I wrote that the fundamental difference between most commentary on the left and commentary on the right, is as follows:

Commentary from media outlets and personalities on the left, such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, consists primary of opinions, backed up by facts, and infused with passion…with the intention of inciting the passions of their viewers to act on the aforementioned facts and opinions.  This, I called “activism.”

Commentary from media outlets and personalities on the right, such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, consists primary of opinions, backed up by misinformation/disinformation, and infused with passion…with the intention of inciting the passions of their viewers to act on the aforementioned misinformation and opinions.  This, I called “propaganda.”

Some insist that this assessment reflects an opinion.  Some attempted to explain that which side is in possession of facts is subject to interpretation.  But see, that’s the funny thing about facts…they are facts REGARDLESS of what my opinion my be.  In truth, they are facts with no regard for who speaks them, or for who believes them.  I will explain, as I believe that there exists in this country a fundamental misconception regarding “fact” and “opinion.”

A SIMPLE EXAMPLE:

If I say that the sun is a near-perfect, non-solid (plasmatic) sphere, consisting primarily of hydrogen and helium…that is a FACT.  It is a fact, because it is supported by a wealth of evidence, stemming from extensive research.  This would be a fact if Keith Olbermann said it…or if Rush Limbaugh said it.  It would be a fact even if I didn’t like Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh and they said it.  It would be a fact even if nobody accepted it…in fact, for a prolonged period of human history, this was either “not known” or “not accepted,” but this didn’t make it any less true, or any less a fact.

If you say that the sun (we’re assuming you’re not speaking metaphorically) is a giant flashlight, that God turns on in the morning and off in the evening…that is FALSE.  It would be just as false if Keith or Rush said it…and just as false even if everyone agreed with you.  You might even offer up facts to support the claim: “It is bright and emits light, like a flashlight…and it is dark at night and bright in the day.“  It should be obvious, however, that these facts do not make the end assertion and more true or and less false.  It is still…not a FACT.

If I say that God made the sun…that is an OPINION.  I can list any facts I wish to support this, but as it is completely impossible for the statement to be proven true or false, it will remain in the realm of opinion.  I might as well have said that “the sun is good” or that “the sun is stupid.“  These value judgments similarly express opinions, and no amount of “proving my case” will change that.  Similar to facts, the opinions do not gain any merit based on who utters them, nor based on how many people share them.

A MORE COMPLEX, AND CURRENTLY RELEVANT EXAMPLE:

If I say that America tortured detainees through the use of waterboarding…that is a FACT.  It is a fact, because it is supported by a wealth of evidence.  It is documented and admitted that we waterboarded detainees, and waterboarding meets every available definition of torture, whether we are looking at Webster’s Dictionary, at our own federal law, or at international treaty language.  This would be true if Keith said it or if Rush said it.  It would be true even if not one single American believed it.

If you say that waterboarding was performed legally…that is FALSE.  Whether or not the President approved it, or Department of Justice attorneys approved it…they do not make federal law (only Congress has that power) and they do not interpret the law (only the courts have that power).  Waterboarding is torture, by all available definitions and it is clearly forbidden according to our federal law and the international treaties that we have entered into.  Keith or Rush could make any statements they wished to to justify it…it would still be illegal and false to say otherwise.  Any facts regarding it’s efficacy (or lack thereof), it’s intended use to “make us safer,” or of the threat presented by a particularly detainee…would do nothing to render this statement any more true, or any less false.  It is still…not a FACT.

If I say that torturing detainees is un-American…that is an OPINION.  I can cite any Christian or historical objections I may have, I may mention that it is an illegal act, but in the end I am making a value judgment  which cannot be proven true or false.  This will remain an opinion regardless of whether Keith or Rush speaks it…regardless of how we feel about those speakers…regardless of how many people agree or disagree with it.

THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT:

So, when I say that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow use facts upon which they base opinions, this is a statement which does not reflect my views of them nor their opinions.  The facts which they employ, and which I have extensively researched, would be facts even if they were not the people uttering them.  They would be facts even if I disliked Keith and Rachel…even if I did not believe what they were saying was true.  Now, that being said…they use these facts to formulate opinions, and those opinions I do not always agree with.  That’s to be expected…I may disagree with their opinions…but disagreeing with the facts upon which they form those opinions would be pointless, and indeed, foolish.

In much the same way, when I say that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly use misinformation and falsehoods to form their opinions, this is ALSO a statement which does not reflect on my views of the speakers nor their opinions.  The falsehoods which they employ, and which I have extensively researched, would be false no matter who spoke them.  They would be false regardless of my feelings towards Limbaugh, Beck, and O’Reilly…false whether I liked or disliked them, agreed or disagreed with them.  Sometimes, as with the “flashlight” example above, these individuals will use facts to attempt to “prove” their false statements…but as in the “flashlight” example, these facts do not make their statements any less false.  That being said…since it is these falsehoods which they use to form their opinions, I am most likely to disagree with their opinions.  The falsehoods themselves, being false, do not require my “agreement” nor “disagreement“…but the opinions based upon those statements ARE subject to judgment, and will likely only be agreed with by those who either do not require that opinions be based on facts, or those who do not know that their falsehoods do not represent facts.

To people who do not value the truth, or who cannot tell falsehood from truth, or who cannot separate statements of fact from statements of opinion…their lives AND OPINIONS are at the mercy of any speaker who knows how to capture their interest and how to speak to their fears and prejudices.  Sadly…about one quarter of Americans fit this description, and even more tragically they’re not reading this right now…they’re listening to Rush or watching FOX.

Here’s a clip containing the senior Bush’s comments, plus the reactions of both Olbermann and Maddow:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzmW6nMCJ-A

While I certain understand that as father to George W. Bush, George Sr. must certainly take great pain from the wealth of criticism levied at his son over the years.  However, Bush like so many others, fails to realize the following points:

1 - Coarse political criticism has existed since the advent of American politics…and even predates it considerably.

2 - It has neither increased nor decreased in its “incivility.”

3 - Perhaps most importantly…not all commentary and criticism is created equal.

The first point made above should be obvious to anyone with even a high school graduate’s schooling in American History.  For those wishing to learn more about the history of American political discourse, this site is one of the best collections of links that I have ever seen.  From George Washington to Barack Obama, the free press and political publications have been rife with near constant criticism coming from opposing quarters, and sometimes even from within a politician’s own camp.

Which leads nicely into my second point.  This criticism, historically, was often bombastic…and occasionally vile.  George Washington, despite being arguably the most popular President in U.S. History, was often portrayed as old and indecisive…and his actions regarding our relationships with Britain and France were vociferously objected to by political enemies.  John Adams was mocked openly for his weight, his angry temper, and some of his positions which often resembled more “monarchic” thinking than “democratic.”  Andrew Jackson was denounced as a country bumpkin, and his wife was referred to as a whore and worse.

Take this political cartoon as an example: notice that Lincoln leans on a circus sign…mocking him for holding blacks in high esteem, while insinuating that his insistence on bringing blacks into the political sphere would do little more than to create a circus side show:

Or this one…portraying Lincoln as no more than a war-hungry idiot, trampling the Constitution:

No…mockery and personal attacks are nothing new to the American political arena.  In fact, it is entirely possible than instead of bemoaning how much our culture and political criticism has changed…we might do better to decry the fact that it has changed so little.  The means of distribution (cable television, tweets to cellphones, the internet, email) may have changed, allowing many more citizens to be exposed to the criticism of politicians and their policies, but the content and tone of this criticism has changed little in the last 200 years.

That being said, perhaps the real point missed by Bush Sr., and so many other Americans, is that all criticism is not created equal.

It is certain that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow criticized George W. Bush with frequency and with passion.  They provided their audiences with facts, reports, studies…and they used an impassioned rhetoric to engage their viewers, to entertain their viewers, and to attempt to arouse their viewers passions to act on the previously mentioned facts, reports, and studies.  There is a word for this: it’s called activism.  What they told viewers was happening, was truly happening, and what they said would come to pass…did.  A failed war based on a lie.  Far-reaching violations of the Constitution, resulting in abuses to civil liberties.  A failure to keep Americans safe from terrorists.  A failure to aid Americans threatened by a natural disaster.  An economy in ruins.

It is certain that Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh defended George W. Bush, and criticize Barack Obama, with frequency and passion.  They provide their audiences with distorted information and sometimes outright falsehoods, based on what they know to be their viewers preconceived prejudices and fears…and they use an impassioned rhetoric to engage their viewers, to entertain their viewers, and to attempt to arouse their viewers passions to act on the previously mentioned misinformation and disinformation.  There is a word for this: it’s called propaganda.  What they tell us is happening, is not and will never be revealed to be, and what they tell us will happen, has no chance of occurring.  No communist America.  No destruction of the upper class.  No widespread abandonment of morality.  No being absorbed into some “international monolithic world order.“  No “shadow government” of czars.

These different approaches can be seen reflected in those listening to the commentators who employ them.  Moderates and liberals watched Olbermann and Maddow.  They learned of Bush’s subversions of the Constitution, his foreign policy debacles, his hawkish deceptions, and his economic blunders as they were occurring…and they were displeased.  Moderates and conservatives similarly watched O’Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh.  They remained blissfully ignorant of Bush’s actions and the consequences, many of them immediate, to our country.  They would excuse and defend Bush’s actions right up until the point that he was no longer politically necessary and viable.  But it was too late.  The damage was done.  And now they join in the conservative chorus, propelled by conservative pundits, to criticize and denounce all efforts by a new, Democratic president to engage in much-needed reform and to undo the damage of his predecessor both at home and abroad.  In short, they failed to see what one president was doing AS HE WAS DOING IT…yet feel they have the capacity with the current president to predict WHAT THE FUTURE OUTCOMES of his actions will be.

I’m sorry, George Bush.  I know it must be hard to hear of the comprehensive failings of your son.  But to object to those people who were trying to tell us of these failings as they were occurring, as opposed to those who told conservatives of them only once it was already too late…is irresponsible.  This criticism of yours represents a level of self-delusion and petulance that is not suited to a man of your years and political experience.  And to group all contemporary political criticism together, does a disservice to the both the critics and the American people…who desperately need to learn how to tell which they should be listening to, and which they should be ignoring.

THE MEDIA -- PUNDITS, HACKS, AND OTHER INVETERATE LIARS:

• During the Bush administration, both the press and public frequently complained about the lack of transparency in the White House, the lack of availability of the president to meet with the press, and refusal of the president or the press secretary to provide answers to questions.  Now that we have a president who is willing to FULLY answer questions, and who has made the actions of our government more transparent…these same people gripe that he is “over-exposed.“  This hypocrisy was not lost on Jon Stewart of The Daily Show:

• It is nice to see that even conservative pundits and politicians are starting to denounce false and inflammatory rhetoric, such as is regular seen on Glenn Beck’s show on any given day.  Morning Joe host and former Republican Congressman, Joe Scarborough not only publicly reprimanded Beck for his “hateful” and “racist” words…but also says he is creating an “honor roll” of like-minded conservatives who want to call an end to violent and incendiary tactics.  THAT…would indeed be very honorable.  Here’s a clip from Morning Joe on the subject:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5woLGnwN2I4

• Speaking of Beck…in an except from his book, where he is attempting to explain to the rest of us what the founding fathers intended, he refers to a little-known passage in the Constitution:  “Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” Beck responds, “That’s right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants.“  Of course, what Beck fails to realize is the the “$10” wasn’t some fee that immigrants paid to enter the country because they saw the “value to being able to live here“…this passage refers to the $10 tax that could be levied on EACH SLAVE forcibly brought into this country, who weren’t so freaking thrilled to be here at all.  This section was designed…to prevent slavery from being outlawed, and to simultaneously allow the government to collect a tax on slaves.  So much for Glenn “Constitutional Expert” Beck…
• Using his own, unique brand of satire…Stephen Colbert presented his suggestion for conservative firebrands who want to make racially-insinuative attacks against Obama, but don’t want to be identified as racists:

• Rush Limbaugh must be feeling a little unloved, what with Glenn Beck surpassing him in the ratings game.  So, in a recent interview with Jay Leno, Rush reminded all of us why he should still be the preferred choice among people without functioning brainstems.  First…he said that because everybody who listens to his show agrees with him…he is “not controversial at all,” and that, THEREFORE, it is Obama who is “polarizing” and “dividing this country right now.“  Then showing the power of faulty logic when used WITH a disregard for real-world data, Limbaugh said regarding the economy and the gigantic profits Wall Street CEOs make by defrauding investors, “The market will fix itself.  It’s none of my business what they make, Jay, it’s certainly none of yours, and it’s certainly not Barack Obama’s what anybody makes…If you believe in the capitalist system, you have to erase from your whole worldview what somebody needs.”  Thus, simply stated, we are presented with the far right’s philosophy:  the free market will always take care of itself, and this is good as long as we don’t care about what anybody needs.
• Bill O’Reilly recently claimed on his show the standard right-wing position regarding racism:  it’s only a few of the protesters…the left has racists, too…only 10% of Americans are racists.  To no one’s surprise, Dr. Jeremy Levitt, law professor at Florida A&M and an African-American…had a small problem with this.  Ok, conservatives here’s the simplest I can say it:  you don’t have to run around calling everyone the “n-word” to be a racist.  If you lock the car door when you see a black person walking by…if you wouldn’t want a member of another race dating your son or daughter…if you would resent having to answer to a superior at work who is the member of another race…if instead of attacking the president’s policies, you resort to calling him a “Nazi,” a “Kenyan,” or make a monkey joke…then you TOO suffer from very common, racial prejudice.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6sOkGZtc6Y

PRESIDENT OBAMA -- GHOSTS OF OUR PAST:

• The Obama administration has decided not to pursue a new law to change our policies regarding detainees.  No…they will keep using the 2001 congressional resolution allowing for the indefinite detention of prisoners.  If you start by acknowledging that, by law, American military bases, prisons, and ships are considered “American soil,” then the equation is very simple:  American soil PLUS prisoners MINUS habeas corpus MINUS due process EQUALS unconstitutional.  President Obama…that, sir, is neither change nor progress.
• Obama has a “new” educational policy complete with a fancy new name: “Race To The Top.”  It’s too bad that it is nearly identical to the dismal “No Child Left Behind” policy of his predecessor…so close, in fact, that both Democrats and Teachers’ Unions are calling it “BUSH III.”  More standardized tests…yadda yadda yadda…teacher accountability…yadda yadda…performance pay….blah blah blah…charter schools.  I’ve said this before:  standardized tests do little to improve or accurately gauge learning, teachers are plenty accountable, performance pay is the impractical, impossible to implement equivalent of an “educational unicorn,” and charter schools only serve to placate “free market” zealots.  The problems…in all schools…are centered squarely in one place: the administration.  Principals with no business experience, no leadership skills, no interest in promoting learning, and no backbones…THAT’S the heart of the problem.
• I have stated before that conservatives should be less concerned with what Obama is “changing“…and more concerned with the Bush policies and practices that he is “retaining.”  Garry Willis’ piece, Entangled Giant, describes aptly the history of accumulation of power within the Executive Branch…and just how hard it is to reverse the trend.

AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES -- OUTRAGE WITHOUT PURPOSE:

• Just for fun:  here is a collection of some of the funniest protest signs spotted recently…misspelled words , flagrant ignorance, wild theories…it’s all there.
• Thomas Quigley Jr. is suing the Democratic National Committee…for throwing him out of a town hall.  During the meeting held by Representative Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), Quigley repeatedly interrupted the panel of speakers, and when approached by the security guards about his disruptions…he told them he was “a black belt in kung-fu and would respond if attacked.“  Apparently, his kung-fu training was no match for the guards, and he was bodily removed from the meeting.  Oh, and Quigley…is a licensed insurance agent.
• I wrote earlier in the week of how the “Values Voters Summit” appeared to be devoid of both actual values and reason.  But once again, Jon Stewart said it better:

• Former teen heartthrob, later drug addict, later born-again Christian Kirk Cameron would like to share with you (in an interview with People Magazine) some fairly interesting views on evolution: “Atheism has been on the rise for years now, and the Bible of the atheists is The Origin of Species.  We have a situation in our country where young people are entering college with a belief in God and exiting with that faith being stripped and shredded. What we want to do is have student make an informed, educated decision before they chuck their faith.“  He and his group are currently disseminating edited versions of Darwin’s theory…complete with their own criticisms in which they compare it Hitler’s eugenics program, and declare the theory misogynistic because of sexist statements attributed to Darwin.  For the record…in science the word “theory” does not mean the same thing as it does in common parlance.  When we say “theory,” we are referring to an idea that has not been proven.  When scientists refer to a “theory” they are referring to a scientific position supported by a wealth of studies and research that holds up to the very strongest scientific scrutiny.  Now, it is true that evolution is not a scientific “law” (meaning that in it’s entirety it is deemed impossible to disprove)…but it is far closer to a “law” than it is to a simple “hypothesis” which is a premise lacking substantiation.  It is a continued embarrassment, that fewer Americans accept evolution than the people of ANY OTHER civilized country…and that the new movie on Darwin’s life can’t even find an American distributer because most distribution companies worry that “Americans just aren’t ready for it.“
• Recently, Bill O’Reilly, in a conversation with Barney Frank on the subject of the undercover investigation of ACORN offices, said that nobody cares if the documentarians broke the Maryland laws regarding illegal wiretapping.  Barney Frank…disagreed: “I’m sorry, what an outrageous statement. What an outrageous statement for you to make: nobody cares about the Maryland wiretap law. I do care about the law. I’m an elected official.“  In response…O’Reilly called Frank, “eccentric.”  Really, Bill?  Is it now eccentric to believe that the law of land should be obeyed?  This represents the all-too-common position among conservatives that the end justifies the means, that violating the law is acceptable as long as it was done for a good reason.  It’s a concept MOST un-American.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUHCtnpTVpg

• Above, we talked some of Glenn Beck’s conspiracy-based ranting…it takes a group like the SNL cast to really do it justice:

• By now you’ve heard of the census taker…senselessly murdered, found hanged with the word “Fed” written on his chest.  It seems to validate House Speaker Pelosi’s fears that the violent anti-government rhetoric might lead to actual violence…as history has shown that it often does.  Now…experts seem to be agreeing with her.  If you want to understand how this situation is created…visit this list of the top census conspiracy theories.  Internment camps…taking your property…brainwashing children.  Now imagine a right wing extremist…hearing a member of Congress, or a “news” personality, or some other figure they respect and trust…telling them these things…telling them they have to “act now” and “preserve their country” and “be a patriot.”  And THAT’S how it happens…

HEALTH CARE -- CARNIVAL OF DELAY AND DESPAIR:

• Two words are being most commonly associated with the current state of the Senate Finance Committee’s Health Care Reform legislation:  “delay” and “fight.”  Sometimes…the words are appearing in the same sentence, as is the case with the recent confrontation between Senator Kyl of Arizona, and committee chairman Senator Baucus of Montana.  The short version: Kyl insisted on repeating himself, restating examples he’d previously given, and remaking arguments he’d already made…Baucus, grew tired of the obvious stalling tactic:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y80G63ARBM

• Another fight: whip counts.  Liberal Democrats in the House are busy trying to wrangle every possible vote, while Blue Dog Democrats do the same exact thing.  Current trend…Blue Dogs beginning to sway in favor of voting “yea” on the House bill.  Perhaps they’ve been actually paying attention to the polls…the latest shows that 65% of Americans still support the inclusion of the public option…even more support it when it has been explained to them.  Again, conservatives: this is a democracy…you may not support it….the people in your conservative-leaning community may not support it…the people in your conservative-leaning workplace may also not support it…and all of these people may scream their objections loud as hell.  BUT…the majority of Americans DO support it…and in a democracy…majority rules.
• The Humana Fracas:  Medicare laws say that providers of Medicare Advantage plans (like Humana) MAY NOT use taxpayer-subsidized mailings to push their political agendas.  Humana…did just that.  The board that oversees Medicare/Medicaid is investigating.  Republicans…you guessed it: are calling this “stifling the free speech” of their good friends, the insurance industry.  And now, the GOP is threatening to block Obama’s nominations to key Health and Human Services posts…unless Obama and Sibelius allow Humana and other insurance companies TO BREAK THE LAW.

That brings this week to a close…enjoy the weekend, and we’ll see you back here on Monday for more of the latest developments.