Kudos to LiberalViewer of YouTube

Have you ever seen this YouTube Channel called “LiberalViewer“?

I personally would aspire toward having a blog more to the nature of the work of LiberalViewer in days to come.

See for yourself.

Advertisements

The Two Americas

Left versus Right political divides seem to be at all time highs.

We live in two different spheres of media and politics where there is no common ground whatsoever. Even within defining the past, and simple definitions of words, there is no mutual understanding between groups.

The Liberal versus Conservative Debate cannot take place under these conditions, and ultimately does nothing but aggravate social divisions. Each side blames the other for this via biased media and partisan rancor.

Partisanship is inevitable. Each side must strive to avoid not only personal bias when discussing politics but also avoid one-sided media bias when consuming political news media. Many mistake this suggestion as promoting only specifically formatted media programs.

I instead suggest hearing both sides of the debate. Every liberal should boldly consume partisan media of the right as should every conservative boldly consume partisan media of the left.

President Barack Obama spoke out early in his presidency against partisanship on the right and specifically named the radio conservative Rush Limbaugh. Obama specifically urged conservatives to stray away from partisans like Limbaugh, and with good reason.

While we all have partisanship within us there are certain figures in media who exhibit a bias so strong it is questionable if it is indeed genuine. Rush Limbaugh may well be far less partisan against liberals than he appears while on the air.

The bottom line is partisanship sells media. As long as media consumers of all political persuasions wish to only have their own opinions echoed back at them the partisan media will continue to thrive. This leads to the Two Americas of politics today.

A land where intolerance of thought is standard. A land of our own creation.

Constitutional Activist

What does that even mean?

I am not totally sure myself.

But that’s what I am.

I have some loose idea about a New Amendment as to the nature of privacy rights and internet communications. I haven’t got any of my ducks-lined-up on that one. Just a ‘FISA / Patriot Act Afterthought’.

Where do you stand?

Is the Constitution some immutable document that defies all societal and technological development? Or is it a living document that we have ignored for decades?

Obviously, I’m biased.

  

Eric Lightborn

http://ericlightborn.wordpress.com

March 17th 2009

The Economy: What We Can Do

I cannot stress enough that each American can take easy steps to help our nation in tough times.
Just as many of us received a stimulus package under President Bush we will likely receive a package from coming-President Obama, as proposed.

The important part to know about the stimulus package-style of addressing economic malaise is that each person who receives these tax payer funds must spend, in majority, the funds in the markets for the stimulus to take any significant effect.

Many believe that spending the stimulus package funds exclusively on American products and services will serve to boost our markets more directly.

This may be true, but the bottom line is that using the funds along with savings to make wise investments or spending the money in American retailers and outlets is the only method by which any future packages would show any results.

Informing yourself on not only the best prices on the products you enjoy but which major retailers, energy companies and industries are of the best interest to our nation can lead not only to more stable markets but a greater degree of national security.

Economic strength and stability provides the higher quality intelligence services and personnel staying within the American interests.

For an informed American to claim they have their end of the economy handled in share, they would do well to understand a concept rarely addressed in any media format. The overall strength and robustness of any economy comes not from what is tracked as the DOW JONES or other market averages but rather within the actual number of jobs produced and inherent to that economy.

Also understanding that you are indeed putting real assets into the market by paying bills or with a highly modest fiscal investment, and need not make rash expensive purchases or risky investments to help build the economy up. In fact such actions may further degrade the once monolithic American markets.

Building a smart economy from the ground up is not outside the ability of any single American in help contribute towards.

Starting a small business, taking on a second or third job and hiring on more staffers to an existing business are not easy options for most Americans in 2008.

Nonetheless, these three options pose the greatest chance of enhancing the American economy in a very real way in days to come.

The last aspect of the market discussions in American mass media that is unaddressed is that each President cannot be held as strongly in referendum over the number of jobs created or lost under their Presidency as to the issue of the national budget.

Job loss or creation is a vital element of reviewing how well any President has governed over America but an epidemic of job loss or explosion of jobs could occur well outside the powers of office and at any time.

It is not to say that actions in office cannot hamper or stimulate job creation but rather that each job market is unique.

 

Eric Lightborn

https://americapress.wordpress.com

December 20th 2008
 

 

Government Corruption: What to Know to Protect Ourselves

Blagojevich
Government corruption is the use of the power of office to obtain personal endowment for self-gain. An easy every-day example would be, a mayor of a city using money issued to be spent on roads on a new car in the mayor’s name.

Illinois Governor Blagojevich is alleged to have attempted to sell, or barter with, the appointment of the Illinois-state Senator seat and other privileges he holds in office.

The mass media often fails to illustrate that there in fact many brands of corruption and that it is significant to understand what the major categories are. Political corruption and government corruption are the most relevant in a discussion of recent and semi-recent corruption in America.

We must indeed guard against any corruption in office but the blanket definition of simply the word ‘corruption’ by itself in a serious national discussion is bereft of value to the public.

[Read ‘Truth About Lobbyists and Public-Interest Groups’ on this site for an explanation of lobby corruption.]

Political corruption stems primarily from non-ethical actions in office and the condoning of the non-ethical actions of others. The events leading to the impeachment of President Richard Nixon was an example of political corruption on a national scale.

Government corruption is far less apparent for the public sources of information to be aware of. The ability to predict and prevent against this brand of corruption is not a task that a citizen can do more than advocate against complacency on.

The responsibility to uncover the government corruption falls on the government themselves and to the credible press.

Any official who abuses their office may not in turn break a serious enough ethical code or law to be removed from office. The charges against a corrupt official might not be sufficient to prove a case for some time, and in the meanwhile the office is in jeopardy.

A corrupt official most likely would not disclose their agenda to other significant officials unless they had some prior knowledge that this person would be of negotiable ethics. This isolates the principled officials from coming into to personal conservations with corrupt officials in which they might be able to rout out corruption first-hand.

It is within some reasonable possibility that Illinois Governor Blagojevich and any possible illegal actions he has committed in while office was not unnoticed by President-elect Obama or that there was some innuendo in Illinois circles that the Governor had questionable ethics.

Barring proof of foreknowledge we cannot accuse a person, just as we must refrain in the mass media and in our minds from a summary judgment of Blagojevich.

At this time any comments on the level of awareness of any Illinois politicians in alleged government corruption is pure speculation and no significant source has come forward to offer evidence of any connection between the allegations against Blagojevich and Obama.

Were any politician to make charges of corruption against another official and failed to prove their case before the courts and the people they would certainly lose their position and credibility.

The motivation of a national figure in modern politics includes consideration of such possibilities before pursuing a crusade against corruption. It is very important to understand this before we condemn our representatives for not throwing the disreputable and dishonest representative out of office when they sat next to them for years.

The seriousness of the crime and the loss of integrity to our government is not lessened in by political corruption over government corruption. Both offenses are the nature of what cause the loss of faith in representatives among the people of our nation.

It is highly likely that Gov. Blagojevich is about to undergo similar proceedings to what happened in the Nixon-age.

We the people must guard ourselves both in holding our representatives to high standards but also in providing a court within ourselves to the hear the case of this person said to be guilty of corruption. The ideal of innocent until proven guilty is as important within our observance of politics as it is to the legal system.

This citizen source would love to interview the Illinois Governor, who has refused to address any press until trial. I would not pronounce him corrupt by default of allegation and I am generally interested in hearing his case for the people of Illinois.

 

 

Eric Lightborn

https://americapress.wordpress.com

December 20th 2008

Truth About Lobbyists and Interest Groups

“One study of eighty-three (primarily liberal) public-interest groups found that one-third of them received half or more of all their funds from foundation grants; one-tenth received over 90 percent from such sources. In one ten year period the Ford Foundation alone contributed about $21 million to liberal public-interest groups. Many of these organizations were law firms that, other than staff members, had no members at all. The Environmental Defense Fund is supported almost entirely by grants from foundations such as the Rockefeller Family Fund. The more conservative Scaife foundations gave $1.8 million to a conservative public-interest group, the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.” [Wilson, DiIulio 2008]

The concept of using interest groups to promote the agendas and ideals of a movement is, by this source, not exclusive to the liberal movement but heavily favored by it thus far.

President-elect Barack Obama may isolate himself from major liberal movement members if the proposed audit of Washington politics takes a lasting toll on the liberal lobbies. The next four years will certainly answer just how far this coming-administration is willing to go to remove corruption in public-interest group finance and practice but four years from now there will also once again be a national referendum on the highest office. Should the effort ultimately take power from once strong lobbies for popular liberal agendas, the informed American Democratic Voter could potentially face a struggle at the polls when considering a vote for the incumbent President.

The power of an interest-group, in a classic design, should expand as the number of members and contributors expands. The ‘funded & unoccupied lobby’ described in quote above as a law firm is a critical element of what causes the real disruptions in Washington politics.

The figures and organizations that form the American lobbies and public-interest groups of today are not necessarily the root of the problem so much as the agendas of the highest funded public-interest groups overriding the highest agendas in the court of public opinion and the highest wills of the people.

If the National Legal Center for the Public Interest (a weak lobby) were to receive a large increase in both number of members and in contributions. they should rightly increase in the voice and recognition in Washington and receive foundation grants in turn. 

If the Environmental Defense Fund (a strong lobby) were to lose both member and public support their voice as a lobby should rightly decrease and even though they do not receive a majority in foundation grants they should be kept from taking them if they lacked any significant support in the public domain.

This is all within a classic definition of how the public-interest groups should work. Any number of factors can increase or decrease the power of a single lobby and for this reason most of us limit our discussion on public-interest groups, or lobbies, to the number of members that are well-known or outspoken and the money behind the group.

Lobbyists are not are always motivated by ill or by good, despite the fact the lobby they work for is focused on a critical social issue or an important national matter that concerns you or perhaps for a group with which you disagree strongly.

To speak broadly, they are like salesmen of political stances a person in Washington should take. They are not invested into the case they are making in every single case but rather deliver the best argument in favor of the lobby that they can devise.

Politicians and lobbyists are very much the same, in many ways. Without means to search the hearts of others to know for sure if they really believe what they contend or if they are simply going with the popular ideology to gain your favor, we will never know for certain if they stand for the people or if they stand for their own private interests.

We can only judge their actions in office as solid statements of policy.

Eric Lightborn

https://americapress.wordpress.com

December 2008

Four Stories Avoided Like The Plague By Mass Media

Everyday of our lives the media picks out certain stories to cover and certain stories to ignore. This process is called playing the gatekeeper.

Here are four stories I believe all Americans should know about if they do not already.

1.

There is a running claim that a large amount of yellowcake (chemical-based WMD) was found in Iraq in the past two years. The Bush White House has not presented this as justification for the invasion of Iraq. Quite the opposite. They have come forward that the intelligence provided in 2002 to Congress and the American people was in fact not as credible as they once believed it to be. Mass media groups have failed to find the source of this information and present the case or non-case to the American public thereby removing the running claim from fringe discussions in media.

2.

Easter ‘08, yet more tragedy struck the Iraqi people as they came to the end of fasting under religious observance and were killed in large numbers while crowding to the supermarkets. In so far as a discussion of current Iraqi / American affairs, these bombings counter the strongly held contention of some that Arab Extremism stems primarily from the Muslim faith. This story took only passing notice in mass media and is completely under-referenced in discussions of Middle-Eastern affairs in mass media circles.

3.

Fourteen people were killed in a Tennessee church supposedly for their liberal beliefs in the past year. Is it pure the conjecture of liberals that this man was listening to right wing radio or sites to influence his actions or is there any evidence of this? The story has gone all but unnoticed and becomes increasingly ‘old news’ and less relevant each day in the ever faster and faster news-cycles. This again appears at face-value to be a strong case for the fact that the fear of political defacement or civil liability among mass media giants prevents certain ’taboo’ stories from reaching any but the most news-savvy of Americans.

4.

An unknown individual leaked a false-credibility internet article claiming the credentials of Maureen Dowd during the 2008 presidential election. According to Snopes.com, this began in a chain e-mail and was picked up by certain low-credibility websites thereafter.

Has any government agency investigated this matter or made any concerted effort to find this person who sought to interject false and illegal campaign coverage on contributions into the electoral process? Has not one mass media agency in America the will to run this story as a perfect example of the importance of credible information sources in an election year?

 

Eric Lightborn

http://ericlightborn.wordpress.com

(Drafted December 17th 2008, Edited December 19th)