Is Obama the new American Idol? Or are we just blinded by the hype? (And Obama's avalanche of cash?) Can Hillary derail the seemingly unstoppable momentum of Obama’s rock star-like celebrity? Do we need to believe in the American dream so much that we'll actually overlook a more qualified and experienced candidate? Is the media so obsessed with a good story that they're ignoring the truths in the way? After SNL stuck a pin in the Obama bubble last weekend, it seems for some the Kool Aid is finally wearing off. As Tina Fey succinctly put it, is "bitch the new black?"
Commentary: February 2008 Archives
They say a free press is the cornerstone of any democracy. But since there's nothing free about our press, and very little that's democratic about our government-for-hire, America's house of democratic illusions is only held up by those naïve enough to still believe the fairy tale, and those too apathetic to do anything about it, which, if we're honest, is most of us (endlessly forwarding activist emails may make us feel like we're doing something, but, let's be real, is mostly ineffectual).
George Bush is certainly under no illusions about the role of the media in our pseudo-democracy. After a speech intended to welcome journalists to the new White House briefing room back in July 2007, a Reuters photographer took a now infamous snap of the president's speech. The man charged with maintaining what should be the greatest democracy in the world had taken a black pen to his own neatly typed address, and, after the phrase "a free press is", had scrubbed out the words "one of the cornerstones of." But then, as he wages wars in the name of democracy abroad, he's waged another cold war on democracy at home, which has been, however unwittingly, aided and abetted by the very cornerstone our "democracy" is supposed to rely on -- namely the press.
But if you won't pay 50 cents per day for a newspaper, $29 a year to support an independent online news service such a Salon.com, or $50 a year to fund news on PBS or NPR, then don't blame the press for the current fix we're in however. It's a matter of value. What do we value more? The news? Or the cars and burgers sold in between the news? If it's the former, we should economize on the latter and be prepared to pay for quality journalism.
Like any other commodity, with news you get what you pay for. Purveyors of infotainment, such as Faux "News", which Fox & Friends guest, comedian Lee Camp succinctly called out live on air last week for being a "parade of propaganda" and a "festival of ignorance," serves no higher purpose than to provide fodder to keep viewers tuned-in for the advertisements. Like any other mainstream news outlet owned by one of the big media conglomerates, Faux News serves its parent company's bottom line, and is under no illusions that its purpose is to provide a check and balance to curtail the activities of a runaway government.
While pumping billions into an ill-advised war overseas, Bush is trying to cut off the lifeblood of those that report on it with an independent voice at home. His proposed federal budget would cut more than half of the funds allocated to public broadcasters in 2009 and 2010. And with the New York and Los Angeles Times both announcing three-figure job cuts in the past month, don't be expecting their much maligned journalists to have the time to come up with as much original thought or news as they have in the past. With less staff but the same column inches to fill, many of our once grand newspapers are being reduced to nothing more than printed blogs, reprinting the same recycled news, press releases and wire stories by the inch, and commenting on the commentary of others in place of the time consuming task of researching their own fresh news and opinion.
Ask yourself why the word "divisive" ubiquitously sits next to Hillary's name, as does "change" next to Obama's. In truth either world could equally apply to both. But these clichés have become ingrained in our culture thanks to a media that doesn't have the time, money or inclination to find the news, but merely reports on the same briefings and press releases, representing the often unchecked facts and quotes they contain as news.
As any physicist can tell you, if you want to arrest entropy you need to put more energy into a system. Write to your congressman or woman and demand that they fight the PBS budget cuts. Consider where you should get your news from (the BBC is a great place to start), rather than reaching for the remote or reading whatever's on your homepage out of habit. Refuse to be another Faux News viewer or clicker. Don't let these masqueraders make money off your viewership and clicks. And don't just take the news as read, but consider where a story is really coming from, who's promoting it, and, most importantly, why?
Life is all about perspective, and Hillary Clinton sure has it (see video).
Parodies sprout up fast on YouTube, and sometimes satire writes itself. For a huge, if dark, laugh check out this take off on the same Obama "Yes, We Can" video we posted on Super Tuesday (if player fails to load click HERE to view). Sure, it's a spoof, but the joke isn't on the Obama campaign. Rather, the video's black humor springs from the insanity and bleak absurdity of the militaristic mentality typified by likely Republican nominee John McCain. (Who knew the man was so forward thinking, looking ahead to the year 12,008 no less!) Our deep thanks to the makers of this hilarious video that not only speaks volumes but could well help deliver some of that up-for-grabs independent vote to the Democratic ticket in November. We wish them the last laugh and us all peace.
Star Trek was creator Gene Roddenberry's blueprint for a utopian society. Civilizations united under the Federation of Planets in a future where the overwhelming problems of the 21st century, disease, poverty, hunger, sexism and racism, were no longer an issue. But rather than progressing towards such a future we seem to be regressing, and could perhaps use a little help from Star Trek to get us back on course at warp speed.
From James T. Kirk to Jonathan Archer, over the years the captains of the various incarnations of the USS Enterprise have faced numerous challenges, avoiding conflict with a myriad of alien species to maintain the peace and unity of The Federation. The Daily Mantra thought that since these captains have navigated their way through troubled times with such skill, our nation might call upon one of them to steer our country through the uncertain, and most likely tough territory that lies ahead.
We therefore ventured where no Daily Mantra reporter has gone before, to the first stop of the 40-city Star Trek Tour in Long Beach, CA to ask the most dedicated Trekkies which Star Trek captain might best lead our nation. While the favorite choices were no surprise, the quietly capable Kathryn Janeway of the Voyager series was the only captain who failed to register a single vote. Perhaps we can infer from this that even forward-thinking Star Trek fans aren't ready for a female leader quite yet.
1. "Picard, because he was very down to earth and a humanitarian." Pam, Yucca Valley
2. "I think we need somebody with Kirk's cowboy politics. If an enemy comes along, he shoots first and asks questions later. He's not really diplomatic, he just blows them away. I think we need that." Brian, Huntington Beach
3. "Picard, because he's British. Everything about the British to me is more proper and honest." Brandon, Fresno
4. "Spock, because he's logical." Patty, Fontana
5. "Jonathan Archer, because I think that he's got the tenacity, and the 'we're going to get the job done and kick some butt if you mess with us', but at the same time he's got that diplomatic feel that Picard would have." John, Fresno
6. "I'll have to say William Shatner (Kirk), because that's the only one I know." Donna, Diamond Bar
7. "Picard, because he was probably the most democratic and most thoughtful all the captains." Bill, Yucca Valley
8. "Jean-Luc Picard. I think he's strong, he's balanced, I just think he's a good person." Jeanette, Costa Mesa
9. "Captain Kirk. He's been around the longest and he's the cutest." Emily, Arizona
10. "I like Captain Kirk. He's a great actor. Well actually he kind of did a little over-acting. Perfect for the job. You've got to in front of all of those people and kind of schmooze 'em." Dean, Costa Mesa
11. "I would say Picard, because he seems to have good communication skills, at least on the show he seems like a diplomat." Chris, Diamond Bar
12. "Benjamin Sisko, because he's very forceful." Angelo, San Louis Obispo
Hillary Clinton told reporters this past weekend that, "It would be a big mistake for Democrats to nominate someone who's already conceded on the issue of universal health care.'' I can't help agreeing with her. Universal health care only really works, or even makes sense, if it's just that: Universal.
The point that most insured seem to miss is that they're the ones that are currently footing the bill for our half-assed, non-universal, universal system. When the insured pay their premiums, they're not just paying for their own insurance, they're also paying for the massive emergency room bill that's being racked up by the uninsured. Since emergency departments are the only part of our health care system that is federally required to provide health care to all patients, that's where the uninsured go, en masse, to get medical attention when they're sick. And the insured, not the government, pay for it through inflated bills and insurance premiums.
Because of this existing non-universal, universal system, America's emergency medical system is breaking down. The financial liability that comes with having an emergency department means many hospitals are electing not to have emergency facilities. Those that do exist are over-crowded and overwhelmed. According to a Heritage.org report, in one state surveyed, over 40% of patients seeking treatment at emergency departments had "non-urgent medical problems." Those who do have real emergency medical problems are therefore being put at risk by our current, very arbitrary, emergency health care policy, and our emergency departments are too busy coping with the everyday problems of the uninsured to be able to deal with any real large-scale emergencies.
At the moment the insured are in essence penalized for being prepared. The same goes for companies with health plans for their workers. Those companies that do the right thing by their workforce are not only put at a vast disadvantage when competing against less public-spirited companies, they're also picking up the health care tab for the workers of those companies via inflated premiums. The only way for this imbalance to be addressed is with truly universal health care.
Hillary conceded on Saturday that wages may have to be garnisheed to pay for her plan. So what? Any universal health plan will be far cheaper that the rocketing private insurance premiums individuals and companies are paying now. Think about it for a moment. Compare your health insurance premium (if you have one) to your overall tax bill. I did. Even though I'm young, fit, and have no history of serious illness, I actually pay more per month for my health insurance than I do in federal taxes. How can that be right? How can my health insurance cost more than my share of the overall national budget which funds schools, social services, roads, the military, the war, etc., etc..
It doesn't make sense, and it won't until our health care is taken out of the hands of the greedy health insurance companies, with their out of control profits, which are protected by numerous pieces of highly dubious legislation. Just this past weekend it was reported that a woman called Barbara Antonelli from Staten Island was hounded for a $5 co-pay while on a gurney in the midst of a heart attack. Should our nations health really be in the hands of such a sick system?
Got health insurance, and a little in the bank for a rainy day? Think you’re OK? Think again; A 2007 Newsweek report on health care in our country estimates that to die with dignity even those with insurance will need an additional $300,000 to pay for long term care and other costs that aren’t covered by health insurance. This means that even those with insurance and six or seven figures in the bank are putting their longterm financial security at risk by putting their faith in our current system. As for the rest of us, with illness being the number one cause of bankruptcy, few of us can afford to die. Those that do will have likely surrendered their savings, their home, and their dignity, before their final breath. Now ask yourself again. Can we afford not to have universal health care?
