Dick Cheney speaks the truth, if you will...

What is Dick Cheney’s intent when he so frequently uses the term, “if you will,” under tough questioning by a reporter?

By now most of us have figured out that the former Vice President is attempting to make his firmly stated response seem like a bona fide truth that should be accepted because it is so obvious to him and now should be to you. At the very least, it is pretentious use of our good language. The phrase is insulting, sounds downright phony and is just plain irritating to the ear.

What does he really mean when he says, “America is safer because we used torture, if you will, during the 8 years of the Bush 43 administration.” He is really saying, “America is safer because we used torture, if you will permit me to lie to you again…“

The next time you hear Dick Cheney use “if you will” during any public discussion, silently add “…permit me to lie” after he says the phrase and you will quickly see the true meaning of “Cheneyspeak.” Example: “The Constitution was held sacrosanct, if you will (permit me to lie) during the Bush Administration.”

Surely we had early clues to his true intent when we heard him say, “The insurgency is in its last throes, if you will…” Or, “…the dark side, if you will.”

One rarely sees “if you will” in print. It is almost always reserved for conversation and generally when the person is attempting to refute some point that otherwise would be open to question.

When Dick Cheney uses the line, it’s as if he expects the listener already believes him to be a liar, and so he throws it in to deflect the listener from the truth: He IS lying.

It’s also like saying, “With all due respect to the Constitution, we ignored it.”

((Will anyone…ANYONE…please lead him off the stage!?))

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

I am ready to support an effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to our nation’s airwaves.

During the decade of the 1960s, when I worked in broadcasting, I was an ardent opponent of the FCC rule (established in 1949) to require the broadcasters to air all sides of issues. It sure felt constricting to me. But if I had known the hell its abolition would unleash on the general populous in our 21^st century totally wired world, I would have worked just as hard to hold it fast.

For the most part, it has given right wing broadcasters with their general opposition to all things progressive a very loud political megaphone from which to preach their my-way-is-the-only-way gospel, and in the process, it has enabled media owners to regularly ignore opposing views. I understand: that means the entertaining stuff gets on the air, the intelligent (boring) stuff does not.

I’m sorry to say it but an imbalance exists that threatens our republic.

I remember well the debate in 1978 over whether or not the Senate should approve the Panama Canal Treaties. I was there, reading the mail of one US Senator and listening to broadcast “discussions” of the merits of the treaties. The official mail to Senators was generally 100 to one against approval of the treaties. “We built it, we own it, it’s ours” was the rallying call. There was little or no interest in understanding the broader foreign policy implications of disapproving the treaties. I bring up the 1978 vote on the Panama Canal Treaties as a reminder that we elect our representatives to the legislative chambers of this republic, not to bend to the fickle weathervane of public opinion but to use their heads (when we have lost ours) to vote what is right for America, not what will get them re-elected next year.

Let's cool the rhetoric and let them do their jobs without threats. There clearly exists an imbalance on talk radio and talk TV. Rush Limburger, Bill O’Reilly, and the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin ought not to be allowed to unduly influence public opinion. But they are allowed…and they do influence public opinion and actions of governments. Witness their followers at the August town hall meetings creating chaos, not intelligent discussion of the merits of health care reform. Broadcasters ought to be working to inform the public, not inflame them.

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired…just tired of what I am hearing and viewing. It does not help our country, it undermines the best efforts of honorable men and women.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would not solve all problems on the airwaves but it would bring back some semblance of sanity to the airwaves, sanity and fairness that would help the listener/viewer avoid exposure to the current extremes of broadcast abuse.

America WILL survive!

There is good news in a new poll released from Daily Kos/Research 2000 but the good news is hidden near the end of the results.

When people were asked which news sources they watch, the answers were as follows:

• Conservatives watch Fox News and little else
• Independents watch little news at all
• Democrats split their dial between CNN and MSNBC
• 18-29 year olds don’t watch much cable news, but they particularly shun Fox.

The really good news is in that last finding.

If the next generation – 18 to 29 year olds – in 2009 are refusing to watch the fiction that is peddled as fact on Fox, there is hope, indeed, for America’s future.

Youth – you gotta love ‘em!