With All Due Respect Ben Shapiro. You're Talking Out of Your ....

I received an E-reader for Christmas and recently uploaded Ben Shapiro's new book: Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV.  I had blogged on it before, when reviews spoke of the revelation that Big Bird was a commie.

However, learning that Shapiro was a Harvard grad, I thought that he might present a scholarly critique of the industry, so I bit the bullet and bought the book.

I'm only through the prologue, introduction and first few chapters, but it's pretty clear that little effort went into creating this masterpiece.  So far, it's mostly ad hoc statements and cherry picked interviews, in an attempt to "prove" that conservatives are being discriminated against.

Says Shapiro of television producers:

"Virtually all vote Democrat, fervently support gay marriage, see abortion as a sancrosant human right, approve of higher taxes, despise religion, think guns are to blame for crime, maintain that business people are corrupt and union organizers are saints, feel that conservatives are racist, sexist and homophobic. Almost all voted for Barack Obama. Almost all hated George Bush."

Whoa!  The abortion and gay rights may be true, but when did a television character ever support higher taxes?  And on what grounds does he base a hatred for religion?  Avoiding religious topics means support for ALL religions.  And as to hating George Bush, when he left office he was polling at 19%, so unless 81% of Americans are liberal, I would say that Bush's wounds were self inflicted.

Shapiro does elaborate however.

Televisions best and brightest wanted to set America sliding down a slippery slope away from its Judeo-Christian heritage and toward a more cultivated, refined, Europeanized sensibility.

What's wrong with that? Didn't the notion of a Judeo-Christian heritage originate from Europe?

Revisionist History

The first problem with the book, however, is Shapiro's "history" of the television industry.  He obviously did little, if any, fact checking.  Claiming that they have been engaged in left-wing propaganda for the past six decades, is simply not true.

During the 1960s artists and creators went out of their way to shock the middle class in order to forward their liberal agenda: feminism, gay rights, racial preferences, bigger government. When the smoke cleared, however, the artists had largely gotten what they wanted - with their help, the civil rights movement had achieved its major goals.

Actually, the civil rights movement was responsible for a change in television programming, not the other way around.

Speaking in July 1964, Frank Stanton, president of CBS, called upon broadcasters to launch a "mighty and continuing editorial crusade" in support of civil rights. In an address to the National Broadcast Editorial Conference of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Stanton called for commitment and advocacy. President Lyndon B. Johnson having recently signed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1964, Stanton spoke now of the "pivotal point in our history" and of the need for television to utilize its "editorial strength boldly, imaginatively and with insight and wisdom." (1)

According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

What was consistently projected, without public fanfare but in teeming myriads of programs, scenes, news priorities, sportscasts, old movies, ads, was the naturalness and normalcy of social whiteness. Television visually accumulated the heritage of representation in mainstream U.S. ... According to television representation, the United States was a white nation, with some marginal "ethnic" accretions that were at their best when they could simply be ignored, like well-trained and deferential maids and doormen.

Some blacks appeared on variety shows, like Ed Sullivan, but when NBC launched the Nat "King" Cole Show in November of 1956, they couldn't find a major sponsor, having to rely on 30 smaller and braver companies. It lasted only one season.

Bill Cosby was the first to become a major television star in 1965, when he co-starred with Robert Culp in I Spy.  I've always had a great deal of respect for Culp, because he fought tooth and nail to get Cosby equal billing.  If that makes him a liberal so be it. 

Shapiro also blames shows like Mash for the anti-Vietnam war movement, citing poll results from 1965-1968. Mash didn't go on the air until 1970 and reflected already held views on war.

Shapiro is only a pup, but I grew up watching television in the 1960s, where all women were portrayed as being subservient to men, Native Americans as blood thirsty savages and gun totin' cowboys as heroes.

The first gay to appear on TV was in Soap, a satire on soap operas.  The character was Jodie Dallas, played by Billy Crystal, but it was a very stereotypical representation.

He also suggests that All in the Family was discriminatory to conservatives, because they portrayed Archie Bunker, a stalwart conservative, as a buffoon, while glorifying the "leftie" Michael Stivic.  Obviously he watched few if any episodes of the show.

Audiences of all political stripes endeared themselves to Archie, because underneath the bigotry was a kind soul.  His prejudice was born of ignorance, but we watched him grow with society, and become more tolerant.  A pivotal episode was the one where Archie was singled out by a group of men who claimed to respect his views.  He attended a meeting but was visibly shocked when they donned their white sheets, and planned to burn a cross on Mike's lawn.



In a previous episode he had been frantic about receiving blood from his black doctor, but now told the KKK that he was a "brother".  A classic.

And Mike Stivik was hardly glorified.  He often came off as an arrogant know-it-all.  In fact, in one episode, Lionel Jefferson tells Stivik that he would prefer Archie's open bigotry to Mike's political correctness.  His care in choice of words was off putting and a worse form of discrimination.

All in the Family pushed the envelope, but it made us think.  The important thing was that most people knew that what Archie was saying was wrong.  We were OK.

I've no doubt that most who work in television are socially liberal, but the industry itself couldn't be more conservative.  The prevalent force is the free market, and the shows being made are those that bring in the most money.

If there's any so-called "brainwashing" it's in the advertising that is even reflected in the programs themselves.  Most teenagers are now familiar with brands.  Which ones to wear and which ones to avoid.  And children want the toys based on their favourite cartoon shows.

I should mention that Shapiro does have a personal axe to grind.  Apparently he wrote two scripts, one for a potential program based on the Harvard law school, and another for an existing serial.  They were rejected, he claims, because of his "conservative" views. 

The problem is that he defines conservatism too narrowly and liberalism ... well ... too liberally.

Even Marc Cherry, creator of Desperate Housewives, hardly a "conservative" program, is a Republican.  He just doesn't fit the tiny mold because Mr. Cherry is gay.

The Real Story is a Persecution Complex

Robert O. Paxton, writing of these kinds of political movements, speaks of their need for victimhood.  "The belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against the group's enemies." (2)

That's all we ever hear from those in the conservative movement.  The media is out to get them.  The universities are out to get them.  They are being persecuted because of their religion.  From Richard Nixon's "enemies list" to Stephen Harper's bunker mentality, they trust no one.

Brent Bozell III, son of the man who ghost-wrote Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, and nephew of William F. Buckley Jr., has actually devoted his life to patrolling the media for left bias. 

He founded ForAmerica, an astroturf group initially created to fight Obamacare, but now just another extension of the Tea Party. 

His Media Research Center's stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene.

Most of their funding comes from Exxon and other right-wing foundations.  Harper uses taxpayers money to keep track of what we're saying.

All of this just seems like such a waste.  If they are looking for people who support a woman's reproductive rights, the rights of the gay community to live their lives, and have no problem with "ethnics", they don't have to invest so much energy.  We're out there in plain sight.  BOO!

I'm holding my final opinion on the book until I'm finished, but when its foundation is based on fraudulent history, it makes the entire thesis suspect.

Sources:

1. The Golden Age Of Blacks In Television:  The Late 1960s, By J. Fred MacDonald

2. The Five Stages of Fascism, By Robert O. Paxton, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-23. The University of Chicago Press

What if This Happened to You?

What if you went into work today and were told that you would have to take a 50% wage cut?  Could you pay your mortgage?  Your rent?  Your bills?  Feed your family?

Think about that.  Your pay cut in half.

Well that's what's happening in London, Ontario.  After purchasing Electro-Motive Diesel, Caterpillar Inc. is playing tough, using the same tactics they used in Illinois, when that state proposed an increase in the corporate tax rate.  Staunch Republicans, Caterpillar threatened to move to a state less union friendly.

They even offered to help the governor, a Democrat, balance their books on the backs of workers.

“The state unfortunately continues to put off the tough decisions” about potential reductions in government spending and pension costs, Dugan said. He said Caterpillar was offering to advise the governor on cost-cutting based on the company’s own experience chopping pay and laying off workers during the 2008-09 recession."

At the same time, they quadrupled their CEO's compensation.  In the third quarter of 2011, Caterpillar posted profits of close to $15,000,000 per day, a 44% increase over the previous year, so they certianly have no excuse for their attack on Canadian workers.

One London Ontario employee commented that he missed Glen Pearson.  Pearson was the object of a smear campaign by the Conservatives, for which it would appear, the new MP, Susan Truppe, paid a mere 18,362.50, to Campaign Research, the Conservative run company that handled Rob Ford's campaign and admit to being behind the bogus phone calls in Irwin Cotler's riding.

Who said you can't buy an election?

And what is Susan Truppe doing to help the London workers?  Absolutely nothing.  And what is the photo-op king, seen above with Cat workers doing?  Absolutely nothing.  Like his hero, the only man to out photo-op him, he is standing with big business.

Occupy London is planning a rally, calling on International workers to join the fight.  Caterpillar is already in trouble with their shareholders, because of their actions in Gaza.  And maybe Greenpeace could lend support, since Cat has also faced heavy fines for their continued attacks on the environment.

So join the London workers on January 21 if you can, and if you are unable to attend, at least send them a message of encouragement.

Stephen Harper not only holds a majority, but also controls the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Governor General.  All we have left is each other.

Fiscal Conservative, Huh?

I love this MacKay cartoon, created when Stephen Harper sold us out for a few crumbs in his "Buy American" scheme.  With Obama once again promoting the insourcing of jobs and America first policies, we can no longer count on the United States to get us out of the hole.  Not that we should have in the first place.

The U.S. is on its way to economic recovery, while the Canadian economy is losing ground.  To help with so-called deficit reduction, the Harper government is laying off 10% of the public service, mainly in areas that challenge their ideology; like Statistics Canada, Environment Canada and Heritage.

Looking to cut corners they are paying a consulting firm $90,000 a day to do the job that was once handled by cabinet ministers.  What cabinet ministers are doing now is anyone's guess.

MacLeans has recently published a list of 99 stupid things the government spent your money on, covering right from municipal to federal.

Telling are those "investments" made by our "fiscal conservative" feds.  Without mentioning the $57,000 for a fake lake, $16 billion on 65 stealth fighter jets (without engines), and the $19.8 million spent so far on those consultants, the "stupid things" include:

- $6 million to Quebec snowmobile clubs.

- $9,000 to convert a curling rink into an archery centre

- $5 million toward marketing and celebrating the 2012 Grey Cup in Toronto

- $1.16 million to design a pedestrian bridge over a busy highway, even though no decision has been made on whether the bridge is actually needed.

 - $180,000 to bring Snoop Dog to the East Coast.

- $26 million on advertising the Economic Action Plan in the lead up to the spring election

- $190,000 into Mrs. Dunster’s, a New Brunswick-based doughnut maker notable for making doughnuts out of pure lard  (I thought Harper was a Timmy's man)

- $700,000 was invested in two start-up cheese companies

- $7.3-million to make 486 million new pennies, which means each penny cost 1.5 cents each. This despite the fact that they are talking about getting rid of the penny altogether.

- Revenue Canada spent $750,000 on an ad campaign warning the public about “under the table home renovations.” Another $113,000 was poured into hiring a polling firm to learn that the ads weren’t very effective.

- $249,000 in Newtopia, a company based in Vaughan (Julian Fantino's riding) that offers genetic testing for obesity and online weight-loss counselling. Founder Jeff Ruby was ecstatic: “Banks can give us money, but the government of Canada provides great credibility.”

 - $1.05 million to Calona Wines of B.C. to double the output of its boxed wines, even though 80 per cent of the wine it sells is imported

 - $87,000 to PurGenesis Technologies of Montreal to commercialize its “line of anti-aging products based on certified organically grown baby spinach leaves.” The money followed an earlier government “contribution” of $282,000 in 2009.  Couldn't we just use baby spinach leaves?

- a company called Solarpro was awarded $54,000 to commercialize tanning beds.

 -  a $284-million program to get Ontario tobacco farmers out of the industry in 2008 actually funnelled half the money to people who didn’t farm tobacco in the first place

- $41,300 to find out the value of Canada’s polar bear population. Turns out each one is worth $400,000.  Based on what, and who would actually pay that to own a polar bear?

 -  Ottawa’s National Capital Commission installed seven new ice shacks along the Rideau Canal for skaters.  Each shack cost $750,000. By comparison, the average house price in Ottawa is $360,000

 - $200,000 for two focus-group surveys that both concluded: “Generally speaking, participants were not looking for a quick fix to Canada’s budgetary deficit.”

And that's only a partial list with more to come.  Will it include the $800,000 fiasco to celebrate our victory (?) in Libya?  Or the hundreds of thousands for a re-enactment of the War of 1812?  Carefully staged photo-ops?

When Harper was with the National Citizens Coalition, he hated this kind of government waste.  Now he's like Sarah Palin on crack.

The Conservative Movement and Homosexuality Revisited

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core". - Hannah Arendt (above)

Of all the hypocritical preachings of the conservative movement, from holier than thou exhortations to economic homilizing, perhaps the most hypocritical and heinous of them all, are their anti-homosexual sermons.

I'm now reading David Brock's Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative  (Crown 2002) and am furious.

I like books written by "ex-Conservatives" because they give you a better understanding of what the movement is all about.  They read like someone who has just escaped a cult and lived to tell about it. 

Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God, reveals the bigotry and sanctimoniousness of the Religious Right.  Schaeffer's dad was the author of A Christian Manifesto, said to be a blueprint for the so-called Moral Majority.

David Kuo's Tempting Faith: An inside Story of Political Seduction, confirms many of the statements made by Schaeffer Jr.  As a member of George Bush's "Faith-based Group" Kuo realized that the Christian faith was being exploited for political gain.

Matt Latimer's Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, tells of how he was selected to be part of George Bush's speech writing team, only to learn that he was no more than a glorified ad man, reduced to creating slogans for bumper sticker politics.

Brock's book Blinded, exposes far more than religious hypocrisy and dummied down politics, however, proving that Hilary Clinton was right.  There really is a "vast right-wing conspiracy", and he would know, because he was a part of it.

Reagan's "Laissez Fairies"

Scott Brison was one of the few Progressive Conservatives in the "new" Conservative Party, created with the Reform/Alliance takeover.  He tells of how he was called into Stephen Harper's office and told that while his keen economic mind was appreciated, he would have to go back into the closet, if he wanted a place in a future Harper cabinet.

Brison was always clear that he was not a gay politician, but a politician who happened to be gay.  He refused Harper's offer and crossed the floor to the Liberals.

Arthur Finkelstein was one of Richard Nixon's most valued political operatives.  An attack ad god.  Many of the negative campaigns he helped to launch were against gay candidates, or those who had "gay sympathies".  (Finkelstein also spent sixteen years working with the National Citizens Coalition, where he taught Stephen Harper the art of  sleazy politics)

It came as quite a shock, when just before his death, Finkelstein was wed to his male partner of 40 years; only an issue because of the hypocrisy.  Working with not only Nixon, but Reagan and Bush, publicly denouncing homosexuality and gay marriage, Finkelstein earned a reputation as a homophobe.

According to David Brock the Republican Party is filled with closeted gays and lesbians, who are forced to hide their sexual orientation because of the public image that the GOP is trying to put forward.  The sad part of that, is not that they have to remain closeted, but that they have to be identified at all.  Such is today's political climate. 

Under Reagan, Brock says that the group referred to themselves as the "Laissez Fairies".

The "big tent" had no room for anyone who might upset the "Evangelicals" that Reagan had so carefully courted.  What is unforgivable is that Reagan dragged his heels on developing a strategy to fight Aids, because his "faith-based group", headed up by another demonic hypocrite, Gary Bauer, said that Aids was God's punishment for being gay.

Reagan only acted when his friend, Rock Hudson, succumbed to the disease.  Too little, too late.

In a new book on Richard Nixon, Nixon's Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America's Most Troubled President, former United Press International Washington bureau chief Don Fulsom, says that Nixon himself was gay, and had carried on a torrid love affair with  Charles (Bebe) Rebozo.  This only matters because Nixon also loved to gay bash, once calling San Francisco "the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine," and blamed the fall of the Roman Empire on homosexual emperors (Nixon Papers, National Archives).

Another book, Lothar Machtan's The Hidden Hitler, (Perseus 2001) makes the claim that the former dictator was also a closeted gay man, with past male lovers. (Mend Protocol)  The assassination of Ernest Rohm and 150 other members of the party, says Machtan, was to bury Hitler's past and reduce the risk of blackmail.

Yet the Nazis sought to exterminate all homosexuals, sending many to concentration or labour camps.  Definitely worse than than simple discrimination, but damaging nonetheless.

When 15-year-old Jamie Hubley committed suicide after constant bullying because of his sexual orientation, members of Canada's Conservatives  actually had the audacity to release public service messages saying "It gets better".  Stephen Harper's homophobia, whether real or just for show, is well chronicled, as are the views of many members of his caucus.

They are part of the problem.

David Brock, gay himself, said that conservatives didn't stop at ridiculing those known to be homosexual, but assumed that any male in their 30s or older, who had never married and were not seen to be dating women, were automatically assumed to be gay, so had to endure the same abuse.

If this is true, Brad Trost, Jason Kenney and Rob Anders, might want to rethink their anti-gay rhetoric.  Apparently perception is enough.

The Republicans and the conservatives in the U.S. are currently  engaged in open warfare, for control of the party, and one of the criterion, for being a true conservative is that you oppose gay rights.  However, according to Brock, most could care less.  They simply have to keep up the appearance to sooth the pseudo-Christians with all the bucks.

Arendt is right.  Rotten to the core. The whole damn lot of them.

Canadians Love Chiquita Bananas so Consiga una Vida Levant

Ezra Levant really outdid himself on Fox News North, Stephen Harper's personal aping station, by telling Chiquita International senior vice-president Manuel Rodriguez, to basically go screw his mother ... in Spanish.

So much class.

What got Ezie in a tizzy?  Chiquita joined thousands, and thousands, (did I mention thousands?) of others who actually know that the Tar sands are the most polluting region on the planet.  Is Levant going to swing out at all of them?

Did Harper and his chimps really think that there would be no backlash to their decision to back out of Kyoto?  Does he think that Canada can survive on the Petro dollar?

Levant should stick to picking lice off Brian Lilley's back and leave journalism to the more advanced species.

As for me, I'm stocking up on bananas.  All Chiquita.

So Levant:  consiga una vida!

Is Rick Santorum Getting Fashion Tips From Stephen Harper?

Social Conservative candidate Rick Santorum, surprised everyone by coming close to beating Mitt Romney in Iowa, finishing just 8 votes behind.  Up to now he has flown under the radar as "surges" went from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to finally Newt Gingrich.

The media is now paying attention and one thing that they are paying attention to is Santorum's choice of costume, or should I say uniform.

The dreaded sweater vest.  Apparently it signifies the Social Conservative dream of life before the civil-rights movement. Who knew?  I thought it just meant they were dorks.

Not all Republicans are thrilled with Romney's victory, feeling that he is being rammed down their throats, because as a moderate, he may be the best choice to beat Obama.  Don't they know that the true conservative would rather lose the election than sacrifice their conservative "values"?

The Religious Right is throwing all of their weight behind the only "conservative" left standing, meaning that the very strange Santorum could very well win this thing.

I doubt he'd have a chance in hell of becoming president, but who knows?  Stranger things have happened.  Just look who we have as prime minister.

Egads.

Should the Canadian Media Make New Year's Resolutions?

I watched Chris Matthew's Hardball yesterday, where the media panel was asked about their New Year's resolutions, speaking of them as a whole.

Most gave the obvious.  Invest in hard journalism, ask the tough questions, cover politics seriously and don't get distracted by shiny objects.  All important goals, but aren't they what journalism is supposed to be about?  Does a doctor really have to make a resolution to heal or a teacher to teach?

The best answer came from Washington Post's David Ignatius.  Recognizing that the media had to shoulder much of the blame for today's toxic political climate, he said that those in his profession had to stop contributing to the noise, divisiveness and confusion that is putting the United States near the point of breaking down.

And Ignatius is actually one of the few who can still call himself a journalist.

I thought that the Canadian media had hit bottom when those covering a Stephen Harper excursion were held hostage on a plane, because he didn't want them to ask him questions about unfolding events.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is sneaking back into Canada through the front door.  Harper flew back from Switzerland today.  While in the air his office announced the appointment of five new Senators and the Supreme Court ruled he has the power to decide to ask if Omar Khadr could be repatriated.

What does Harper have to say about these developments? Nothing.  Journalists travelling with Harper are being kept on the plane to ensure the Prime Minister doesn't face any questions in his short jaunt from the bottom of the staircase to his waiting limousine.

When the journalists live blogged this unusual tactic, a staff member came on board and said that they were free to leave, but would have to find their own way home.  This sounds more like a Stalin move, and yet one those "kidnapped", actually tried to defend it.

David Akin, while writing that they were only allowed three questions in three and a half days, even before the hostage taking, suggested that he was somehow seeking balance in not being too critical.

... for what it's worth, our readers and viewers, of course, include both Harper's supporters and his detractors and reporters must remember that we write for all of them.

Harper's detractors may think we should just give the metaphorical finger to such directives from the PMO but, at one photo opp while we were here, a reporter who did just that and asked a question at a photo opp, despite warnings not to, was immediately warned that, if she continued, reporters would no longer be allowed to attend such photo opps. That would not be good for our access would be curtailed even further. PMO staff also made veiled threats that that individual's organization might suffer further sanction -- all because of the impertinence of asking a question. If you are a media organization in Ottawa, these are no small consequences.

Since when does crippling the media's ability to their job, mean that we are Harper detractors? Shouldn't everyone who believes in democracy oppose this? Akin was telling us that they are being threatened and yet still tried to defend it.

Fortunately for him, he is now with Fox News North where he no longer has to pretend to be a journalist.  Only part of the noise.

There is something that our media, those left who still remember why they chose journalism as a career, can do.  Stop covering Harper and his party.  Only ask questions of the opposition and only publish their answers.  If Harper wants his mug in the papers and his press releases printed, demand that he answer questions, and ones that are not presented in advance.

If he lacks the ability to think on his feet, then he is the one who can't handle his job.

The Conservatives don't have to impress the National Post or Sun TV, but if they want to continue to keep up the delusion that they are moderate "Tories", they need the press.  It's time that the mainstream media remembered that.

And advice to the Canadian public came from Chris Matthews himself.  Too much "noise" and not enough substance?  Change the channel.