Recently in From here to revolution Category

The Tea Party has been getting a lot of press lately (mainly from Fox News) and it's becoming a bit disconcerting about whether or not the Tea Party is going to really shape the politics of America.  Massachusetts aside, is the Tea Party really something to fear? 

I don't think so.  Yes, I think individuals who align themselves with a Tea Party have anger, which will carry them far.  They are impatient and nostalgic for the Reagan Era.  This will also help sustain momentum, for at least a little while.  Not to mention they have Fox News propaganda helping them believe that Obama is the next Castro.  Fear, anger, impatience and nostalgia help

However, there is no one Tea Party.  There are a bunch and there is a lot of in fighting too among their different circles.

To give a very simple (and very loose analogy) organizing their political party platform is sort of like trying to order pizza for the office. One person always wants meat.  Another is a vegetarian who doesn't like olives.  A lone person wants pineapple. Of course, someone else always asks, "Why are we getting pizza?  I vote that we get Mexican food instead."  The conversation then turns into where to pizza from, in which every person has a different opinion about the 5 pizza places that deliver. An alliance is invariably dissolved upon the announcement of one person that they actually aren't even that hungry and maybe they'll just grab something later.

To make a better analogy, the Tea Party is crying for anarchy.  They don't want politicians or leaders, and they don't want to answer to the government in any way and they want to overthrow mainstream media. They have no established leadership-- they proclaim themselves as a decentralized movement.  In an interview with Katie Couric, you can see just how much they don't have a clue about what they really stand for.  At one point, a tea party representative said that there are disagreements over which politicians they identify with (which, by the way, they consider Glenn Beck to be a politician), and that they embrace a variety of politicians. The interview ends with a circular answer to what social issues they stand for.  They also admit that they don't have an actual platform with detailed policy plans.  It's like they embrace the idea of, like, freedom and liberty and not being held down the Man.   

Oh, how this reminds me of FoodNotBombs and holding up my hand to show a "C" for consensus.  After 4 hours of heavy debate, we finally agreed to have a meeting the next week.  I am not fearful of anarchist, consensus based and decentralized movements.  I am fearful of those who can organize and lead effectively like Karl Rove.  

Once the economy begins to turn around, progress is made on legislation, and as the midterm elections near, a good portion of tea partiers will begin to abandon the views they once embraced so closely.  Similar to those (like me) who say that they will not vote Democrat in the midterm elections, come October, will really begin to question whether it worth the risk to not vote for the most reasonable (and likely to win) candidate. 

So mainstream media, let's not make this bigger than it is-- it's a meme of political discourse/response-- but they are not a viable party.

An afterthought:  I wanted to mention that the various tea parties are hypocritical.   All tea parties claim they want individual liberty, but no one Tea Party has not embraced the idea of gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion rights or the abolition of the prisons.  In addition, no Tea Party has addressed the areas where regulation or government control has become integral to our society, questioning whether some government control should possibly be maintained, such as: fire departments, public education and FDIC regulation of banks.  Unlike the Libertarian Party which has given substantial thought to these issues to where they are fiscally conservative yet socially liberal, the tea parties seem to want, as Jon Stewart once said, "Want the sunshine without the heat and brightness."   

Hot off the presses:  Georgia's Christian Coalition is opposing a bill that will help prostituted children.  Yup, they are. 

Their efforts are in response to a coalition of child advocacy groups in Georgia that are working to reform the State's response to juvenile offenders, which includes juveniles who have been arrested for prostituted. (Oh, and yes, juveniles (those under the age of consent) are arrested for prostitution when discovered by law enforcement that they are willing to trade sex for money, drugs, housing, etc.) 

I'm hoping that the Left uses this to their advantage as much as possible.  Let's Fox News this shit-- I want a headline that reads as follows:  Christian Coalition Doesn't Care About Child Sex Victims.

Now I'm not a huge supporter of labeling prostituted youth as victims-- I'd rather think of them as survivors of the sex trade.  However, I'm completely in support for knocking down the Right as much as possible.  Let's face it: it's not like they play fair with the media.  Let's use some their own sleaziness for our advantage, shall we? 

Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch amendment, effectively killing the Amendment.  The vote was 54:45, which was not the landslide victory everyone reported.  Although Democrats only needed 51 votes to defeat the Amendment, I think it's a sad state that they only managed to get 3 others to vote for tabling the amendment.  Two of those votes were from Republicans, Snow and Collins (both from Maine).  

It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate.  Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.  

You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.

But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:

Bayh (IN)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)

Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:

Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")

Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment.  The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy.  Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy.  Where is this idea that it is well settled policy? 

And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority.  There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric.  Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans.  Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?    

For those of you who don't know, there has been some major movement around healthcare reform to further limit abortion rights. 

Before I start, a quick history lesson:
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, in which the Supreme Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable.'"  This case remains one of the most controversial cases to date.  Since Roe v. Wade the Court's reasoning has been severely warped and limited with further cases such as Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007 (upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, an Act that was not grounded in scientific reasoning and opposed by the vast majority of medical and scientific organizations). 

In 1977, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for a woman's abortion.  This Amendment unfairly punished those women who were recipients of welfare. Women's rights activists and poverty/welfare activists were furious. 

Despite the Hyde Amendment, a few states expanded their state Medicare coverage to cover the cost of an abortion.  Out of these states, some will fund any elective abortion, while others will only pay for an abortion if pregnancy resulted from rape or if the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman.   

In addition, many private health insurance companies provide coverage for abortions and abortion-related healthcare, including post-operation medications and examinations.  Kaiser-Permanente is one of the largest health insurance companies to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for women-- they are also one of the largest powerhouses to lobby federal government to prevent setbacks for women's rights.  Yes, it might be driven by profit for them, but I'm excited to see that the pro-choice movement has at least one huge insurance company to fund these campaigns.

 

Now onto current events:
The heatlhcare reform debate in the House and Senate is being undermined by stupid Democrats.  First, there was the Stupak Amendment that passed the House.  The Stupak Amendment barred any insurance plan purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.  Essentially, this would prohibit any woman from getting her abortion covered by insurance.  This takes the Hyde Amendment to a whole new level! 

Not only is Representative Stupak a Democrat, but Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House, caved in and voted in support of the amendment to save the healthcare reform bill.  That rings a 10 on my what-the-fuck scale. 

But that's not the end.  Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) has now proposed a Senate Amendment that is identical to the Stupak Amendment.  And guess who he partnered with to create such a gem of a legislation-- our old friend, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the same Republican Senator who used the Senate Finance Committee in early November to pass a bill that would effectively restore $50 million for abstinence-only education.

That's it-- I've had it with the Democrats in office.  I know I say this often, but I really don't see any difference now between the Republicans and Democrats in office.   The only reason I have caved and voted Democrat in presidential elections is to protect a woman's right to choose.  But now I can't even rely on that.  Fuck, even our President spoke about healthcare in such ambiguous terms so as to not make any public statement for or against abortion rights.  I just can't deal with this. 

Next election, I refuse to vote Democrat.  As someone who has always campaigned for presidential candidates (and yes, I phone banked for Kerry and then for Hillary and then for Obama), I refuse, REFUSE, to help elect another Democrat to office.  The only issue I will fight for is no longer on their radar.

I urge you to take action to stop the Nelson-Hatch Amendment.  Let's not undermine women's healthcare more than we already have!  Click here to sign a petition and contact your Senators! The vote is TOMORROW, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, so act quickly!

P.S. I would have put a link to a NY Times article about the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, but for some reason they haven't published a story on it yet.  Add tag for media bias.    
 

Hi, my name is Bob, and I’m a gratefully-recovering CNN-addict.

Hi, Bob.

I really wanted to name this post: wtf is wrong with the US media, part III, but I thought it was getting stale.  I just really can’t think of anything else to say.

First of all, two of the top stories on cnn.com are about sick/dead celebrities’ children.  Yes, it’s sad that your son has just been diagnosed with some rare disease/has died .  Thousands of people die every day, but we don’t hear about them. Thousands die because of American and foreign corporations that are raping the earth, but we don’t hear about them.  Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in the war, but we don’t hear about them.  I still do not understand why celebrities are considered news.  Perhaps the only time a celebrity should be in the news would be a headline reading: “Madonna Receives Nobel Prize for Physics Due to Discovery of Quantuum Worm Holes in Deep Space”.  You know, something significant.   

Second of all, I was reading this article that was waxing poetic about the possibilities of politics in 2009.  Part of it discussed the deflation of the Republican party, which is of importance since it is now the opposition party.  And then, then the article states: If the Republican Party is not effective, does the national media become the opposition voice?

The nation media has COMPLETELY CEASED to have the ability to become the opposition voice!  When the current administration was banging the war drums, the media rolled over and served as a megaphone for the Beltway.  During the entire primary and election season, the media parroted and sound-clipped the trail, but didn’t do any significant vetting or provide citizens with coverage of any third party candidates.  The media has ceased to be the ‘fourth estate’, and no longer can be used as a tool to keep other branches of government in check.  “Does the national media become the opposition voice?” Dream on, CNN.  If you think you are capable of becoming a true voice of opposition, I’m capable of growing a second head.  Seriously.  How can they even delude themselves?  The nation media is stuck in the entertainment business, when they should be in the journalism business.

And, me, like Bob, can’t stop going to these sites and watching/listening these shows. Does it make me a more educated soapboxer, or is it the worst thing I could possibly be doing?  

I was watching this interview of Utah Phillips, late folk singer/activist.  He was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! If you get a chance, do check out that interview; Utah Phillips is fun to listen to.  Here’s what he said in response to a question about the media.

UTAH PHILLIPS: “Let’s see, you started out with what media has done to people. You know that better than I do. That’s why you do what you do. See, you’re doing an alternative media. And if we play our cards right and have enough time, then pretty soon it won’t be alternative media anymore. But then, we have a thorough understanding—don’t we, Amy—that they fight with money and we fight with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time. So we’ll just be patient, and you do your work, and I’ll do mine, and we’ll catch up and overtake them.

It’s a damn shame, though, that we have to be alternative. But then, we’re in a capitalist environment, we’re in a capitalist system that’s built on—that’s built on the least commendable features of the human psyche, greed and envy, rather than the best. We in community radio, in pirate radio, in alternative music distribution, we reach for the best in people, you know, we don’t—not lowest common denominators. And we are building a new world within the shell of the old.

I don’t feel pessimistic about that at all. There’s simply too many good people right here in this room, too many good people on the street, close to the street, doing too many good things for me to afford the luxury of being pessimistic. I’m going to—I’ll tell people that tonight, damn it. I’m glad it came up. If I look at the world from the top down, from FOX, God help me, or CNN or—there ought to be a CNN-Anon to wean people from that idiocy. If I look at it from the top down, I get seriously depressed. The world’s going to hell in a wheelbarrow. But if I walk out the door, turn all that off, and go with the people, whatever town I’m in, who are doing the real work down at the street level, like I say, there’s too many good people doing too many good things for me to let myself be pessimistic about that. I’m hopeful, can’t live without hope. Can you?”

I had the great luck to be in downtown Chicago the night that Sen. Barack Obama was widely and fairly elected to the office of the President of the United States, which is probably the crappiest job anyone could accept at this moment in time. For that, I offer my congratulations and condolences.

There was an air of energy, especially as the news was good. People were smiling, waving flags, pallin' around with tourists (ha. ha.). Some people got messages on their cell phones (I must have gotten 20), while others excitedly asked complete strangers what the electoral college count was. All the cops were out, streets were blocked, and from where I was enjoying a cocktail on the 96^th floor of the John Hancock building above the twilight, Chicago was beautiful.

I, of course, didn't vote this election. To be honest, I was one of the undecided. I felt that both of the candidates had their good and bad points. I think that McCain is not as Bush-like as he was made out to be, but shot himself in the foot when he chose Palin for a running mate. I think that Obama is not as socialist as he was made out to be, but I had a few contentions with him as well.

I'm feeling increasingly discontent with a two-party system that pretends to be dichotomous but is actually centrist. Neither of the two major parties fits my ideals with any kind of accuracy, so I'm growing weary of these red/blue choices and conservative/liberal ideologies. But, thankfully, this two year election is finally over. I have to admit that I'm feeling a little empty. A little on the fringe of the excitement that radiated like a doppler from Grant Park last night.

I am still overwhelmed by how excited people were. People were crying. In my short history, I don't remember anyone crying for the election of a President in a good way. People were literally hopping up and down. People were screaming and they were hugging their friends and family.

A part of me was very skeptical of this reaction. Like the wallflower in the corner of a party that doesn't quite fit in with the scene. I think it's very wonderful that Obama is our first black and only minority president. I can't believe we've been stuck with middle-aged WASPs since Washington (excluding Kennedy, who I guess was a WASC). I hope that his nomination to the presidency will add to the dialogue and healing of racial barriers in this country. I think it's wonderful that George W. Bush will finally be going back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to cut wheat or eat beef jerky or whatever he does. Who wouldn't jump for joy at the fact that a man who has supported and bred one failed policy after another, who really should have never been elected once, let alone twice, will finally be moving out of the White House. (Please, Mr. Bush, stay away from politics. And no lectures or books, either.)

Now, here comes my very large "however."

I am very concerned that this excitement places the entire American voting population (highest ever) in a very precarious position. Excitement like this creates high expectations, mandates, and hopes. And we, as a public, cannot expect one man and his administration to alone solve our problems. I do not want the energized electorate to become discouraged when change does not come quickly. The American voters tend to have short memories, and shorter patience. Please give President Obama a chance. He is cursed with what may be the worst handover in the history of this nation.

I am very concerned that our government will remain highly partisan, divisive, and bound by our false R/D dichotomy (for more on my feelings on this, please see my previous post, "where's my think tank?"). The downfall and party backlash of the Republicans, if you'll remember, happened when the Republicans held a majority in all branches of the government. This is exactly what our forefathers did not want to happen.

I am very concerned that the two-party system will continue to restrict the flow of ideas, policy, and social activism that is needed in modern times. Consider this quote from a recurring third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. "It would be a three-way race if I'd been in the debates," Nader said Tuesday in an interview. If the networks and newspapers had covered him, he said, his poll numbers would have gone up and the Commission on Presidential Debates would have had to include him. "We documented the two-party dictatorship, we've won ballot access and we've educated a lot of people about what politics should be about," he said. Nader was on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia (this material was borrowed from this article).

I'm not saying you have to vote for third-party candidates just because they are third party candidates. But please stop ignoring politicians that don't have an 'R' or 'D' behind their name. Hell, maybe Barack Obama doesn't really deserve the D behind his name, and did it out of a necessity to win.

Here's a dream I wrote about a month ago:

I met Barack Obama in my dream last night!  I really liked him, and we were at some charity fundraiser. Oddly, there weren't a lot of people there.  I really was conflicted on who to vote for, being that my views aren't represented by either major party.  I didn't get a chance to ask him my question, but I saw my political science teacher from high school and told him to ask Obama this: "If you get elected, what processes or policies will you change to ensure that third party candidates can legitimately and seriously run for political office?" 

I hope that Obama will help do that.  That's the change I'm looking for. 

I hate the way people throw around the phrase "Big Brother is Watching You" like it's the only thing to come out of George Orwell's 1984.  While certainly significant, it's a bit like relying on the Cliff's Notes version of what's important.  Although I might repeat the phase myself in front of the security camera in the elevator, I understand that Orwell intended to warn people through his dystopic novel that Big Brother does a little bit more than voyeurism.  I intend to write a multiple-part series on themes from the novel.

 

There are three slogans of the totalitarian party outlined  in the book.  

WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I'll start with the last one.

Big Brother and his party did more than watch.  They controlled people.  Manipulated every aspect of their waking life, and monitored their dreaming ones. The very thought of revolt or dissent was a crime punishable by death.  Although we're not quite to that point in the United States, it is increasingly difficult for citizens to contemplate civil disobedience.

The appendix of 1984 is a document outlining the principles of Newspeak.  Essentially, the goal of Newspeak is to eliminate all 'unnecessary' words from the English language, redacting volume by volume until the dictionary is whittled down to a a volume with barely 100 pages.  The ability to categorize things as "bad" will be eliminated by replacing it with "ungood".  The people wouldn't even be able to talk about something in a pejorative manner (and by the way, the word 'pejorative' would be gone, too).  

To borrow an idea from psychology, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that the ability of our mind to think about things is dictated by our knowledge of the language we use to conceptualize our thinking.  All abstract ideas rest in our mind due to the ability to use language to define them.  So the ideas of justice, freedom, and liberty, are dependent on our ability to explain them through language.  They are intangibles that require a more in-depth vocabulary in order to understand, communicate, and advance our ideas. 

In Newspeak, these complex words are stripped from language, so the very idea of a revolution, or injustice, or oppression are struck from the collective dialoge.  People wouldn't be able to even think about being revolutionaries. 

Luckily for the powers that be, they don't have to spend hours of labor and generations of patience to force language out of style.  There are other methods of controlling people that render them equally incapable of thinking about a revolution.  

Filling people's days with slavery to a corporate state, to consumerism, and a meaningless media machine that does little more than act as a megaphone for the oppressors.  That is how they have stripped people's abilities to think about true democracy.  To revolt against the slavery.  To rise above the squalor of everyday drivel to engage in the things that truly count.

When they try to flood the world with truncated words and meaningless garbage, fill your mind with your own lexicon.  Don't let them dictate your thoughts.

LANGUAGE IS STRENGTH.

This week I have been wondering, "What happened to me?"

The cops who shot Sean Bell were acquitted late last week and there was protest going on at the Queens Courthouse, which is only a subway ride away.  Normally, I would have been happy to grab a picket sign, chant and take a stand against police brutality and growing police power in our country. 

However, finals are coming up and I couldn't afford to waste any time. 

But wait a minute, waste?  Is that what I think of protesting nowadays? 

Since I have started law school, I have yet to go to a single protest.  It could be because the American Bar Association has scared with the prospect of not passing the bar if I prove to be unfit for the profession; after all, I have already been arrested before and it is in my permanent record that I was nearly expelled from my undergraduate institution not once, but twice.  But I can't help feel that there is something else going on. 

I suddenly came to the realization that I am on my way to becoming a professional, the same kind of people I used to sneer at and say that they weren't hardcore enough to make change happen.  Shit, I'm one of them now!

It's no surprise that I feel more and more alienated from the anarchist, feminist bookstores I used to hang out in.  As I continue into this professional track, I feel as if I lose more and more ties to activist circles.  While I keep reminding myself that I want to get a law degree so that I can fight within the system, I still can't help but feel as if I have lost my street cred.

For instance, back in February, I went to a public interest career fair to try to find a summer internship.  (Don't worry-- despite the fact that I am going into law, I'm going into public interest law.  Public interest means legal aid, public defense, impact litigation for the ACLU, etc.).  At any rate, I had to wear a suit for the numerous interviews I had.  However, the interviews were spaced out over several hours and I had a three hour break between my two sets of interviews for the day.  I decided to kill time by going to one of my favorite coffee shops-- it is complete with indie music and flyers for radical poetry nights. 

But I forgot that I was wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase. 

It was almost like a scene from a movie. I walked in and the place became quiet.  Obviously, I am being dramatic, but I am not exaggerating that my coffee order was screwed up and my bagel and cream cheese took forever, despite the fact there was no line ahead of me.  I also noticed a few glares.  Yes, of course, I thought, I appear to have either 1) infiltrated your "too cool for school" spot and/or 2) am obviously in the wrong place. 

I wanted to speak about how much social justice work I had done in the past. About how I threatened to sue my undergraduate university more than once and about how I canvassed door to door to defeat an abortion parental notification bill.  I wanted to explain that I was only wearing a suit to play the part, but that I was hoping to get a job with the Drug Policy Alliance, Brooklyn Legal Aid, Center for Reproductive Rights or the Sex Workers Rights Project.  I wanted to explain that I, too, wore beat up converse and torn jeans and that my hair was usually wild and curly and not as gelled and tamed. I  wanted to explain that I had a job once that only paid for 2 out of my 3 bills and I took turns rotating which bill would be paid late, which screwed up my credit and resulted in creditors calling my house (and then my job) every day.  I wanted to tell them about how I cried when George W. Bush was elected (sort of) in 2000 and again in 2004 and how I was interviewed once on NPR about student activism.  I really was the true thing-- it was just under the suit.

Unfortunately, there is no way to say this.  I just grabbed my coffee and burnt bagel to go and then headed over to the Starbucks around the corner.  Sure enough, I walked in, and no one gave me a second glance. 

You know what bothers me?  You never hear about truly liberal political think tanks.  All you ever hear about are these big Republican think tanks that are creating language and foreign policy that allows the media and government to dupe everyone into war. 

Even the liberal think tanks aren't all that liberal.  That's the problem with the media.  They've got people thinking that CNN is "liberal" and that the Democratic party is "liberal".  NO! The media is not liberal.  It's extremely centrist.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not liberal.  They are centrists. 

 
The two-party system is an illusion.  It's an illusion of polarity, and an illusion of choice.  In America, it's not left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative.  It's some moderately centrist folks against some less moderately centrist folks.  There is no choice, and only an illusion of opposition.

This is where I fall:

I want a leftist, libertarian think tank.

I want a political system that isn't a hotbed for people who claim to be "liberal" or "conservative" who are really just centrists all day long.  The American people deserve true choices.  True choices among a slew of political candidates.

Here's Ireland's political landscape. 

Wow.  Amazing.  More than two major parties.

I'm moving to Ireland and building my think tank there.

Images courtesy of politicalcompass.org.

I really can't stop listening to Fox News Radio.  Yes, it leaves me feeling a little ill, but I think it's important to figure out how the 'right' is doing such a fabulous job of brainwashing citizens.

People who listen to talk radio are, on average, more politically involved than most citizens.  They like to be informed, and are rather knowledgeable of current events.  Unfortunately, they don't actually report on current events on Fox News.  They typically take a single talking point and repeat it over...and over...and over...and over.  For the past three months, they have been talking about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I'm done listening to that.  Apparently they have been talking about this for a while.

I really recommend watching the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. In the documentary, they show how a memo is sent out each day to everyone in the Fox world as a topic for the day.  Then, the "journalists" and "reporters" repeat this idea over...and over...and over...and over.  This is not reporting.  This is repetition. What is worse, other media stations, papers, and broadcasts will eventually pick up this "talking point" and do the same thing, to a lesser extent.  A prime example of this was the Jeremiah Wright story.  Eventually, other networks picked this up and it became mainstream news.  In theory, this isn't completely bad.  I believe that it's important that anyone aspiring president should be vetted for the company that he/she keeps.  In the end, we were left with a nice speech on racism in America, and some people have reopened dialogue on this topic. 

Other media networks do this sometimes, too.  They will latch on to a topic until they finally convince people through repetition, rather than persuasion. However, other news outlets don't have the type of clout that the Fox spin machine does.  Here is the list of assets owned by News Corporation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation. The sun never sets on the Fox empire.

This is not journalism.  This is a noise machine.  This is not holding politicians accountable.  This is finding something negative about a candidate or a candidate's affiliations and spinning until you're blue in the face.  If our current president's pastor had made any inflammatory remarks like the Rev. Wright did, Fox would not be repeating it months on end.  If this election cycle wasn't already infused with racial tensions, Fox would not be capitalizing on these events. This is not journalism.