My grandmother was born in 1912. She suffered through both World Wars, the Great Depression, raised three children and worked in a factory most of her adult life. Her parents came from Eastern Europe, without a word of English between them, and they prospered, raising 12 children, all of whom became successful, productive members of society.
My grandmother's life led her to the opinion that there should be a 'hand-up' from the government, but no 'hand-outs'. There is only one instance of familial accord that I am aware of, between my father and my maternal grandmother. She fervently believed what went on in people's homes was none of the government's business, as long as no laws were being broken. Because of these opinions, she, like my father, voted Republican, through and through.
One might be tempted to think this is a wonderful story of an elderly person taking an active interest in the state of our nation. On a personal note, it is a wonderful example of family unity, where my father and his mother-in-law are in complete accord.
What makes this story not so wonderful is the fact that both my grandmother and my father are currently registered as Democrats in the great City of Chicago. What's so bad about that? Well, for one thing, my grandmother died in 1977, and my father died in 1990. More importantly, at their deaths, they were both registered Republicans.
Not only is this unequivocal proof of voter fraud, it is a personal insult. If possible, my grandmother and father would unite in death as they did on this one subject in life and rise from their graves and throttle the miscreant who dares to smear their names by casting votes for them as Democrats. I for one am staying far, far away from that particular cemetery for the time being. Talk about the unsettled dead!
How did this information come to light? Well, some half-wit had the audacity to mail the voter registration cards to the last known address on file for each of them, which happens to be the same house where my mother still lives. On the one hand, my mother got a chuckle out of the unneeded reminder of the corruption of the City of Chicago. She, who is a life-long registered Democrat also got a chuckle from the thought that she finally has the last word on the political debate that raged around our dinner table.
Everyone who lives in or hails from Chicago knows Mayor Daley is corrupt. Knows the 'Political Machine' in Chicago is alive and well. Knows Daley will never be convicted, much less removed from office except by death, as was his father. I admit to having voted for Daley time and again, despite this knowledge, not out of respect for or belief in Daley. But simply because Chicago Works. And because there has never been an opponent who was not equally corrupt.
"At least things get done" is the mantra of most Chicago Daley supporters. Whatever his faults, Daley has turned Chicago into a jewel, a truly world-class city. And his opponents have never been about change, about rooting out corruption. They have all been about removing Daley and his cronies so 'they and theirs' could get some. So, I voted, without a qualm, for Daley, as did the rest of my family, even those like my father and grandmother who were otherwise avowed Republicans.
'Vote Early, Vote Often', has been the only partly tongue-in-cheek expression of the voting system in that fair city for longer than I can remember. I remember being surprised to learn in Civics class that each person has only one vote. I truly thought that people were allowed to vote more than once, if they felt strongly enough about who they were voting for (or against). I don't recall thinking how many votes each person was allowed, but, I do remember my parents getting a good laugh at my confusion. I also remember that the conversation that followed swiftly flew over my head.
As a young adult, I remember going to the voting place, and being surprised that our next door neighbor of more than 20 years was an election judge. As she scanned the list to check off my name, I was shocked at seeing my grandmother's name, as she had been dead at that point for more than 10 years. I clearly recall the sneer I received from that neighbor when I asked her why she didn't say anything about this oversight of which she was well aware, as she had attended my grandmother's wake and funeral. I learned then and there that all the rumors and accusations about voter fraud and the Daley Political Machine were true, accurate and valid.
In subsequent elections, I paid attention when I was at the voting place. I looked for my grandmother's name, as well as my father's and was pleased to see their names were not on the rolls of registered voters. So it was with more than a little surprise that I discovered they are back on the voting roster. I guess it is appropriate, days before Halloween and Day of the Dead. There is macabre humor here, and luckily, my mother appreciates that flavor of humor above all others. I too, usually get a good laugh from gallows humor. Somehow, this time, I just can't muster a smile.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I have Hope!
This morning I saw something I had despaired of ever seeing again. I sat, eyes wide, mouth agape, as I attempted to process what my senses were perceiving. I actually saw Fox News return to it's slogan of "We Report, You Decide" instead of it's recently more appropriate epithet of "We Distort, You Decide".
Wednesday, October 28th 2008, just 6 days prior to one of the most important, momentous occasions in our Nation's voting history, Fox News began to reclaim it's journalistic integrity. They have reported, both on TV and on the Internet (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/)
that there is a bias in the media against John McCain. Fox reported that the LA Times is 'burying' a video tape that, if released, would severely damage Obama's position as the heir presumptive of the White House.
The LA Times has in it's possession a video tape of a farewell dinner thrown for Rashid Khalidi, where Barak Obama spoke about his personal and professional relationship and camaraderie with Rashid Khalidi.
Who is Rashid Khalidi? He was Professor of Middle East History in the Department of Near East Languages and History at the University of Chicago. He received his B.A. from Yale University in 1970, and his D.Phil. from Oxford University in 1974. He has taught at the Lebanese University, the American University of Beirut, and Georgetown and Columbia universities. He is past President of the Middle East Studies Association, and was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid and Washington Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from October 1991 until June 1993. Currently, he holds the anonymously endowed Edward Said Chair at Columbia University in New York.
He is the author of several books and articles on the Palestinian/Israeli affairs. He is staunchly pro-Palestinian, against Israeli and American policies in the region, as reported in the past by the New York Times and the Washington Post. He calls Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a "racist state" that "brainwashed" Americans do not understand. Jerusalem, he deems "an Arab city" whose control by Israeli "foreigners" is "unacceptable." He now denies his involvement with Yasser Arafat in the 1970's and 1980's, when Arafat and the PLO were still considered terrorists for their penchant for hijacking airplanes and blowing things up. He states he was never an 'employee' of the PLO or of Yasser Arafat, and cites that distinction as proof of his distance from Arafat and the PLO during that time frame. Recently, he has owned and bragged about his position and influence of and by the Palestinian Authority leadership both past and present.
Just to keep the waters crystal clear, I happen to believe in the creation of a Palestinian Soveriegn Nation. I do not believe Israel's right to exist is any stronger than Palestine's. I simply do not believe ANYONE, has a right to exist at the expense and exclusion of another. I do not pretend to have the answers to the 'Palestinian Question', but I do believe that Americans do not fully understand the situation there, nor are we likely to in the near future, at least on a national scale because of the equally wrong fear-mongering and hyperbole issuing from both sides.
Why does it matter who Rashid Khalidi is? In the long haul, it doesn't matter as much as the relationship between Khalidi and Obama. The definitive answer to the question of how much Obama supports Khalidi's ideals and his true feelings on this subject are contained in this unreleased video tape the LA Times is suppressing. What will be most telling is listening to Obama's words on that tape, then his words prior to the full disclosure of the tape, and ultimately his side-stepping, tap dancing and loop-de-loops to cover his inconsistencies and flat-out lies. This tape will also show Obama's relationship both personal and professional with William Ayers, another attendee of the event.
And the LA Times simply cannot allow any of this. Their pretensions to journalistic integrity would be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious. They claim they are protecting and honoring the wishes of their 'source'. They claim they reported on the existence of this tape months ago, and have issued their last statement on the subject. They have also endorsed Barak Obama in his bid for President.
So, the LA Times is either protecting their candidate, or protecting themselves. They admit they knew the contents of this tape prior to their endorsement. Which means that either in spite of or because of the sentiments expressed by their candidate on this tape, they chose to endorse him for the highest office of the land. Sad to say, but it will probably be left to the National Enquirer or some other traditionally viewed 'yellow' journalistic outfit to find and release this or another tape of the event.
What in all of this has given me hope? Fox News has been as guilty of partisanship and biased reporting as all the other news outlets. I have already commented on my dismay at realizing the charge of 'liberal, biased news organizations' has some validity in this campaign. The fact that Fox News, and now other outlets, are 'outing' this scandalous situation tells me the 'heir presumptive' thinking may have been premature. There is nothing the media hates more than being wrong.
The media in this country have become self-appointed prognosticators. The media want to tell us they know, because of their position as investigators and editorialists, where the country is headed. They know the American people, are one of 'us', and therefore can predict the mood of the country. This is not their job. Their job is to report the facts that are out there, not create them, not slant them, and most certainly not to even attempt to influence them.
They have been by and large reporting that Obama will win. Now that the election will by all measures be much closer, and in all probability too close to call until the fat lady actually sings, they cannot afford to have been wrong. So, they are at least in this one small measure, attempting to level the playing field.
There have been small, quiet noises for the past week or so, with headlines like "What if McCain wins?" and "Will people actually vote the way they have told the Pollsters?". I think the term 'hedging their bets' is appropriate.
And that is what has given me hope. I have been fearing the outcome of this election was a foregone conclusion, largely because of the media bias. There have been stories, and valid accusations that have gone mostly under-reported if not all together ignored, that if given the full spotlight the media is capable of mustering, would completely sideline Obama's chance of a win on November 4th.
To continue to appear valid and unbiased, the media has been guilty of practicing 'damning with faint praise'; when a question is raised, the question is publicized, but editorialized and spun to favor Obama. The media can then justifiably state the question was covered. What cannot be justified is the lack of investigative follow-up required to unearth the truth, which ever way that truth will point.
I will make a prediction here and now. I will predict that over the coming days, media outlets across America will begin to air stories that question the validity of the polls they have so lovingly broadcast. They will begin to air stories that the American people, while not perhaps completely abandoning Obama, are looking at the depth, scope and sheer number of unanswered questions about Obama's associations, refusals to release records from birth thru college and what all that means about his character. The media will report that because of this, the election is far from a foregone conclusion. They will call McCain the underdog, and state it is a tradition in this country for the underdog to win, that it is the definition of the American Experience. They will turn McCain's possible win into a Horatio Algiers story for the 21st Century. And they will then point to their 11th hour prognostications as proof of their ability to accurately take the temperature of the American people. There are some media outlets that will, however, be unable to distance themselves from their obvious bias, and they will hopefully suffer the consequences of the justified wrath of the American public.
This Presidential election has become a three-way race in that if McCain wins, there will be two losers. Barak Obama and the American Media. The media holds a public trust no less important than that of our government. Actually, more important and more sacred. We turn to the media for truth. We hope that at least the media won't lie to us, won't put it's needs, it's agenda, ahead of the welfare of the people. We rely on the media to root out the dishonest, the untrustworthy and the downright dangerous demagogues we errantly place in public office. We expect the unvarnished, un-whitewashed facts to be placed before us for us to use in making our decisions. When the media loses that trust, as many outlets stand to over this election, the American people have lost their one, last best hope.
Wednesday, October 28th 2008, just 6 days prior to one of the most important, momentous occasions in our Nation's voting history, Fox News began to reclaim it's journalistic integrity. They have reported, both on TV and on the Internet (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/)
that there is a bias in the media against John McCain. Fox reported that the LA Times is 'burying' a video tape that, if released, would severely damage Obama's position as the heir presumptive of the White House.
The LA Times has in it's possession a video tape of a farewell dinner thrown for Rashid Khalidi, where Barak Obama spoke about his personal and professional relationship and camaraderie with Rashid Khalidi.
Who is Rashid Khalidi? He was Professor of Middle East History in the Department of Near East Languages and History at the University of Chicago. He received his B.A. from Yale University in 1970, and his D.Phil. from Oxford University in 1974. He has taught at the Lebanese University, the American University of Beirut, and Georgetown and Columbia universities. He is past President of the Middle East Studies Association, and was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid and Washington Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from October 1991 until June 1993. Currently, he holds the anonymously endowed Edward Said Chair at Columbia University in New York.
He is the author of several books and articles on the Palestinian/Israeli affairs. He is staunchly pro-Palestinian, against Israeli and American policies in the region, as reported in the past by the New York Times and the Washington Post. He calls Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a "racist state" that "brainwashed" Americans do not understand. Jerusalem, he deems "an Arab city" whose control by Israeli "foreigners" is "unacceptable." He now denies his involvement with Yasser Arafat in the 1970's and 1980's, when Arafat and the PLO were still considered terrorists for their penchant for hijacking airplanes and blowing things up. He states he was never an 'employee' of the PLO or of Yasser Arafat, and cites that distinction as proof of his distance from Arafat and the PLO during that time frame. Recently, he has owned and bragged about his position and influence of and by the Palestinian Authority leadership both past and present.
Just to keep the waters crystal clear, I happen to believe in the creation of a Palestinian Soveriegn Nation. I do not believe Israel's right to exist is any stronger than Palestine's. I simply do not believe ANYONE, has a right to exist at the expense and exclusion of another. I do not pretend to have the answers to the 'Palestinian Question', but I do believe that Americans do not fully understand the situation there, nor are we likely to in the near future, at least on a national scale because of the equally wrong fear-mongering and hyperbole issuing from both sides.
Why does it matter who Rashid Khalidi is? In the long haul, it doesn't matter as much as the relationship between Khalidi and Obama. The definitive answer to the question of how much Obama supports Khalidi's ideals and his true feelings on this subject are contained in this unreleased video tape the LA Times is suppressing. What will be most telling is listening to Obama's words on that tape, then his words prior to the full disclosure of the tape, and ultimately his side-stepping, tap dancing and loop-de-loops to cover his inconsistencies and flat-out lies. This tape will also show Obama's relationship both personal and professional with William Ayers, another attendee of the event.
And the LA Times simply cannot allow any of this. Their pretensions to journalistic integrity would be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious. They claim they are protecting and honoring the wishes of their 'source'. They claim they reported on the existence of this tape months ago, and have issued their last statement on the subject. They have also endorsed Barak Obama in his bid for President.
So, the LA Times is either protecting their candidate, or protecting themselves. They admit they knew the contents of this tape prior to their endorsement. Which means that either in spite of or because of the sentiments expressed by their candidate on this tape, they chose to endorse him for the highest office of the land. Sad to say, but it will probably be left to the National Enquirer or some other traditionally viewed 'yellow' journalistic outfit to find and release this or another tape of the event.
What in all of this has given me hope? Fox News has been as guilty of partisanship and biased reporting as all the other news outlets. I have already commented on my dismay at realizing the charge of 'liberal, biased news organizations' has some validity in this campaign. The fact that Fox News, and now other outlets, are 'outing' this scandalous situation tells me the 'heir presumptive' thinking may have been premature. There is nothing the media hates more than being wrong.
The media in this country have become self-appointed prognosticators. The media want to tell us they know, because of their position as investigators and editorialists, where the country is headed. They know the American people, are one of 'us', and therefore can predict the mood of the country. This is not their job. Their job is to report the facts that are out there, not create them, not slant them, and most certainly not to even attempt to influence them.
They have been by and large reporting that Obama will win. Now that the election will by all measures be much closer, and in all probability too close to call until the fat lady actually sings, they cannot afford to have been wrong. So, they are at least in this one small measure, attempting to level the playing field.
There have been small, quiet noises for the past week or so, with headlines like "What if McCain wins?" and "Will people actually vote the way they have told the Pollsters?". I think the term 'hedging their bets' is appropriate.
And that is what has given me hope. I have been fearing the outcome of this election was a foregone conclusion, largely because of the media bias. There have been stories, and valid accusations that have gone mostly under-reported if not all together ignored, that if given the full spotlight the media is capable of mustering, would completely sideline Obama's chance of a win on November 4th.
To continue to appear valid and unbiased, the media has been guilty of practicing 'damning with faint praise'; when a question is raised, the question is publicized, but editorialized and spun to favor Obama. The media can then justifiably state the question was covered. What cannot be justified is the lack of investigative follow-up required to unearth the truth, which ever way that truth will point.
I will make a prediction here and now. I will predict that over the coming days, media outlets across America will begin to air stories that question the validity of the polls they have so lovingly broadcast. They will begin to air stories that the American people, while not perhaps completely abandoning Obama, are looking at the depth, scope and sheer number of unanswered questions about Obama's associations, refusals to release records from birth thru college and what all that means about his character. The media will report that because of this, the election is far from a foregone conclusion. They will call McCain the underdog, and state it is a tradition in this country for the underdog to win, that it is the definition of the American Experience. They will turn McCain's possible win into a Horatio Algiers story for the 21st Century. And they will then point to their 11th hour prognostications as proof of their ability to accurately take the temperature of the American people. There are some media outlets that will, however, be unable to distance themselves from their obvious bias, and they will hopefully suffer the consequences of the justified wrath of the American public.
This Presidential election has become a three-way race in that if McCain wins, there will be two losers. Barak Obama and the American Media. The media holds a public trust no less important than that of our government. Actually, more important and more sacred. We turn to the media for truth. We hope that at least the media won't lie to us, won't put it's needs, it's agenda, ahead of the welfare of the people. We rely on the media to root out the dishonest, the untrustworthy and the downright dangerous demagogues we errantly place in public office. We expect the unvarnished, un-whitewashed facts to be placed before us for us to use in making our decisions. When the media loses that trust, as many outlets stand to over this election, the American people have lost their one, last best hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)