminding listeners that his father addressed him as "Champ" and complaining no fewer than four times about some $4 billion tax benefit for Exxon Mobil. In the end, though, one could only agree with Dick Morris and Eileen McGann: "Biden sounded like the warmed-over has-been that he is ... hypnotically boring."

An aside: While Biden was mostly innocuous, I noted this very ominous comment in addressing a moderator's question about climate change, also known as global warming. He said, "I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden - Gov. Palin and Joe Biden. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting."

Biden is right about the need to understand the cause. Unfortunately he quite obviously doesn't, and fixes growing out of his "understanding" will be both ineffective and economically ruinous. For too long Sen. John McCain has been wrong on this, too, but at least he has a running mate in Palin who has her head screwed on right.

The Obama campaign, its surrogates in the MSM, and leftists in the blogosphere have brilliantly displayed for all to see what "politics of personal destruction" means. In fact, we can hope that the raw partisan ugliness of media personalities like MSNBC's Keith Olbermann will create such backlash as actually to improve the quality of political discourse and reporting.

Many will remember with relish Dan Rather's demise, following discovery of fakery at CBS in Rather's reporting on President Bush's military service. I have on my office wall the original of a hilarious cartoon by the Albuquerque Journal's John Trever, titled "The CBS Defense" and depicting law enforcement personnel taking some manacled sap away from a printing press in a room festooned with drying counterfeit bills. The sap is saying, "Sure they're fake, but they're accurate!"

Olbermann makes Rather seem a paragon of objectivity and truthfulness.

The extensive cover story by Stephen Spruiell in the September 15th National Review discusses at length the threat to the very existence of NBC news on account of its subsidiary's Olbermann. Events subsequent, including reassignment of Olbermann and Chris Matthews, may indicate a return toward (distant) impartiality. In any case, reporters all over the country cannot fail to resent the smear of the Olbermann/Matthews betrayal of professionalism. We all have our biases and preferences, but most reporters - just like most of the rest of us - aspire to perform professionally. Few want to look in the mirror in the morning and recognize someone whose journalistic ethics are in the toilet with Keith Olbermann's.

Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and Gretchen Carlson, please take note.

MSM anoint selves as newsmakers

Watching the debate between Senator McCain and Pharaoh Obama was an interesting and joyful evening for me. After all, we can probably agree that there is no greater pleasure then to watch or participate in a verbal battle of wills and ideas. That is of course, until you're married, but I digress. In any event I was quite happy to watch the debate. Happy, because debate and discussion is one of the fundamental principles behind the greatness of America and her people. While some shy away from public speaking, it is important to note that debate matters not just for the debater but for the audience as well. Debates provide everyone who watches them a unique perspective into both the ideas and qualifications of an idea, a candidate or a proposal. They are an integral part of America and if you don’t like them, move to Iran. But I found that the 9/26 debate gave me insight not so much into the candidates as into the media themselves.

As soon as the debate had finished, and in some cases before it began, the MSM was in high jabber. With preordained conclusions these pundits crashed into the discussion with confusing, factually ignorant and plainly biased commentary. Any ideas of reporting the news seems to have gone out the window as the MSM made a longwinded and really rather pathetic attempt to make the news. No sooner had the debate ended then the MSM attempted to give the debate ‘tie’ to Obama. Strangely this award came with claims that the debate was ‘about what we expected’ from people who for weeks had insinuated the first debate would be the first miracle of Obama. Amidst flurries of self-congratulation, led by CNN, the MSM made a sincere attempt to package the debate in the terms of their world and not that of the American voter. For weeks we have seen signs of this; and from the plainly unfair and simply mean treatment of Gov. Palin to the nearly dictatorial claims about Sen. McCain that now, daily, dot the pages of the NYT.

But the behavior of the MSM in regard to the debate and now the financial crisis has broken new ground. Ground where all facts go out the window and where major MSM providers have no problem altering the facts so as to rattle the cages of everyday Americans.

Now I wish that the media wasn’t the chimera of graft and smear that it is today and I wish that I didn’t even have to talk about them. But unfortunately, for me and for you, I do. I do because the media has interjected itself into the current political debate in an all-consuming manner as judge, jury and executioner. The political media today is not about America, it is not even about the news any more; it is about only itself -- an all-consuming orthodoxy that makes the form of debate a sad panda and me a sadder kitten.

For months now some principal media imps have done nothing but apotheosize Obama and run down McCain. I am sure you have seen it, let it be Rachel Maddow calling the idea of Americans voting for McCain ‘twisted’, or Keith Olbermann essentially blaming the entire financial mess on John McCain.

But, in this long, long, very long election a few media types have stuck out as true servants of Mordor. Acolytes of Morgoth, they go by the names; Maddow, Cafferty, Olbermann, Milbank, Hewitt, Beck, Holmes, Roland S. Martin, Toobin, and the bear himself: Stephen Colbert. These lesser scamps are the grave of facts and the edge of discussion; the true bane of debate. They are puerile and a farce. They demonstrate by action their desire to make the news and not report it. From hill to dale they slant the facts with a desire similar to that of old wicker rotting in the sun. Each has a craft, a parlance of overstatement that ruins even the simplest situation. None seem to have a desire for truth and rarely can they see past themselves.

Now I can’t do much about the sad state of the media but I can write this little piece. This little shot across the bow that lets these forces know that not everyone bows to them. Oh, and also that someone else can use the axe that is literary criticism just as easily as they do.