Right, wrong, or just missing the mark?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Old Man and I have a lot in common in terms of our basic assumptions and values, and our goals. However, we disagree on certain facts, and their proportions. So, while we stand together and aim for the same targets--what we perceive to be anti-democratic trends, corrupt power, and distortion of the truth--a different understanding of what is factually true nudges our shots apart. I often think his targets are legitimate ones, but what he regards as a ten-point buck looks like a rubber ducky to me, and vice-versa.

Whose facts are right? I don't know. I think mine are, but I could be mistaken. I've cited sources so you can check for yourself.

There's a lot of truth in the Old Man's post "Obama and the Ruling Class", but in my opinion, that truth is sort of hidden underneath his intended argument. There are connections between Obama and the ruling class. Those connections are best captured by the Wall Street Journal, which reported health insurance stocks have gone up since lobbyists negotiated at the White House weeks ago, reaching a closed-doors agreement that may force people to buy the expensive, inefficient, unreliable private health insurance they despise, with no choice of a public option. Even if we elect a liberal President and a majority of Democrats, the lobbyists have stacked the deck against health reform because they pay major Dems, too.

A note on the czar issue: as we all know, comrades, historically presidents have appointed special advisers, often called "czars", to deal with major issues or new crises. Sometimes, so-called czars are confirmed by the Senate. Sometimes they are not, however, and in those cases, there is a serious question of constitutionality. Former president Bush filled over thirty "czar" posts, apparently an unprecedented number. Unfortunately, President Obama has taken advantage of the crises and continued this trend.

This brings me to Mark Lloyd: conservatives have made much of so-called "Diversity Czar" of the FCC Mark Lloyd's comments about Venezuela. Conservative sites like NewsBusters posted a short 39-second clip of Lloyd's comments, taking them entirely out of context. NewsBusters is one of many projects of the Media Research Center, which receives millions of dollars in funding from the same few corporate funds that prop up so many "think tanks" (conservative and liberal). You can listen to Lloyd's full comments, in context, here.

Lloyd says state-monopolized radio enabled the genocide in Rwanda. He says corporate domination of Venezuelan media usurped democracy. His very basic, obvious point is that in a democracy we don't want a monopoly over communication, by state or corporate power. He wants diversity. Hence his job title. He gives an EXCELLENT summary of the problems with American media here.

Personally, I don't support the Fairness Doctrine, but I do think a limited natural resource like radio frequencies should be owned by local people, only rented to private power. Same goes for the oil resources in Venezuela. Mark Lloyd correctly and bravely described the people's revolution which reinstated the democratic government there "incredible". He did not call Chavez' media policies "incredible" but did not call them all bad, either, for good reasons.

A bit of history: the mass, and largely peaceful uprising in Venezuela was in response to a 2002 military coup (sadly, with tacit U.S. support) which kidnapped the president, disbanded parliament, nulled their constitution and -- revealingly -- declared a reversal of oil policy. All in one day. (Source, source, source).

The coup was supported by media networks dominated by the Venezuelan oligarchy which lied, saying President Chavez had resigned, etc. Imagine if Al-Jazeera successfully kidnapped our president and dissolved the U.S. Congress, then tried to mislead us as we took to the streets to reclaim our democracy. We would shut down their stations instantly, their executives would be executed for high treason. The Venezuelan government, for its part, encouraged reconciliation, did not renew broadcasting licenses to two networks that supported the coup, started a pro-government media outlet, and launched investigations five years later. Not the mass kidnapping/killings and assassination of editors and Catholic priests that were carried out by U.S.-backed South American dictatorships. Investigations. Whooptey-doo.

I take that back, there was at least one assassination: the chief prosecutor investigating the shooting of civilians by coup supporters was assassinated. My mistake.

Okay: there are serious issues surrounding Hugo Chavez and free speech. But again, the real issues are buried under the intended point of the Old Man's post.

Same goes for the point about the mainstream media's coverage of the Tea Party protests. The coverage WAS amusing, on all networks. But there is no evidence the crowd was in the millions, contrary to what conservative blogs and British tabloids have claimed. FactCheck.org and Politifact.com have laid out the evidence. It was a huge crowd. Just not as big as the millions who gathered in the D.C. Mall for President Obama's inauguration, which was the largest crowd there, ever (check out the satellite photos).

Let's get some perspective: Americans right now are sharply divided on the proposed healthcare reforms, according to Gallup. This is quite interesting, because a solid majority of Americans favored passing a major health reform bill, with higher taxes and expanded government insurance coverage all the way up to July. So what happened in the space of a few months to cause decades-old popular support for healthcare reform to drop 16 to 20 points, so that opposition now has a small majority? Stay tuned, folks!