Conservatives Are Awful Liberal With Their Bias

(Johnson, 2012)

The most patriotic day in an American year is soon upon us. July 4th, with all its picnics and BBQs and water fun and fireworks, is just around the corner. It's that time of year where small and big neighborhoods nationwide are festooned with waving flags, and red, white, and blue everything is everywhere. 

Alexandria's especially fond of berry pies, contests and all.  Grills are fired up, and most everyone manages to stuff themselves before nightfall. At the appointed time of night we sing The Star Spangled Banner at the top of our lungs while facing skyward, and then later you can hear the cannons showing off during the 1812 overture. There is something so very special about the oooohs and aaaaaahs coming from a huge crowd watching the oh so colorful shows in the skies. 

So how's your summer going? If you have been listening to the news cycle, you would think it was alot closer to Halloween, perhaps hoping against hope for April Fool's or War of The Worlds. But no. The scary talk just keeps coming. Benghazi, drones, the IRS, Snowden, and NSA, are being name dropped more often then Kanye mentions Kim. 

The creepiest part is the glee with which Fox and Friends spews their balanced fair. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Each Rovian sculpted phrase is ripped off the word-of-the-day faked white papers popping out of Crossroads and broadcast with extra drooly zeal. While there are liberal talk shows and blogs aplenty, the conservative claim that the entire media has a bias favoring liberals is just another piece of misinformation from their exclusive line of facts.

50 of the worst places you could go 
to get your news & information.

(Tea Time, 2009)

1. Fox News

2. The Rush Limbaugh Show

3. Glenn Beck

4. Savage Nation w/ Michael Savage

5. Alex Jones' Info Wars

(Brews, 2010)

6. The Heritage Foundation

7. The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

8. The Neal Boortz Radio Show

9. Sean Hannity

10. Bill O'Reilly

11. Rightwingnews.com

12. National Review

(Home Brand, 2013)

13. The Mark Levin Show

14. The Weekly Standard

15. Washington Times

16. The American Conservative

17. The Drudge Report

18. The Cato Institute

(Then & There, 1979)

19. Media Research Center

20. Townhall.com

21. Red State

22. Andew Breitbart's Big Government

23. The American Cause

24. Christian Coalition

It's Not A Tea Party Without White Tea
(Johnson, 2013)

25. The John Birch Society

26. Citizens United

27. Freedom Works

28. Tea Party Express

29. Tea Party Patriots

30. The Herman Cain Show

31. News Busters

(ipolitico.com, 2010)

32. News Max

33. The New York Post

34. Conservative HQ

35. Sirius radio "Patriot"

(Facebook, 2013)

36. Conservative American News

37. Conservative Daily News

38. Judicial Watch

39. The Source Daily

40. Republican National Committee

41. American Spectator

42. Reason Magazine

43. Freedom Rings Radio hosted by Kenneth John

Tempest In A Teapot
(Developer, 2013)

44. Conservapedia

45. The Right Side of the Web

46. CNS News

47. Michael Reagan

48. Family Research Council

49. Conservative Underground

50. The Hugh Hewitt Show

So if you didn't know, now you know. You can't tell the players without a program, and you can't fight misinformation, if you can't track down its source. What are your favorite, or least favorite, news sources?

Lisa Lindo
The Policy Geek
thepolicygeek@gmail.com
Twitter @ThePolicyGeek

Standing For Protest

In Turkey they are doing something we find fascinating...standing protests. We love standing protests. So amazing. People are brilliant. 

Man emulating the performance artist who started this new form of protest. (Getty Images, 2013)

We've been watching all along, since the first hopeful huge gathering walked in the sun to waving flags from above. We've have been watching, photo-shopped or not, videos of the confrontations. Even in 2007 we could see images of violence in response to protests in Turkey. This time more people are paying attention, and again, a violence response from Turkey's leadership. It doesn't make sense. If people are peacefully protesting, what is the point of spraying them with pepper spray? Or sending out cops in riot gear?

This picture is going viral everywhere, image of a Turkish riot police officer attacking a woman with pepper spray.
What exactly did she do? Did this act make him feel safer? Was he trying to arrest her?
Was he trying to get her to stand down?
(Policy Mic, 2013)

This is a world wide problem. If you believe in austerity, why spend so much money attacking citizens? What's the marketing message there? These are perfect examples of no cohesive message by a governing body. Governments, democratic governments, are for the people and by the people. Right? So who decided that the people need to be pepper sprayed or beaten up or arrested. So confusing. It is a clear cut case of many departments, and no leader. Every time a mayor does something like this, he is saying he is lost. He brings the world's attention to that moment in time, instantly, and the world condemns it. 

Even if you are a tyrant, what is this brute use of force going to accomplish when these acts are done in the open light of day? We all see it all. Every corner of the world sees what is happening in a split second, if that. And people there tell everyone else. If you want to shut people up, you have to do so before they tweet, like by governing better in the first place.

It is no longer possible to stop a rebellion, before it starts, using overwhelming force. It's just not possible. Even if you kill all of your citizens, someone already posted the video, dude. Someone already posted the video.

And so we get to see images like this: 

A young musician won the hearts of the crowd by taking his piano on Taksim square and staging an improvised concert that lasted for hours. His performance of "Beatles" songs was met with thundering applause. People kept piling food and non-alcoholic beverages on the piano in sign of gratitude.
(Policy Mic, 2013)

On A Syrian Resolution

Syria may be a bad decision.

But before we compare this time in history to the Iraq Resolution, --- let's review....

Congress cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq in 2002/2003:

-Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

 -Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

-Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

-Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

-Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

-Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. (That was the bullshit topper. Of course, they are there, ....nowww!!!!)

 -Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. (WHO DOESN'T?)

-Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. (really?)

-The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. (how can you say no to that?)

-The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. (yeah that was a big one)

-The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

-Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. (so this was in place since Clinton)

-The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." (farty bullshit cloud)

-The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Well, on that last one, it was more than obvious that defending the national security of the United States was nowhere on George W. Bush's list of things to do. Not short term, not long term. Not at all.  Those lies were sold to us during a time of great fear when the people of the United States where desperate for a real leader and were to trust anybody who might relieve some of that curl-up-in-the-corner-of-your-house fear.

(Daily Digest, 1921)

This time, we have the internets. This time, we have each other. This time we have twitter. This time we have wikileaks. This time we have MSNBC. This time we have Progressives with their ear to the ether. This time we are paying attention, and most certainly not curled up in any corner. So we need to take a deep breath and reach out to whoever we can in Syria. WE as a people should try to reach out and get to them ourselves. USE TWITTER. And try to figure out what the best course of action should be. WE THE PEOPLE should call, fax, email, and write snail mail and blow up the telephones in Congress on this one. Make out petitions on www.whitehouse.gov/petition and state your concerns. Don't just complain about Hilary having voted for the Iraq Resolution and shrug your shoulders and paint your signs.

DO SOMETHING. JUST DO SOMETHING PEACEFUL IF POSSIBLE. The war is already going on over there. Let's try not make it any worse. Attempt to see this from the Pentagon's point of view, from the point of view of military supply factories around the U.S. How do we replace these jobs without making more war?

The Policy Geek