By now, most all of you know the latest on the Beck/Medina travesty. But is it really a travesty? I am one among a number who believes, and has believed for some time, that Beck is part and parcel of an establishment-owned and run mainstream media that has as its purpose to distract Americans and take their eyes off the ball.
Every MSM pundit is designed for particular audiences. They each have their purposes. We have soft-spoken pundits. We have middle-ground pundits, and we have bold pundits. They range from Diane Sawyer, to Sheppard Smith, to Bill O’Reilley, to Keith Olbermann, to Chris Matthews and to Glenn Beck.
It is important to take heed as to who these people are. They are designed and marketed to appear as if they “belong” to certain groups of working class Americans, from the gentle all the way to the bold and angry. But none of them really belongs. They are all multi-millionaires who make their fortunes by performing under lucrative contracts with super-rich media owners and promoters. These people are picked by their masters; they do not pick their masters. They perform for pay, as anyone should expect.
If we look past the tenor and mode of presentation of each of the pundits, and if we dig deep into the messages of each, we always find one common denominator: They attempt to incite one-half of Americans against the other half. It is always – always – always – “conservatives” vs. “liberals.” The message never changes – only the tone does. I hope most of you will take special notice of this from now on, every time you listen to any pundit, regardless of who it is.
But why do they do this? Media owners spread messages. These messages aren’t spread as charity. They are spread through sponsors. Follow the money.
Jay, the healthcare example you gave is actually an example of corporatism (the merger of big government with big business). When the money is extracted from the middle-class it doesn't go to the poor schlep needing treatment for some illness, it goes to the medical corporations or the drug corporations or the medical device corporation (like GE). Corporatism of today differs from the corporatism of Mussolini's time in that, today, big business controls the government — instead of the other way around. You have noticed that there is nothing in the legislation prohibiting Big Pharma from charging Americans more than Germans for the exact same drug. Nor is there anything in the legislation requiring GE to reduce the price they charge for MRIs and CAT Scan devices. If there was, then, that would be communism.
Jeff,
Thanks for the in-depth reply. Let me just make a couple points.
1) I'm glad you mentioned the fed. I believe that one of the most important things we could do during our lifetimes is elect representatives and senators (on the federal level) who will abolish the fed and restore the gold standard.
2) Communism, in practice, as opposed to in theory, does not redistribute the wealth. It accumulates at the top. In theory, of course, you're right, but in practice, I don't think that's actually how it works (look at Cuba and N. Korea as current examples). And I think you have to agree that at least what people like Obama preach is taking my money (which the gov't does more and more of) and giving it to the poor (nationalized health care, etc.). So, I think you're right about where the wealth actually goes, but I also think it's in the name of communism.
Anyhoo, I really appreciate your reply!
Swarms of new Texas primary voters are taking part in the early voting of this election, rendering recent polls unreliable. Could all these new voters be inspired by business-as-usual candidates or do they have something else in mind? Maybe the Glenn Beck flap alerted many to the fact they had a third choice. Should be interesting…
I think Medina had a right and a duty to admit that a government that has shown itself to be untrustworthy should not have the full confidence of the people, and that no topic should be a sacred cow! Beck was hypocritical. There are many people that feel this same way and they should not be marginalized. How can a government that allowed an incident to occur by its indiscriminate immigration policies, not be at least open to suspicion!
Much more drivel like this and I'll unsubscribe from this RSS feed, although I'm pretty sure you don't care. Just sayin'.
If you expect to agree with everything we publish here, you really are in the wrong place!
Otherwise, some healthy discussion and debate is far more important to our society. You might want to let the author know what you disagree with.
Michael: Fair enough. Here goes.
Jeff M.,
Travesty? That's a bit sensationalist, don't you think? It is however, in keeping with the tone of your conspiratorial piece. What about the interview was a travesty? Beck gave Medina loads of time to answer his questions. He was very fair with her, despite that fact that getting a straight answer out of her was like pulling teeth (almost). In the end, his main point was that she was, in fact, open to the idea that the government of the United States could have been behind the 9/11 attacks, and that her base would therefore be shrinking significantly, based on all the responses he had gotten to the announcement of his upcoming interview with her. It was a fair point, don't you think? Travesty? Get real.
Next, you suggest, with no evidence, that folks like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly (misspelled in your article) aren't genuine. That may be the case with some on your list, but these guys? C'mon! They are "designed and marketed," you say. How about giving even just a shred of evidence to support your wild claim that they are puppets?
I could go on, but I really should get back to work!
Fair enough, Jay. As to "travesty," I only used that term because so many people were surprised and outraged at the interview. Me? Not really. I can't say I saw it coming on this Medina issue, but it doesn't surprise me as you can tell by the way I characterize MSM.
As to the next issue, if these guys are genuine, they are certainly very misinformed and spreading misinformation. ( I guess that could be a reasonable excuse to form the basis for a plausible denial by them).
GB is using fear-mongering by suggesting the US is headed rapidly toward communism. O'Reilley soft-peddles it more, but his message is the same. Communism is a system that redistributes wealth from the few to the many. In fact, we are headed the opposite direction, and wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. See here: http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coeffi…
The only way wealth can become more concentrated at the top is if it comes from the middle and/or bottom.
There are a great many sites where you can study other, similar statistics concerning wealth and income distribution (http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm), but suffice it to say, we are clearly headed away from communism as the aristocracy grows more wealthy and powerful. Just because they no longer wear white wigs does not mean we don't have a controlling aristocracy which has its hands in almost every regulation and law that has an effect on the flow of money.
So, why do GB and O'Reilley, and others, always insist we are headed toward communism? Has nobody ever shown them the evidence to the contrary after all their years of beating the same, dead horse? I can only assume there must be SOME reason for them to do this despite the official statistics. It seems the people largely don't know about these statistics, and so, it makes it easy to market an agenda that misinforms them. That way, the people can be led to believe we are headed toward communism and led to start taking our anger out on the lower class who controls none of the federal agenda, rather than on the elite class who controls just about every bit of the federal agenda.
If you are frustrated that the Constitution has been abused, you have to know who is abusing it. The answer becomes easy if you recognize wealth equals power, and power equals control.
So, no, I don't think the wino, who is passed out on the park bench, is effectively wrecking it for us trillions of dollars at a time. We see where our money is going. It is going up the food chain, not down. This is done by legislators who take care of Wall Street executives and other close friends.
This issue, I would venture, is also recognized by Ron Paul in his criticism of the FED. He sees that when the money comes fresh off the "printing press," by the time any of it starts circulating to the working class, it is already devalued. Of course, this is basically the same as saying, those at the top who get first dibs on it are at an economic advantage because it is more valuable in the early stages when they get their hands on it.
This is also necessarily implied by almost everyone who criticizes TARP and the stimulus. The money did not trickle down, which means it is staying at the top.
So, with irrefutable evidence that wealth is becoming more concentrated at the top, I must only assume that somebody has told GB and O'Reilley this at some point, somewhere. Assuming this is true, why do they keep pushing this notion that we are headed toward communism? What good does that do to inform the people as to the big picture, what is really happening, and why our Constitution has really been ignored? They can't do that because they would be telling on their bosses.
I hope that this clears up the basis for the points I made.
I forgot to make clear that my criticism is nonpartisan. You can look at that GINI graph and any administration, any Congress and almost every economic downturn, and no matter what supposed "party" is in power, the trend is increased concentration at the top. The savings and loan crisis of the mid '80's appears to be a very minor exception, but it was easily overcome with a handful of new laws and Constitutional abuses.
Let me make clear I'm not sold on Ron Paul, but I think he makes some good points. Here is a video where he discusses the problem of wealth and income inequality. Clearly, he recognizes it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LybxvduBXBU