Engaging our media culture by guest columnist, Annette Ford
Postman and the Effects of Media on Culture
Gifted communicator and celebrated professor Neil Postman wrote, spoke, and taught extensively about media ecology, the theory initiated by Marshall McLuhan. Postman said, “I believe I know something about what technologies do to culture, and I know even more about what technologies undo in a culture” (1990, para. 4). An investigation of Postman’s ideas reveals four points to consider regarding the effects of media on culture: 1) The influence of new media, 2) The influence of power holders, 3) The influence of television, and 4) The influence of Truth. Other media theorists’ ideas add further understanding to these points.
The Influence of New Media
Postman described the profound influence of each new technology on society. He said just as changes in the ecological world neither add to nor subtract from the existing environment, but instead alter it completely, “a new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (1993, p. 18). McLuhan’s viewpoint elaborates this, saying,
“When we continually use a communication technology it alters our symbolic environment – the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings that shapes our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. We concentrate on analyzing or resisting the content of media messages, yet we miss the fact that the medium itself is actually the message.” (Griffin, 2009, p. 309)
Although McLuhan asserted this change is neither positive nor negative, Postman said, “I don’t see any point in studying media unless one does so within a moral or ethical context” (2000, para. 6). He said technological change is a Faustian bargain. “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (Postman, 1990, para. 5).
Postman adhered to McLuhan’s description of history and of new technologies’ influence on culture. McLuhan divided history into: 1) the Tribal Age, where listening and storytelling shaped society; 2) the Literate Age, where the phonetic alphabet introduced linear instead of cyclical thinking; 3) the Print Age, where the printing press introduced mass production; and 4) the Electronic Age, where the telegraph became the first of many devices to extend not only the human ear or eye, but also the whole central nervous system (Griffin, 2009).
Postman described the progress of change from tool-bearing cultures to technocracies to the present American Technopoly (1993). He said Technopoly is the control of technology over culture, and it redefines “what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements” (1993, p. 48).
Stated in the most dramatic terms, the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. (Postman, 1993, p. xii)
According to Postman each new technological shift profoundly changes society, though not necessarily for the good of the people.
The Influence of Power Holders
Postman described the power of society’s experts, of the elite who make decisions for the masses (1993). Schultze said, “These managers aim for greater production and distribution efficiencies and for more control over markets…. They seek and reward only impact, not virtue” (2002, pp. 150, 157).
Agenda-setting theory agrees with this view. It speaks of the “gatekeepers” of the news, “the handful of news editors who set the agenda,” who “select, emphasize, elaborate, and even exclude news stories or parts of news stories to create a certain effect for the audience” (Dainton & Zelley, 2005, p. 199). McCombs and Shaw said, “The media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it” (Griffin, 2009, p. 366). They view media as shaping the way we see reality and what we perceive as truth (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). In his cultural studies theory Hall said because much of our information comes from the giant corporations of society, the media “keep the average person more or less powerless to do anything but operate within a corporatized, commodified world” (Griffin, 2009, p. 338).
Hall believed “the mass media provide the guiding myths that shape our perception of the world and serve as important instruments of social control” (Griffin, 2009, p. 341.
Hall also said, however, the media are not overtly trying to manipulate society, but rather they reinforce society’s generally accepted ideas, thus presenting those ideas as the only acceptable ones (Griffin, 2009). Uses and gratifications theory also presented the view that the audience exercises control, saying the audience responds only if the media gratifies them (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Although Postman spoke strongly about the control of power holders over media, he did concede that the audience has a strong influence on media as well. (Postman, 1996).
The Influence of Television
Postman perceived television as a negative influence on society. Griffin said, “Postman argued that television is detrimental to society because it has led to the loss of serious public discourse. Television changes the form of information ‘from discursive to nondiscursive, from propositional to presentational, from rationalistic to emotive’” (2009, p. 319). Hall, in his Cultural Studies theory, explained the necessity for making meaning through discourse, the “‘giving and taking of meaning’ between the members of society or a group” (1997, p. 2). Postman said television hindered this discourse.
Postman also described television’s trivializing force (Postman, 1993). It reduces education, for example, to mere entertainment. In “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Postman argued that “educational television” is no more or less educational than “Little House on the Prairie,” “Cheers,” or “The Tonight Show.” Each one forms people’s opinions, and each one’s primary purpose is to entertain and to encourage people to love television (Postman, 1985, p. 144). This follows McLuhan’s thinking. Since the medium is the message, television as the medium in this case has one purpose – entertainment and the love of television – so the television programs all convey the same message.
Cultivation theory and social learning theory also decry the negative influence of television on society. Cultivation theory suggests extensive television watching will make people more fearful (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Social learning theory “predicts that the use of force modeled on television today may erupt in antisocial behavior years later” (Griffin, 2009, p. 347).
McLuhan said, “we shape our tools and they in turn shape us” (Griffin, 2009, p. 308). Griffin wrote, “As Boudrillard suggests, ‘It’s not TV as a mirror of society, but just the reverse: it’s society as the mirror of television.’… The issue is not whether media distort reality. In today’s world the media have become the reality – the only one we have” (2009, p. 309).
The Influence of Truth
McLuhan said the progress and influences of technology are not right or wrong, they just exist. Hall urged people to fight injustice through semantic battle (Griffin, 2009). Gerbner’s Cultural Environment Movement believe the public must take control of television to ensure more equitable stories are told (Griffin, 2009). Some theorists only ask hard questions about how to bring positive change to society. Other theorists give some answers, but few offer the radical, world changing answers found in the Word of God.
“The first step in dethroning technology, to chasing it back to its proper place in the order of things,” said Conway, “is not to belittle it or detract from its intellectual fascination or its power to set men and women free from drudgery, but, rather, to erect around it and over it other values and wisdoms that oblige us to see technology in its correct perspective (1999, p. 31). Schultze said the media “are really extensions of our God-given ability to cocreate culture. In spite of their limitations, the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (2000, p. 121).
Postman said, “The human dilemma is as it has always been, and we solve nothing fundamental by cloaking ourselves in technological glory” (1990, para. 35). In the same paragraph he quoted the words of the prophet Micah, “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?" Herein lies the answer. Rather than being cloaked in “technological glory,” the world will change positively if its citizens instead cloak themselves in godly justice, mercy and humility.
In his many books, articles and public addresses, Neil Postman spoke of the influence on society of new media, of power holders, and of television. He also touched on the influence of the Truth. In all, however, his core belief could be summarized in the words of Thoreau, “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end" (Postman, 1990, para. 35).
References
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Hall, S. (1997). Representations: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London, England: Sage.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York, NY: Vintage.
Postman, N. (1996, January 17). Re: Neil Postman ponders high tech [Online Forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january96/postman_1-17.html
Postman, N. (2000, June). The humanism of media ecology. Keynote address at the Inaugural Media Ecology Association Convention, Fordham University, New York, NY.
Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20031013150449/http://www.media-ecology.org/publications/proceedings/v1/humanism_of_media_ecology.html
Schultze, Q. J. (2000). Communicating for life: Christian stewardship in community and media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Mar 26, 2010
Mar 21, 2010
Democrats: "You're doing this TO the American people"
Democrats: "You're doing this TO the American people"
Tea Party protesters disrupted Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press stakeout at a House Office Building, yelling "you're a disgrace to your office" . . . on Sunday, adding yet another layer of chaos to an already tense afternoon on Capitol Hill.
In a moment of apparently unscripted political theater, Pelosi and Democratic leaders marched arm in arm — with civil rights pioneer John Lewis — across the Capitol complex while protesters yelled at them and police held a barricade.
The Pelosi disruption came inside the Cannon office building, where Democrats where whipping the final votes for the historic health care overhaul. When Pelosi said "We're doing this for the American people," a protestor yelled "you're doing this TO the American people!"
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34765.html#ixzz0iqNfRUK0
Tea Party protesters disrupted Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press stakeout at a House Office Building, yelling "you're a disgrace to your office" . . . on Sunday, adding yet another layer of chaos to an already tense afternoon on Capitol Hill.
In a moment of apparently unscripted political theater, Pelosi and Democratic leaders marched arm in arm — with civil rights pioneer John Lewis — across the Capitol complex while protesters yelled at them and police held a barricade.
The Pelosi disruption came inside the Cannon office building, where Democrats where whipping the final votes for the historic health care overhaul. When Pelosi said "We're doing this for the American people," a protestor yelled "you're doing this TO the American people!"
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34765.html#ixzz0iqNfRUK0
Mar 20, 2010
Speed Deemin': Dems Race toward Sunday 'Vote'
Speed Deemin': Dems Race toward Sunday 'Vote' by guest columnist, Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council
The sun is streaming through windows across Capitol Hill, a striking picture of one of America's greatest skylines. But underneath the city's highest dome, few leaders are venturing out. Instead, they're hunkered down, preparing for one of the most important decisions of their political lives. For most of them, Sunday will not be a day of rest--but a day of unrest, as an exhausting year-long battle comes to an uncertain close. The President has postponed his overseas trip, trying to wring every last second out of his personal lobbying campaign. For shaky Democrats, that means uncomfortable sit-downs in the Oval Office where the President uses some familiar back-scratching to lean on "undecideds."
But it will take more than "rides on Air Force One" to woo party holdouts, particularly after the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest score. New estimates from the CBO put the price tag of this reconciliation plan well over $1,200,000,000,000.00--most of which would be inherited by the lucky winner of the 2016 presidential election. Together with unsavory new taxes ($569.2 billions worth!), the CBO spotlights the bill's deep gashes in Medicare coverage ($523.5 million in cuts) and confirms that married couples will still be punished with steeper insurance premiums. Believe it or not, nearly half all the individual mandates under this bill will be paid by American families earning less than $66,150 per year. The CBO also points out that a million Americans will have to get their coverage from a bankrupt Medicaid program on the brink of collapsing.
And if you thought dealing with the IRS is a nightmare now, just wait. Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee say the agency's tentacles will strangle families under ObamaCare. According to their report, the IRS is on the verge of an unprecedented power grab under the President's bill. It will have the authority to: verify if you have "acceptable" health care coverage, fine you for failure to prove that you have purchased "minimum essential coverage," and even confiscate your tax refund.
Of course, the agency will need a massive cash influx ($10 billion!) to provide this kind of surveillance. That's why the GOP is predicting a huge increase in IRS audits and an army of 16,500 new agents and employees to hunt down taxpayers. For all the phony talk of "reducing the deficit," Democrats are neglecting to mention the very real deficits--of money and freedom--incurred by every American if this plan goes into effect. This legislation spells a loss of U.S. life, savings, doctors, and freedom in exchange for nothing but greater government involvement in our personal decisions.
Meanwhile, President Obama is meeting with Democrats and telling them, "Our fates are tied to the health bill." The reality is, the people whose fates are truly tied to this bill are the Americans that none of us have met. They're the unborn, who our dollars will be directed to kill. They're the next generation, who will survive abortion only to suffer the weight of this crushing debt. Like the great men before them, the 111th Congress will walk the long marble hallways to their seats this weekend, where the great voices still echo, "Independence forever!" Ultimately, every one of them will cast a vote heard throughout history. They will choose to pay for legislation with our country's future or stand with the millions of us who know that "liberty--once lost--is lost forever."
Originally published in FRC.org on March 20, 2010
The sun is streaming through windows across Capitol Hill, a striking picture of one of America's greatest skylines. But underneath the city's highest dome, few leaders are venturing out. Instead, they're hunkered down, preparing for one of the most important decisions of their political lives. For most of them, Sunday will not be a day of rest--but a day of unrest, as an exhausting year-long battle comes to an uncertain close. The President has postponed his overseas trip, trying to wring every last second out of his personal lobbying campaign. For shaky Democrats, that means uncomfortable sit-downs in the Oval Office where the President uses some familiar back-scratching to lean on "undecideds."
But it will take more than "rides on Air Force One" to woo party holdouts, particularly after the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest score. New estimates from the CBO put the price tag of this reconciliation plan well over $1,200,000,000,000.00--most of which would be inherited by the lucky winner of the 2016 presidential election. Together with unsavory new taxes ($569.2 billions worth!), the CBO spotlights the bill's deep gashes in Medicare coverage ($523.5 million in cuts) and confirms that married couples will still be punished with steeper insurance premiums. Believe it or not, nearly half all the individual mandates under this bill will be paid by American families earning less than $66,150 per year. The CBO also points out that a million Americans will have to get their coverage from a bankrupt Medicaid program on the brink of collapsing.
And if you thought dealing with the IRS is a nightmare now, just wait. Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee say the agency's tentacles will strangle families under ObamaCare. According to their report, the IRS is on the verge of an unprecedented power grab under the President's bill. It will have the authority to: verify if you have "acceptable" health care coverage, fine you for failure to prove that you have purchased "minimum essential coverage," and even confiscate your tax refund.
Of course, the agency will need a massive cash influx ($10 billion!) to provide this kind of surveillance. That's why the GOP is predicting a huge increase in IRS audits and an army of 16,500 new agents and employees to hunt down taxpayers. For all the phony talk of "reducing the deficit," Democrats are neglecting to mention the very real deficits--of money and freedom--incurred by every American if this plan goes into effect. This legislation spells a loss of U.S. life, savings, doctors, and freedom in exchange for nothing but greater government involvement in our personal decisions.
Meanwhile, President Obama is meeting with Democrats and telling them, "Our fates are tied to the health bill." The reality is, the people whose fates are truly tied to this bill are the Americans that none of us have met. They're the unborn, who our dollars will be directed to kill. They're the next generation, who will survive abortion only to suffer the weight of this crushing debt. Like the great men before them, the 111th Congress will walk the long marble hallways to their seats this weekend, where the great voices still echo, "Independence forever!" Ultimately, every one of them will cast a vote heard throughout history. They will choose to pay for legislation with our country's future or stand with the millions of us who know that "liberty--once lost--is lost forever."
Originally published in FRC.org on March 20, 2010
Mar 19, 2010
Obama and Democrats' Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional?
Obama's healthcare bill: Obama and Democrats' Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional?
CNS.com March 19, 2010 story about President Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs and the Slaughter Solution (deem and pass strategy by Obama and the Democrats to pass the health care bill):
. . . Mark Levin, the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has noted that a lawsuit was brought in regards to a similar matter in the 1998 case of Clinton vs. City of New York, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that the line-item veto was not constitutional.
That ruling cited the Constitution and stated that for a bill to become law it was necessary that “1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives; 2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and 3) the text was signed into law by the president.”
Levin called the Slaughter Rule an “attempt to amend the Constitution without going through the process.”
“Gibbs’s incoherence is an attempt to deceive,” Levin told CNSNews.com on Thursday. “I have no doubt in my mind that the White House is working very closely with Pelosi and her lieutenants on this strategy of pretending they voted on an underlying bill when, in fact, they didn’t vote on it. So that’s why he is so deceitful.”
“His boss (Obama) yesterday, in an interview with Fox News and Brett Baier made quite clear that he’s well aware of what’s going on at the Hill and whatever comes to him, he’s going to sign,” said Levin. “So what we’ve learned from Brett Baier and you is that we have two branches of government that are absolutely committed to violating the Constitution in order to achieve an illegitimate ends.”
At the same White House briefing, another reporter asked Gibbs, “He’s (Obama) not worried that it’s constitutional?
Gibbs said, “He would sign that bill, yes.”
Another reporter also asked Gibbs if the White House was preparing a legal team to respond to lawsuits regarding the health care overhaul. Gibbs said, “Not that I’m aware of.”
The Landmark Legal Foundation is a conservative legal public interest group, led by Mark Levin, who also hosts a popular talk-radio show. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department and as deputy solicitor for the Department of the Interior.
On Monday, March 15, Levin announced on his radio show that he intended to bring the lawsuit if the Senate health care bill is passed through the House without a yea-and-nay vote on the actual legislation and president signs it into law.
A draft of the suit names as defendants President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“Because the House violated the Constitution by never voting on the Senate bill, the Senate bill cannot be and is not the law of the United States,” the draft says. “Defendants, charged by law and the Constitution with enforcing the law, must be prevented from treating the Senate bill as the law of the United States. Any signature by the president is a nullity, and the piece of paper he has stated that he will sign or has signed is nothing more than that: a piece of paper.”
The House Rules Committee drafts the terms under which bills are brought to the floor and debated. Under a plan put together by Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.), the House would "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without ever holding a recorded vote on it as required by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.
According to the plan, the House would pass a special rule governing debate on the budget reconciliation bill that has been crafted by the House Democratic leaders to make "fixes" in the Senate health care bill desired by House Democratic members. Under this rule, the Senate health care bill itself would be "deemed" to have been passed by the House if the full House subsequently voted to pass the budget reconciliation bill. At no time would the House actually hold a vote on the Senate health care bill itself before sending it to Obama to sign.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”
CNS.com March 19, 2010 story about President Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs and the Slaughter Solution (deem and pass strategy by Obama and the Democrats to pass the health care bill):
. . . Mark Levin, the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has noted that a lawsuit was brought in regards to a similar matter in the 1998 case of Clinton vs. City of New York, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that the line-item veto was not constitutional.
That ruling cited the Constitution and stated that for a bill to become law it was necessary that “1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives; 2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and 3) the text was signed into law by the president.”
Levin called the Slaughter Rule an “attempt to amend the Constitution without going through the process.”
“Gibbs’s incoherence is an attempt to deceive,” Levin told CNSNews.com on Thursday. “I have no doubt in my mind that the White House is working very closely with Pelosi and her lieutenants on this strategy of pretending they voted on an underlying bill when, in fact, they didn’t vote on it. So that’s why he is so deceitful.”
“His boss (Obama) yesterday, in an interview with Fox News and Brett Baier made quite clear that he’s well aware of what’s going on at the Hill and whatever comes to him, he’s going to sign,” said Levin. “So what we’ve learned from Brett Baier and you is that we have two branches of government that are absolutely committed to violating the Constitution in order to achieve an illegitimate ends.”
At the same White House briefing, another reporter asked Gibbs, “He’s (Obama) not worried that it’s constitutional?
Gibbs said, “He would sign that bill, yes.”
Another reporter also asked Gibbs if the White House was preparing a legal team to respond to lawsuits regarding the health care overhaul. Gibbs said, “Not that I’m aware of.”
The Landmark Legal Foundation is a conservative legal public interest group, led by Mark Levin, who also hosts a popular talk-radio show. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department and as deputy solicitor for the Department of the Interior.
On Monday, March 15, Levin announced on his radio show that he intended to bring the lawsuit if the Senate health care bill is passed through the House without a yea-and-nay vote on the actual legislation and president signs it into law.
A draft of the suit names as defendants President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“Because the House violated the Constitution by never voting on the Senate bill, the Senate bill cannot be and is not the law of the United States,” the draft says. “Defendants, charged by law and the Constitution with enforcing the law, must be prevented from treating the Senate bill as the law of the United States. Any signature by the president is a nullity, and the piece of paper he has stated that he will sign or has signed is nothing more than that: a piece of paper.”
The House Rules Committee drafts the terms under which bills are brought to the floor and debated. Under a plan put together by Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.), the House would "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without ever holding a recorded vote on it as required by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.
According to the plan, the House would pass a special rule governing debate on the budget reconciliation bill that has been crafted by the House Democratic leaders to make "fixes" in the Senate health care bill desired by House Democratic members. Under this rule, the Senate health care bill itself would be "deemed" to have been passed by the House if the full House subsequently voted to pass the budget reconciliation bill. At no time would the House actually hold a vote on the Senate health care bill itself before sending it to Obama to sign.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”
Slaughtering the Constitution?
Slaughtering the Constitution?By Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Guest Columnist (original posted in the Washington Times, March 19, 2010)
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.
OTHER TWT STORIES:
• Democrats make final reform push
• Health-vote ally Nelson to get a new hospital for Nebraska
• Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
• Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census
Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.
Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.
Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.
Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.
Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.
OTHER TWT STORIES:
• Democrats make final reform push
• Health-vote ally Nelson to get a new hospital for Nebraska
• Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
• Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census
Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.
Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.
Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.
Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.
Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.
Mar 18, 2010
The future of American free enterprise contra Obama and beyond
The future of American free enterprise contra Obama and beyond
American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks was asked by Marvin Olasky (World, Jan. 16, 2010) about American free enterprise. Here are excerpts:
Q: Is the drive the drive to nationalize healthcare a special case or part of a bigger picture?
A: The current administration has two guiding principles, basically. Overseas, what they call diplomacy, which we call appeasement. At home, what they call fairness, which we call redistribution. Redistribution comes about because, for the current administration, the problem is that some people have more and some people have less. That's not a problem for me: I want more equality of opportunity for people to pursue their skills and passions, and individual opportunity will lead naturally to different outcomes.
Q: Once Congress finish with healthcare, one way or the other, what will be a hot issue during the rest of 2010?
A: Tax reform is coming around . . . . When people see that raising taxes cuts off opportunity for them, their kids, and their grandkids, and when we have to pay for the deficit by taxing the middle class, which inevitably will happen, this is going to become a hot, hot issue. It will start emerging in 2010. This is one area where AEI is utterly locked and loaded. We have the data and we're ready to go on this. I can't wait for that fight.
Q: Can candidates with strong conservative principles win elections?
A: Margaret Thatcher won in the U.K. Ronald Reagan won in the U.S. Our task has to be one of principle and not of political expediency in the 2010 midterm elections. It's a short-term vs. long-term problem: We're not working for one year or two years or 2012, but for the next hundred years. We're working for the free enterprise system that's going to benefit our kids and grandchildren and generations to come. The free enterprise system is a gift to America and America is a gift to the world, but only under the right circumstances. Those of us who believe these things need to hold our colleagues',m friends' and leaders' feet to the fire.
American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks was asked by Marvin Olasky (World, Jan. 16, 2010) about American free enterprise. Here are excerpts:
Q: Is the drive the drive to nationalize healthcare a special case or part of a bigger picture?
A: The current administration has two guiding principles, basically. Overseas, what they call diplomacy, which we call appeasement. At home, what they call fairness, which we call redistribution. Redistribution comes about because, for the current administration, the problem is that some people have more and some people have less. That's not a problem for me: I want more equality of opportunity for people to pursue their skills and passions, and individual opportunity will lead naturally to different outcomes.
Q: Once Congress finish with healthcare, one way or the other, what will be a hot issue during the rest of 2010?
A: Tax reform is coming around . . . . When people see that raising taxes cuts off opportunity for them, their kids, and their grandkids, and when we have to pay for the deficit by taxing the middle class, which inevitably will happen, this is going to become a hot, hot issue. It will start emerging in 2010. This is one area where AEI is utterly locked and loaded. We have the data and we're ready to go on this. I can't wait for that fight.
Q: Can candidates with strong conservative principles win elections?
A: Margaret Thatcher won in the U.K. Ronald Reagan won in the U.S. Our task has to be one of principle and not of political expediency in the 2010 midterm elections. It's a short-term vs. long-term problem: We're not working for one year or two years or 2012, but for the next hundred years. We're working for the free enterprise system that's going to benefit our kids and grandchildren and generations to come. The free enterprise system is a gift to America and America is a gift to the world, but only under the right circumstances. Those of us who believe these things need to hold our colleagues',m friends' and leaders' feet to the fire.
Mar 15, 2010
Former N.Y. Times Editor Takes Aim at Fox News
Former N.Y. Times Editor Takes Aim at Fox News
Monday, 15 Mar 2010 09:59 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
When it comes to arrogance, former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines tops Dan Rather.
Raines has come out with a Washington Post opinion piece headlined, “Fox News: unfair, unbalanced, unchecked.”
Raines takes “America’s old-school news organizations” to task for failing to blow the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a “propaganda campaign against the Obama administration.”
Specifically, Ailes has “overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II,” according to Raines.
As a result, after “14 months of Fox’s relentless pounding of president Obama’s idea of sweeping [healthcare] reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation,” Raines complains.
“Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that [Rupert] Murdoch does not belong to our team?” Raines writes, referring to the head of News Corp, which owns the Fox network.
Raines is the same editor who presided over the Jayson Blair scandal. As a New York Times reporter for 3 ½ years, Blair not only routinely fabricated stories, he had 50 corrections.
After the 10th correction, Raines should have fired him. Raines brushed aside concerns raised by editors, including metro editor Jonathan Landman, who e-mailed newsroom administrators to say that management has to “stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now.”
Based on an investigation of Blair’s stories, the Times concluded, “The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.”
In contrast, Fox News practices journalism the way The New York Times practiced it decades ago, when it was the pinnacle of the profession. Aside from opinion shows, Fox News has a rule that, on any controversial issue, guests from opposing sides must appear.
Ailes keeps track of the statistics religiously to make sure the rule is enforced. What could be more fair and balanced than that?
As a result, Public Policy Polling found in January that 49 percent of those surveyed trusted Fox News. In contrast, only 39 percent trusted CNN. Next came NBC, including its sister network MSNBC, with 35 percent. Least trusted were CBS with 32 percent and ABC with 31 percent.
That trust shows up in ratings and profits. While competitors have been laying off employees, Fox has been expanding.
Among cable networks, top-rated Fox News drew an average of 2.4 million viewers in prime time between Jan. 26 and Feb. 22, according to Nielsen Media Research. CNN was in second place with 1.2 million viewers; MSNBC posted an average of only 949,000 viewers.
Instead of spewing “propaganda,” as Raines suggests, Fox News is the most-trusted television news source. By any standard, that is news. Tellingly, neither The New York Times nor Fox News’ competitors ran a story on the poll results.
In posing as the conscience of journalism, Raines exceeds Dan Rather in arrogance. Rather and his CBS show “60 Minutes Wednesday” thought they could get away with airing damaging documents about George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service even though their own experts warned that the documents were probably fake.
The supposedly typewritten documents were so crudely forged that they had proportional spacing that did not exist when they purportedly were written in 1972.
Last year, the same Dan Rather proposed that President Obama appoint a commission to address “the perilous state of America’s news media.” At stake, Rather says, is “our democratic republic.”
If Raines and Rather looked in the mirror, they would see what is wrong with the media today — and why their former news organizations are shriveling.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, 15 Mar 2010 09:59 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
When it comes to arrogance, former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines tops Dan Rather.
Raines has come out with a Washington Post opinion piece headlined, “Fox News: unfair, unbalanced, unchecked.”
Raines takes “America’s old-school news organizations” to task for failing to blow the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a “propaganda campaign against the Obama administration.”
Specifically, Ailes has “overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II,” according to Raines.
As a result, after “14 months of Fox’s relentless pounding of president Obama’s idea of sweeping [healthcare] reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation,” Raines complains.
“Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that [Rupert] Murdoch does not belong to our team?” Raines writes, referring to the head of News Corp, which owns the Fox network.
Raines is the same editor who presided over the Jayson Blair scandal. As a New York Times reporter for 3 ½ years, Blair not only routinely fabricated stories, he had 50 corrections.
After the 10th correction, Raines should have fired him. Raines brushed aside concerns raised by editors, including metro editor Jonathan Landman, who e-mailed newsroom administrators to say that management has to “stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now.”
Based on an investigation of Blair’s stories, the Times concluded, “The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.”
In contrast, Fox News practices journalism the way The New York Times practiced it decades ago, when it was the pinnacle of the profession. Aside from opinion shows, Fox News has a rule that, on any controversial issue, guests from opposing sides must appear.
Ailes keeps track of the statistics religiously to make sure the rule is enforced. What could be more fair and balanced than that?
As a result, Public Policy Polling found in January that 49 percent of those surveyed trusted Fox News. In contrast, only 39 percent trusted CNN. Next came NBC, including its sister network MSNBC, with 35 percent. Least trusted were CBS with 32 percent and ABC with 31 percent.
That trust shows up in ratings and profits. While competitors have been laying off employees, Fox has been expanding.
Among cable networks, top-rated Fox News drew an average of 2.4 million viewers in prime time between Jan. 26 and Feb. 22, according to Nielsen Media Research. CNN was in second place with 1.2 million viewers; MSNBC posted an average of only 949,000 viewers.
Instead of spewing “propaganda,” as Raines suggests, Fox News is the most-trusted television news source. By any standard, that is news. Tellingly, neither The New York Times nor Fox News’ competitors ran a story on the poll results.
In posing as the conscience of journalism, Raines exceeds Dan Rather in arrogance. Rather and his CBS show “60 Minutes Wednesday” thought they could get away with airing damaging documents about George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service even though their own experts warned that the documents were probably fake.
The supposedly typewritten documents were so crudely forged that they had proportional spacing that did not exist when they purportedly were written in 1972.
Last year, the same Dan Rather proposed that President Obama appoint a commission to address “the perilous state of America’s news media.” At stake, Rather says, is “our democratic republic.”
If Raines and Rather looked in the mirror, they would see what is wrong with the media today — and why their former news organizations are shriveling.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
It is not the rulers that produce wealth
Regarding Obama's federal decrees on the economy and health care:
"It is not rulers who produce wealth: they sit behind desks, give speeches, draft resolutions and supreme decrees, process documents, inspect, monitor and levy, but they never produce. It is the population that produces." That population demands a basic fairness: It is not prepared, either in Peru or the United States, "to accept a society in which opportunities, property, and power are distributed arbitrarily.
Marvin Olasky (Univ. of Texas at Austin commenting and quoting Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto Polar; to go to the primary source, read De Soto's The Other Path, 1989.
What do you think?
"It is not rulers who produce wealth: they sit behind desks, give speeches, draft resolutions and supreme decrees, process documents, inspect, monitor and levy, but they never produce. It is the population that produces." That population demands a basic fairness: It is not prepared, either in Peru or the United States, "to accept a society in which opportunities, property, and power are distributed arbitrarily.
Marvin Olasky (Univ. of Texas at Austin commenting and quoting Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto Polar; to go to the primary source, read De Soto's The Other Path, 1989.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)