Why Obama Needs to be a Two-Faced Liar
Apr. 6th, 2009 @ 03:47 am
The 8 years of Bush's disingenuous, two-faced policies and consistent lies has resulted in a destroyed country. I don't think Obama could fix it in 20 years, let alone 4 or 8, and he's certainly going to have to do the same type of lying and two-faced, disingenuous form of political communication that Bush did to even come close to making a dent on the Bush damage. In an ideal world, politicians could be honest and effective at the same time. But democracy presumes an informed and intelligent citizenry. We don't have that - and we probably never will ever again. As such, the only way to be an effective communicator and to get anything done in Washington is to lie about it. The problems and issues facing the nation and the world are far too complex and sophisticated to be solved by open and honest communication. This is particularly true when the opposition Republicans are still the lying, two-faced, disingenuous bastards they were when they controlled the country, if not moreso now that they do not. |
Just a quick example - Obama reversed the Bush policy of prohibiting U.S. funds to be given to any foreign entity that supports, and does not actively discourage abortion. By the following day, the uneducated, brain-damaged, idiotic people who listen to Republican radio/talk shows were yelling and screaming about how Obama is using American taxpayer money "to pay for foreign abortions." That's not what the policy reversal was at all, yet it's too complicated to explain, and they wouldn't want to understand it even if you could explain it to them. They have a vested interest in being wrong.
The bottom line is that when everything is too complicated for people to understand, and when everyone against you is lying about the problems, your solutions, and your actions, the only option is to lie right back. Complex truth cannot compete with simple, pithy lies.
One of the most common ways the Republicans spew misstatements is with tax policy. They love to confuse people by conflating overall tax rates with changes in the marginal tax rate. For example, if a tax rate is currently 2% and Obama proposes raising it to 3%, the Republicans will yell and whine in total disdain about a "50% tax increase" - 3 is 50% more than 2 - but people are confused and think that Obama wants to take 50% - half - of their money. Seriously - pay attention because it's really amazing how often the Republicans get away with this. Before you know it, a 1% proposed tax increase is "the Obama 50% tax hike" when in reality he's only proposing raising a 2% tax rate to 3% - a one point increase! You'd pay 3 cents on the dollar instead of 2 cents on the dollar, yet 99% of the brain-dead Republican dittohead Limbaugh sheep (including ones who wouldn't qualify for whatever the tax is for to begin with) are outraged that the Democrats want to "steal half their income" (to give to poor mexican terrorists, of course).
Ideally I'd like to see Obama point out all the hypocrisy and lies and disingenuous two-faced statemens and actions on the part of his opponents, but there seems to be an understanding in Washington that you just don't do that (I guess because you know that you're just as much of a hypocrite as they are, regardless of your party). And even if Obama could have a fresh, completely non-hypocritical start, he couldn't say the same for all the Democrats in Congress. For every Republican hypocrisy, a Democrat has done the equivalent thing. So Obama has no real choice but to keep on being a two-faced liar.
|Date:||April 6th, 2009 01:28 pm (UTC)|| |
Two-Faced Liars and the scum that support them
Boy they'll let anybody blog these days won't they? Your screed minimizing the lies of your savior and messiah fit right in with the rest of your evil, duplicitous worldview. There will be a reckoning my foolish friend. Personally, I can't wait. As for now, KEEP THE CHANGE, OBAMA!
"But democracy presumes an informed and intelligent citizenry. We don't have that - and we probably never will ever again."
If you believe that at one point we had an honest government, then you only need to ask what has changed. I have concluded the primary difference between wholesome governance and tyranny is the education of the people. So, if you want good government, ask Thomas Jefferson:"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787
The only thing we need to alter is our media, specifically 24-hour news television. By virtue of capitalism, and human nature, 24HN has removed analysis and replaced it with entertainment, and no one seems to notice. Genuine news and research is not entertaining, most of it is horrible or outrageous, which can not properly disseminated to the people through business-model journalism. Chomsky writes about this manipulation, and how it's rather inherent in capitalism, in several of his books. I recommend you find the Chomsky documentary "Manufacturing Consent".
There is still hope. We have independent journalism, you and I both think - although some people, like the other commenter refuse to. Recomend people check out DemocracyNow!, Glenn Greenwald, or any journalism you think credible. "Educate and inform whole masses of the people" just like the forefather of this country wants you to do, and what you're doing now. There's other long term solutions too: reforming our institutional education system to instill in students a desire seek education would do much to benefit the country. Also, some sort of intervention by the FCC into journalism practices would be nice, check out Edward R. Murrow's ideas on editorial television news. There's even a movie I highly recommend, "good night, and good luck" about Murrow, made by George Clooney, you'd love it.We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.
This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
-Edward R. Murrow, American Bad-Ass.
|Date:||April 7th, 2009 02:50 am (UTC)|| |
|(Link)|If you believe that at one point we had an honest government, then you only need to ask what has changed. I have concluded the primary difference between wholesome governance and tyranny is the education of the people.
I never said that we once had an honest government. I do think we once had a more functional, better working government. I said a working democracy presupposes and requires an educated populace. It seems we completely agree on that. I think the only thing we don't agree on is whether or not there is still any hope for education.
I agree that nothing will change as long as the media doesn't change - especially the televised media, including the 24 hour news outlets. Nobody will change a profitable, constitutionally-protected business merely out of a general social duty.
My answer is that I don't believe commercial speech is or should be constitutionally protected. The first amendment doesn't cover selling things. If all a 24 hour news station is doing is trying to sell commercials, rather than true journalism... for example ignoring a real story to cover a missing, cute, blond-haired, blue-eyed white child in Colorado, then it's not journalism but rather sales, then there's no First Amendment protection and the government can regulate it. The First Amendment was meant to let great people like Edward R. Murrow cover McCarthy, not to let Nancy Grace milk the cutest of the 50 or so children who are kidnapped each week solely for commercial purposes.
Incidentally, advertising and allowing brokers to do their 'jobs' is the big reason we're in the economic mess we find ourselves. Getting threatened by a marketing pro to buy something is not supposed to be the underlying basis of any market.