Yes We Can, One Year Later

Hi Everyone,

Well, I know I haven't written in two months now. You know how it is with the Reeder. I try to have a life of my own, which is hard to do if you have a blog. I had tests, papers, job searching to do, and I put it off one day after another, and now that I have a Friday afternoon open, I will write on a subject, which is perhaps dated, but I feel I need to be addressed nonetheless. Anyway, here we go.

Last Wednedsay, the first anniversary of last year's election was marked. Many were assessing Obama's performance and delivery on the promises in this past year. Unfortunately, many of those who supported him and wanted him to get elected had grown tired. Many were saying "I'm not happy," "he sold out," and various other complaints.

Personally, I've grown tired of cynical pessimism. I guess it's easier to complain about the state of things than to work toward a solution. It's sad that if everything is not perfectly set up, right away, some people give up and say, "He's a sellout," or "It's all the same," and all the rest. The greatest advancements did not advance because they were set up perfectly in the beginning. They advanced because the people persisted over time, and the solutions were set up through a long, persistent effort.

Presidents going back to 1912. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, and Clinton all sought a health insurance system that truly worked for the people. Now, we are beginning to see one emerge. This bill is far from perfect, but it does do several things. Though the public option will not go into effect until 2013, there are some things that will go into effect immediately after the bill is signed.

A catastrophic risk pool will be set up in the interim for those who need it. Insurance companies will no longer be able to infinitely jack up their premiums, and suddenly drop people for "preexisting conditions." Young people, who most often are the ones who don't buy insurance, will be able to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 27, so that they'll be more savvy when it comes time to buy a plan. There are flaws in the plan, but we are closer to a breakthrough on this than we've ever been, and a constant push forward will bear more fruit in the long run than an "all or nothing" mindset.



Now, in all fairness, there are thing that are not being done by the administration that need to be done. Last Friday, new unemployment numbers came out. The national rate now stands at 10.2%. This is to underscore the importance of getting people back to work as crucial to rebuilding the economy. All gain from other spending, tax cuts, and rises in the dow are only temporary. The bad news is that historically, jobs numbers are always at the tail of every recovery.

Ironically, at the time when there are so many people out of work, there is the most work to be done. You may have heard about those electric cars that are coming out soon. I got to thinking last night that we could use a lot more charging stations, since those cars are really going to take off soon. That could give people work putting those things together, running the stations themselves, and running the infrastructure that goes with it. Now, I know I've touted the prospects of clean energy as a pathway to a strong economy, a more secure nation, and a more responsible stewardship of our natural world. I'll spare you that essay now, since you can refer back to an earlier essay I wrote for that.

What I want to emphasize here is that the scope of the task ahead of us cannot be overstated. This administration is moving in the correct direction, but it is moving very incramentally. What it must do is make the structure of the country one that favors the people over the powerful. I know that this is anything but an easy, simple or quick task, which is why I cut this administration some slack. But this is not the '90's anymore. It's almost 2010. The world is changing rapidly, and the Administration better work for this change.

This is no time to give up on them. It's time to aid them in the political battles they will have to face. Powerful and influential as the Administration is, they cannot do this all on their own. Others are needed to advertise the truth over the dogma that's disseminated every day. And we have to show that there are lots of people who want the goverment to act on what this president has talked about, and are not going to give in, and are not going to be silenced. So do whatever it is that you think will help in this effort, get the Will.I.Am album back out, and start saying "Yes We Can" again.

I wanna know now, are you Fired Up? Are you Ready To Go? So am I. Let's go change the World. I'll try to have more material up soon to do my part.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Liberal Media=Quality TV, Microsoft Works, Etc.

Hi Everyone,

Well, I'm back again. Work doesn't start as soon as I thought. Friday was just an orientation session, I go to a training session tomorrow, and I start the actual work sometime after that. I thought I'd just clarify that for you all. I don't want you thinking I'm slacking off at work now. Anyway, I thought I'd address this ongoing myth about some "liberal bias" in the media. I don't want to turn this into a partisan or ideologically driven blog. However, this time I must delve deep into this illusion, because it really is false and needs to be debunked.

The truth is that far from there being a liberal bias in the media, the media is very corporate friendly. As we detailed with the passing of Walter Cronkite, nearly all the major news outlets are owned by a collection of five big corporations, Time Warner, Viacomm, Newscorp, and a few others whose names escape me. Liberal, progressive views, whatever you want to call them, emphasize strong social safety nets and keeping corporations responsible for thier actions. You think that these companies want to be held responsible for what they do? They want more money and power, and those so-called liberals and progressives want to hold them responsible. These are incompatible views.

Another thing is the tone all the liberal commentators and politicians talk versus the way the conservative commentators talk. Those on the liberal side who overstep the line (getting too extreme in their positions or advocating violence against opponents, for instance) are immediately either told to renounce their statements or effectively barred from media appearances, banished to the wilderness. Conservatives, on the other hand, routinely get away with the most blatant of falsehoods and the most vicious of attacks against their opponents while on the national media circuit.

Anyone on the left who had routinely misled his viewers like Sean Hannity does or advocate violence against others like Ann Coulter, they would have been banned from all the media outlets. There's no doubt about that. And yet the news anchors continue to invite Sean, Ann, Rush, Glenn, and all the other shills. And they continue on with their slots, appearances, and they continue to rake it in after having made numerous false statements, misrepresented facts, and villified, marginalized and advocated violence against anyone who disagrees with them. Yet all that, say, a Democrat or an Air America host has to do is make one out of line comment, and their career is either seriously derailed for a time or finished. Some liberal bias.

Remember that episode in Tennessee where some nut went to kill people in a church because he wanted to kill liberals? Remember that he had numerous books by Sean Hannity and Bernard Golberg in his possession? I asked you in a post last month to imagine if a democrat had gone into a megachurch and shot people up because he wanted to kill conservatives. Imagine the noise there would have been all over the media. Imagine the outrage of Republican commentators. Then imagine if that killer had had books by Thom Hartmann or Keith Olbermann in his possession. Their careers would be finished. People would be calling for their heads. They would have faced numerous lawsuits, and maybe even criminal prosecutions.

Yet the viciousness of commentators of the right have led people to harm, even kill, other Americans who see the world differently than they do (it has been demonstrated again and again) and few, if any, conservative commentators have accepted any responsibility and denounced violence as a tactic. Let me stress here, ANYONE, left or right, who advocates violence against anyone, should be thrown out of the media and held responsible. It's just that there has been a link developing in recent years between extremist language of conservative public figures and violence against those of the opposite variety, and no one in the media (except for a few) is stepping up and calling it like it is.

Republican and conservative establishments, going back to the Nixon Administration, have had a tradition of disdain for reporters. They used phrases like "liberal media," "mainstream media," "media elite," to marginalize any media critics of their policies. Any time news outlets would publish any criticism of a right-wing figure or their actions, and they would be lambasted for being part of some "liberal conspiracy," or some "snobby, elite cadre." This is a carefully manipulative way of marginalizing and villifying anyone in the media who reported negatively.

Any organization interested in gaining as much power as possible must intimidate any potential critics into submission or silence. This is how the conservatives were able to gain so much power over the public perception. But with great power comes great responsibility, and the conservative establishment under Bush became so preoccupied with keeping power for themselves that they ignored their responsibility to the people of America and the World, and it cost them.

My closing thought is this: left-wing, liberal, progressive commentators, the vast majority of them, would rightfully cringe at the thought of advocating violence against people on the other side. That's because most progressives, though they, too, wouldn't mind getting power, recognize that even those with power have to play by the rules, and strive to be better people, just like those of us with less power. That's why people keep coming to this country. What you do still has consequences when you have more power and influence, more so the more you get. This whole issue of media bias in favor of corporate wealth is an issue of a lack of this principle.

This principle needs to be remembered and reinstilled in our socio-political-economic structure. Political leaders, corporate executives, and others with power and influence need to come to their senses, realize this. Realize that when you gain power, wealth and such, you get more responsibility, not less. Most of those on the left side realize this, and predicate their work on this. The media, in their desire to keep their ratings and wealth, have played along with the corporate and political bid to gain power, presented favorable images of them and ignored the damage it was doing to our culture. Everyone, liberal, conservative, and every variation in between, needs to realize this and predicate their work and actions based on it.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Saying Goodbye to Walter Cronkite

Hi Everyone,

Well, I guess you're all aware of today's anniversary. 40 years ago today, a group of three men landed on the moon and took one giant leap for mankind. I've heard interviews with the Apollo astronauts now talking about how they looked back at the Earth and found it remarkable to see how small it looked in the dark void of space. They talk now about how fragile the Earth is now, how many problems are plaguing it now, and we all need to keep it safe. Very interesting, very heartening, too.

Anyway, today, I come to pay tribute to a man whom you've probably heard about by now. Walter Cronkite, who was a legendary CBS TV reporter from World War II to the 80's, died last week at age 92. His reporting, of course, came long before my time. However, given some of the facts about his reporting versus the reporting of today, it gives me a lot more respect for him. He got his start reporting in World War II alongside Edward R. Murrow (another man whose reporting we could use today).

During the Vietnam War, he offered commentary that no one would think of today. He told the country that Vietnam had become a stalemate which could result in a "cosmic disaster," in the form of a nuclear war. He reported that what the Government and the Pentagon had told the people was not true. Today, on the other hand, NBC's David Gregory dismissed allegations that the media didn't do enough to question the Government before Iraq, Gregory said that it "isn't the news media's job to question the Government." Um, Dave, it is your job. I'm aware that when someone dies, people tend to remember the best things about someone, exaggerate them, and ignore the rest (cough, Michael Jackson). However, hearing this made me like Cronkite sooo much.

Fellow journalists, professionals and amateurs like me, have voiced great reverence for the late Walter Cronkite. Katie Couric commented noted that when he was in the anchor chair, if he was critical of a policy, it was much harder for an administration to pass it. That is something to be admired. Imagine a journalist who highlighted elements of a policy that didn't work for people, and then the administration had to fix it. Oh, what a wonderful day that would be. But I've gotta get out of my daydream. So you see why I've got quite a bit of respect for the late Mr. Cronkite.

So what has changed since Cronkite left the anchor chair? Well, for one thing, the media is very corporate dominated today. All the major media outlets are owned by about five huge corporations (Time Warner, Viacomm, and a few others). They depend on access to politicians, corporate figures, celebrities and such for their ratings and salaries. So if they publish something those in power don't like, they could very easily have their career and status pulled out from under them. Our culture has become geared so much toward "infotainment." The news media gives things such an in-your-face, UFC type feel, instead of the serious, slightly uncomfortable analysis that Walter gave when he blew the lid off what was going on in Vietnam, or that Edward R. Murrow gave when he stopped Joseph McCarthy in his tracks.

The news today is at the mercy of some very rich and powerful folks, on whom they depend for their fortunes and fame. But the people have been complicit in this, tuning in time and time again. Perhaps people are drawn to this infotainment culture because it's easier to swallow. If the media had to question our government, question those powerful CEO's, and whoever, people might figure out some uncomfortable things about our culture. Maybe our way of life is costing us a lot more than we realize. Maybe some serious reforms are in order. This would be a very painful thing to discover, especially for people who profit a great deal from this way of life.

But I refuse to give up hope. If nothing else, there is always hope. Maybe someday soon, another Walter Cronkite will emerge, and will use his status and fame not solely for their good, but for the good of the world. Perhaps he (or she) could use the reporting they do to persuade those with power to keep on the right course. Maybe that person would be guided by the spirit of Walter, just as Luke Skywalker was guided by the spirit of Obi-Wan. The world awaits. Anyway, Walter, for what it's worth, the Daily Reeder salutes you!

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Israel, Palestine: The fun never ends

To one&all,

Well, we're only 2 days into the new year, and already I've got lots of material. Of course, it is the kind of material that you don't know if you want to have. Let's put it this way: if you want to have a job that will be in demand for a long time to come, work to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Lord knows we want it to end, but who can figure out a way? Every time we think we have it figured out, something happens and we're back to square one.

Apparently, in the last week, the Palestinian group Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israel. Israel then called in airstrikes against territory where Hamas was. However, Hamas operatives were scattered throughout, so many civilian casualties have been reported on the Palestinian side. As of January 2, 2009, 1 Israeli soldier, 3 civilians have been killed, 31 Israelis have been wounded. On the Palestinian side, around 400 have been killed, including 100 civilians, according to the UN, and more than 1,400 have been injured. And if this isn't enough, the Israelis are considering a ground attack against the Palestinians.

So who's at fault here? And what should be done to correct the situation? Well, this is a tricky issue, and will not be solved quickly or by one party alone. But it seems like Israel's vowing an all-out war against Hamas probably isn't the best idea. I do support Israel's right to defend itself. However, the more intense the attacks, the more likely civilian casualties. Civilians on both sides will suffer. And there is the issue of politics. Some speculate that heavily shelling Hamas could actually strengthen them by casting them as the victims, like what happened in Israel's war with Hezbollah in the Summer of 2006. So what options are we left with?

Now, I got a unique perspective on the event, which is very rare for me. My affiliate blog recently published a story of protests here in Denver against Israeli actions which involved Muslims and Christians alike. The encounter involved us talking to a man who was from here who had visited the area, and another man who was a Muslim originally from Morocco. One insight that we gained is that the great majority of people want to live in peace.

However, the Palestinians also bare some responsibility. According to this observer, Israel's actions are a necessary act of self-defense, and those in Hamas are cynically manipulating the civilian casualties to advance their agenda. I obviously don't support terrorist actions or terrorist organizations, and like I said earlier, I do support Israel's right to defend itself. It seems that on this side as well as the Israeli side, they have not honored the ceasefire agreement, and their refusal to make any concession can only worsen the situation.

So, what to do? On both sides, the powers that be, on both sides, have an extraordinary emotional momentum that keeps any kind of change from happening. Thankfully, there are some there who recognize that this simply cannot continue. But the momentum keeps the attacks going, whether it be the militant Hamas, or the Israelis, wanting vengeance.

Unfortunately, the US has had a hand in this. No politician in America could ever afford to admit anything wrong about Israel. This was one of the things that the McCain campaign accused Obama of, hence Joe the Plumber and others proclaiming that a vote for Obama would mean death to Israel. However, Obama, considered one of the more dovish politicians, fully asserts his support of Israel. On the website change.gov, where he outlines his agenda (look under foreign policy and scroll about halfway down), he says his administration will seek to "ensure a strong US-Israeli partnership...Support Israel's right to self defense, and...support foreign assistance to Israel".

Now, again, I'm not against Israel, and I am as much concerned about the well-being of their civilian population as I am about Palestine's. I should also note that on that same page, the Obama team pledged to "work with Israelis and Palestinians-to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security", and that he will use diplomacy to achieve this end. My point here is that our political discourse does emphasize too much one side of the issue. To side totally with either Israel or Palestine, I believe, would be irresponsible and would work against any solution that could present itself. It doesn't help that the media seems all too happy to present this one side of the issue, rather than look at the complexity of it.

Anyway, I'd like to leave you with these videos. They present a wonderful argument on the subject. In fact, check out the channel of the guy who makes them. Anyway, I hope that the video leaves you with some more understanding of the issue. I also hope that this post could give you a little insight into a complex and persistent issue, which lies very close to this blogger's heart. To sum up, one hurdle we will have to overcome in this is pride.

Whether you are allied with Israel or Palestine, you are going to have to admit that your side made some mistakes. As long as both sides don't the problem will keep spiraling out of control. The situation unfolding there is likely to keep Obama and Hillary busy from the first day, but it will take more than just them to fix this. It will take the courage to fess up and admit that you made mistakes, grave ones. But, this is a true act of courage. Anyway, that's it for now. Hope to have another post up soon.

For the first time in the year 2009, This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.