Article Surfing Archive

American's craving for information is driven by partisan confirmation of their own beliefs as apposed to really wanting to hear the truth.

Imagine for a moment that you own a large house. This house has many areas, sectors, positions, and responsibilities. You own this house primarily because you live in it. You contribute a portion of what you earn to the house as does others who live in this house and own it under the same arrangement. Since you are too busy living in your house, you and the other residences elect an individual who's responsibility is to govern your house and to appoint those capable of taking care of such matters as security, finances, diplomacy with your surrounding houses, and even providing education to the children that live in your house.

Suddenly, you start asking this individual (that works for you and the other residences of your house) questions about the security, education, and diplomatic efforts dealing with your house. At first, this elected employee of yours gives you some information. Then you discover later on that this employee you hired is actually lying to you. What do you do? Perhaps you should tell other residence in the house that he/she is lying because they can not handle the truth or the truth will make them vulnerable to their enemy neighbors.

That isn't how you would react at all, is it? In fact, you would fire this employee with the likely support of the other residences in your house.

''and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.' These are the words spoken by President Abraham Lincoln on November 16th 1863 in Gettysburg Pennsylvania. It is of this definition that we elect political figures under the title of 'Civil Servants'. The very meaning of 'Civil Servant' is a Servant or one who serves civilians. In short, someone who is elected to serve you and the other residences of America or the metaphoric house mentioned above. The highest position of a civil servant is in fact the President of the United States of America.

So why is it such a responsibility to stand behind a servant? Since the 2001 attacks on America, a certain duty has been instilled into the minds and hearts of Americans by the media (or 'Liberal' Media) and propagated speeches that you must stand behind the President and support his actions. Isn't this a reversal of roles? Shouldn't your servants stand behind you?

Recently, I have grown irritated by watching main stream media and seeing how clearly slanted their reporting has been throughout this presidency in issues such as terrorism, the war, and our role in Israel. It is true that mainstream 'liberal' media brings week conservatives on television and radio to force an appearance of fair and balanced reporting. Fortunately, we have fair and balanced reporting on the Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com) channel, right?

Fox New's is little more than a conservative news network who counters main stream media by packing slanted news, conservative anchors, and airing a commercial every hour reinstating a blatant lie of 'fair and balanced reporting'. God help us if a one sided, arrogant, narrow minded, bigot like Bill O'Reilly is the symbol of fair and balanced reporting. (That is my slanted opinion on Bill O'Reilly and I will list sources on that view in a future article.)

Despite the facts that are accessible by any public school educated American citizen at their local library, internet, Library of Congress, and newspaper archives that date back to the 1800's, Americans still watch news that they agree with rather than supporting news sources that are accurate. In fact, it is this weakness that such characters as Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com/) (http://www.moorewatch.com/) and Ann Coulter (http://www.anncoulter.com/) (http://www.therationalradical.com/diatribes/ann_coulter.htm) bring in millions of dollars each year from their one sided supporters. It is their intent to entertain and not inform. This is a goal not dissimilar to mainstream media and Fox News.

Since most of you are so used to watching one sided media, you may not quite understand what just happened in the above paragraph. I mentioned a person and listed a pro and con web site next to their names. That is my interpretation of the meaning of 'fair and balanced'.

According to Freerepublic.com, in Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, 'National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, 'Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.' The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. The film failed to show the entire statement made by rice which is 'Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.' (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)'

So as right wing activist are marching down the street to pick up a copy of the Anti-Moore (Ann Coulter's) book, Treason, they are sure to get the truth, right? Think again, these authors and filmmakers are not out to find and publish the truth but rather infiltrate the partisan mind with such propaganda and misquoted statements as this one found at Spinsanity.org.

'Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original source material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually presented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.'''

Unfortunately, such distorted ideas are not placed in people's minds by classic brainwashing techniques as used in the CIA's MkUltra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA) experiments in the 1950's and 1960's but rather this mental infiltration is done willingly by those who seek confirmation of ideals rather than information on truth and those who willing to give money to be lied to.

Among the worst side affect of such deceit is the American public supporting politician's right to lie. Clearly, I support Michael Moore and Ann Coulter in their right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press (http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html) but I do not endorse a right to lie extended to my servants which serve in political offices.

I have made this statement to several friends of mine who are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Independent saying 'I believe when a politician openly and knowingly lies to the American people of political matters that they commit an act of treason.' Well, I stand corrected because I am in fact wrong on the matter. According to LectLaw.com (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm) the constitutional interpretation of treason goes as follows:

'The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'

But then again, what is war? In recent years, America's government has formed a habit of waging war against inanimate objects or ideals such as 'The War on Drugs' or 'The War on Terror'. Under that knowledge, then would Oliver North (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm) be guilty of treason towards 'The War on Drugs'? Either way, he always has a home at Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50566,00.html).

Oliver North serves as a character (though not a willing participant) in the popular email chain letter that depicts north as warning senator Al Gore about Osama Bin Laden in the 1987 hearings surrounding the Iran-Contra affair. The entire email is deemed a farce by Oliver North himself according to Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp). The biggest crime committed in circulating this email was not committed by a political figure but rather the ignorant or innocently deceived receivers of the email who have kept this circulating for five years without taking the time to Google 'Oliver North Al Gore' (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Oliver+North+Al+Gore&btnG=Google+Search).

If this country is ever going to reunite in common causes, the American citizens need to unite in learning the truth. That means, watching the news on all channels, reading newspapers of all slants, and researching the facts. If you don't have time to learn the facts, the least you can do in this effort of learning the truth is not propagate the lies you have not proven to be true.

Read something in this article you disagree with? Do not email me or call me but rather dispute it publicly on the web site or media outlet you read it on. I have given my sources, now show me yours.