Lights, camera, Sharpton!

The classic image of the Hollywood movie set features a gruff director -- wearing a beret and chomping a cigar -- bellowing, "Lights, camera, action!" The actors then perform their roles. In Sanford, Florida the director might shout, "Lights, camera, Sharpton!"

Although Al Sharpton is a devout blowhard, let's give the devil his due. Whenever there's race to hustle or cameras to hog, he never misses his cue. In the wake of Trayvon Martin's untimely demise, Sharpton delivered a timeless line to the teen's parents: "they will try to make your son a junkie, thief, assaulter, everything else before this is over."

It's theatrical history, Mr. Sharpton starring in a role for which he's uniquely qualified, dividing public opinion. His concern over that fateful night when one life ended and another was forever altered is purely professional. Sharpton is an actor, a caped civil rights crusader manipulating Trayvon's death to build his own street cred. It's a role he's played many times over.

Remember the Duke Lacrosse case, when white lacrosse players were accused of raping Crystal Mangum, a black stripper? Al Sharpton declared the accused guilty without a shred of substantiating evidence. Rich, powerful, white men had abused a vulnerable black woman, as if the scene had played out on an 18th Century southern plantation. Anyone who questioned Mangum's story was racist, sexist, and probably a few other things.

There was only one problem. Mangum wasn't a victim; she was a lying fraud. Ensuing scenes found her convicted of child abuse and charged with the stabbing death of her boyfriend. But before Mangum's story reached its ugly climax Sharpton had long since left the stage.

Sharpton played a similar role in Louisiana's Jena Six case. The script reverberated with racial injustice when Mychal Bell was arrested for beating a white classmate. The cameras rolled and Al delivered in all his demagogic glory. Sharpton's dramatic monologues declared Bell the victim of blatant racism at a racist high school in a racist southern town. However, Mychal Bell turned out to be everything his critics had said, and Jena's systemic racism was pure hype. When the scene ended and the set fell dark, Bell remained in jail and Sharpton had disappeared quicker than September snow.

Since Al Sharpton claims the title of reverend, it's fitting for his marquee to come directly from biblical text, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." Al plays the role of the sympathetic civil rights crusader. Inwardly he's a publicity hog, Kim Kardashian without the buxom figure.

Evidence to date can neither exonerate nor convict George Zimmerman for Trayvon's death. Jumping to either conclusion is foolishly immature. But identifying Al Sharpton as a race-hustler is verifiable. He flawlessly performs the black leader's role, only to vanish without a trace just prior to the scene's climax. Keep a close eye on Sanford, Florida. Al Sharpton's latest performance is can't-miss theatre.

Obama is no Ron Paul

The Republican presidential nomination process is more than half complete, meaning Ron Paul's supporters must face a hard fact. Their candidate won't be the nominee. His delegate count is one-tenth that of Mitt Romney and only Maine has awarded Paul double-digit delegates. Even when Paul wins, he loses.

That's not to say Rep. Paul in inconsequential; he's not. But he has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as do the Pittsburgh Pirates of winning the 2012 World Series. So, where will Paul's supporters turn in the general election? Believe it or not, the Obama campaign believes it can court alienated Paulites, citing common ground on budget issues and foreign policy.

Whatever the Obama campaign is smoking must be good stuff. Had it been available at Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love would've lasted a decade. Give the President's advisors an "A" in spin, but the idea of Paul's supporters voting Obama is pure fantasy.

Rep. Paul pledged to cut $1 trillion from federal spending immediately upon taking office. He'd like to repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish inheritance and capital gains taxes. Ron Paul might settle for auditing the Federal Reserve, but he'd prefer to eliminate it outright. And voters attracted to these fiscal positions will back Obama's reelection? Fat chance, Barry!

It's true that Candidate Obama preached fiscal restraint, criticized Bush's "unpatriotic" deficit spending, and promised budgetary discipline. His campaign rhetoric left spendthrift Republicans little room to criticize tax and spend liberalism. But President Obama is accumulating debt at a rate that makes "W" appear cautious. Three years into Obama's presidency we've increased debt from $10 trillion to $15.5 trillion, give or take a hundred billion. Trillion dollar annual deficits are the new normal. Welfare and food stamp participation has risen, and Washington has seized control of the healthcare industry.

Obama and Paul are as far apart fiscally as the East is from the West. And the notion that Obama's foreign policies will appeal to Paul's base is even more far-fetched.

Ron Paul is non-interventionist to the point of being isolationist. On Paul's ideal plane there would be no appreciable U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Asia, or Europe. And we certainly wouldn't commit forces to wars that Washington exhibits no apparent interest in winning. For right or wrong Ron Paul would bring home the troops.

Obama is following the nation-building war strategy he once condemned. Yes, we've withdrawn from Iraq, but on a timetable determined before Obama took office. The mission in Afghanistan is muddled, American aircraft are bombing targets inside Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen, and the administration seems content to subvert congressional authority and seek permission from NATO and the UN to intervene in Syria.

In terms of governing philosophy, Barack Obama is to Ron Paul what Karl Marx is to Thomas Jefferson. Only epic absurdity could prompt Obama's campaign to believe it can woo supporters from a man who is the President's ideological polar opposite.

The question of character

If a political candidate's personal conduct doesn't reflect their public character, said character is only as good as the nearest camera lens. That seems the reality, as determining political character becomes more and more a matter of party affiliation than genuine ethics.

For instance, Republicans roasted Bill Clinton for his womanizing ways. Yet many are excusing Herman Cain for what seems equivalent behavior. Democrats reverse the roles. Although Cain's guilt remains unconfirmed, Democrats treat him like the Devil incarnate. Clinton, conversely, could philander to his heart's content while Democrats marveled at his ability to lie. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

Herman Cain's credibility faces a stern test from Ginger White, a supposed 13-year mistress. Cain supporters are left wondering if their candidate is a scoundrel or the victim of an elaborate media smear. Either way no one should be surprised. Scoundrels abound in political circles and newsrooms have a history of intolerance toward Republicans. But media bias doesn’t mean a candidate is immune from personal investigation. That fact appears lost on Cain's attorney, who said of the purported affair:

This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.

The explanation seems founded in privacy rights and liberty. What happens between candidates and their spouses is their business. But when marriage vows are compromised it raises questions about a candidate's honesty and integrity. Thus the lawyerly explanation is just spin and illusion, as one of our distinguished Founding Fathers would attest. Thomas Jefferson said, "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." For my money, Jefferson's logic applies to anyone aspiring to assume a public trust as well. There is no private life for anyone who desires to become President.

Extramarital affairs aren't automatic disqualifiers from public office, as Jefferson himself would confirm. Furthermore, waiting for a perfect candidate is itself an exercise in imperfection. However, seeking public office means exposing one's life to public scrutiny. Any situation that speaks to a candidate's trustworthiness becomes the public's business. If a candidate genuinely expects privacy on the campaign trail the public should question not only their credibility but also their judgment.

Since lawyers speak for their clients we must assume Cain's counsel spoke for him. Therein lies a problem for Herman Cain's teetering candidacy (Cain has since left the campaign). Whether the various allegations against him are true or false have taken a back seat to a greater principle. When a man would assume a public trust he must consider himself public property. Transparency hardly seems an unreasonable requirement for a prospective leader.

The crisis of hysteria

According to polling from Rasmussen Reports, 81-percent of Americans followed the media coverage preceding Hurricane Irene, with 63-percent the reporting favorable reviews. At face value there appears nothing but positives in these poll numbers. But should sensationalism and hysterics warrant positive marks from the public?

Hurricanes are one of nature's most potent forces and ignoring them is unquestionably foolish. Therefore it was perfectly sensible for people to keep an eye on Hurricane Irene, especially if they or their loved ones were in her path. Yet, there's cause for concern when 63-percent of the public believe the coverage of Irene wasn't -- pardon the pun -- overblown.

Playing Monday morning meteorologist isn't difficult. But even the slightest attention to Irene's pre-landfall progress revealed that she was never the catastrophic storm the news and weather media billed her to be. Irene wasn't gaining strength as she tracked north. In fact, she was steadily weakening. By the time she struck North Carolina's Outer Banks she was a Category One storm, rather common as hurricanes go. While the track may have been unique, there was no need for the newsroom panic that accompanied Irene's approach.

Certainly Irene was no simple summer squall. A hurricane is a hurricane. To the people who lost their property, or their very lives, Hurricane Irene was serious business. But the reports on Irene's pending destruction sounded as if the storm was the offspring of a weekend rendezvous between Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Katrina. So it goes when the media gins up a crisis of hysteria.

No matter the coming attraction the media will present its potential danger as the end of civilization as we know it. Hurricane Irene was merely the latest illustration of the bombastic partnership that exists between the media and various governmental bodies. The two form an unholy alliance with a track record of sensationalizing harmful situations and fostering public fear.

According to an article titled "Refugees Escape Ravages of Climate Change" (the Journal of Environmental Health, 2003) global warming and environmental destruction would produce 50 million climate refugees by 2010. Entire island chains would disappear beneath rising seas. Zafar Adeel, of the United Nations University, echoed the dire prophesy in December 2006. Where are those 50 million climate change refugees now? What islands have disappeared? The UN's prediction of mass refugees resulting directly from global warming proved to be -- if you'll pardon another pun -- hot air.

Disease is another catastrophe routinely manipulated in media and governmental circles. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) surfaced in Asia in early 2003 and was immediately treated as the Black Death reincarnate. News viewers were inundated with nightly videos of Chinese people cowering behind facemasks. In reality, the only thing pandemic about SARS was the media panic. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed only 8,098 SARS cases worldwide and 774 deaths, mostly in China. Influenza and tuberculosis killed more people than SARS.

If the SARS scare was the only example of the media over-dramatizing microbial threats we might grant them a pass. But the story is too common to dismiss as a singular mistake in reporting, or even an instance of poor judgment.

Bird flu was the dread du jour in 2005. Before anyone knew how serious the strain was, or would become, the media compared it to a 1918 flu outbreak that killed 50 million people worldwide and half-a-million in the United States. Government organizations, notably the World Health Organization (WHO), joined the media cacophony. The public was berated with prophesies of widespread suffering and death. But bird flu's reality never lived up to the hype and the threat dissipated just as quickly as it came.

Swine flu was another crisis that never quite materialized. World Health Organization flu expert Keiji Fukuda warned that a H1N1 pandemic could infect up to 2 billion people worldwide. The panic was on. Media outlets filled space with ominous predictions of widespread suffering and death. The world seemed poised for a plague of Biblical proportions. But, like SARS and bird flue, swine flu didn't cooperate with the doomsayers. It was soon discovered that swine flu wasn't as serious as first reported. Thousands, not billions, were infected and relatively few died.

While diseases and natural disasters are nothing to ignore, they're also nothing to manipulate for ratings and political advantage. Yet potential threats to humanity, of which we should be aware, are routinely exaggerated to the point of absurdity. The reason is clear. Crisis benefits both the media and government. Sensationalism sells news and promotes fear. Under the threat of possible harm people will exchange their liberty for government's oft-empty promise of security. The worse a looming disaster appears the more people will hang on the media's reports and demand government action. Hysteria breeds ratings for media outlets and dependency on government.

There's nothing wrong with reporting potential disasters or planning for unpredictable scenarios. Preparation is common sense and people should be aware of imminent or possible threats. However, journalism and bureaucracy have a long history of blowing biological and meteorological threats completely out of proportion. Informing the public of anticipated events is mundane. Thus cataclysmic crises are created whether or not they exist.

The language used to report possible harms, whether in the form of disease or natural disaster, can be a greater threat to public safety than the dangers themselves. The so-called experts have cried wolf so often that their credibility is shattered. The media and governments bear a responsibility to maintain the public's trust. That bond has been sacrificed to the pursuit of ratings and authority.

The next danger will surface soon enough. Maybe it will be another hurricane, or the tropical rainstorm drenching the gulf coast. Flu season is just around the corner. Whatever the source, the media and government will the treat that threat like a combination of Pompeii and the Chicago Fire before it reaches a serious level, further eroding the public's trust. When a crisis worthy of widespread hysteria does arise, will anyone pay attention to their warnings?

Live to spend, spend to live

Vice President Joe Biden sticks his foot in his mouth so often that he's developed athlete's tongue. The news flash comes when Biden doesn't say something eccentric, unpredictable, or just plain stupid. So it was no great revelation to hear he'd accused Tea Party Republicans of behaving like terrorists during the debt limit debate. It's also no surprise that he denied making the comment that everyone within earshot clearly heard.

That's just Joe being Joe, right? He has a long history of uttering inanities at the worst possible moment. Sometimes his gaffes unintentionally reveal hidden truths. While Biden was merely blowing his usual hot air with his "terrorist" comment, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) can't make the same claim. He pulled a "Biden" in the same meeting, and inadvertently revealed a not-so-secret truth about Washington politics.

Doyle also called congressional conservatives -- unquestionably an endangered species -- terrorists. But he went a step farther, revealing far more about the D.C. mindset, and the Democrat Party, than he intended. Opined Rep. Doyle, "This small group of terrorists have [sic] made it impossible to spend any money."

Impossible to spend any money? If that doesn't summarize the bedrock problem in both Washington and the Democrat Party, what does? The United States faces annual budget deficits of more than $1.5 trillion, a national debt at 98-percent of GDP and growing, unfunded liabilities (SSI, Medicare, etc.) in excess of $114 trillion, and a reduction in our credit rating. Those realities should offend everyone. But a politician complains about the possibility of not spending the taxpayer's money. No wonder America's fiscal house is in such disarray.

Of course, you can blame Republicans for overspending, too. And you'd be right. But for Republicans, overspending is born of cowardice. They're afraid of being blamed for cutting a favored program, or of receiving unfavorable press. Therefore, they sacrifice genuine Republican principles on the altar of federal largess. For Democrats, spending doesn't result from cowardice; it's an addiction.

Ironically, Doyle's comment is completely bogus. Tea Party supporters aren't terrorists and they haven't made it impossible to spend money. In fact, the day hasn't been invented when Washington experienced difficulty spending. Running a deficit? Spend some money. A recent debt ceiling increase? Spend more money. Demonize your enemies, perhaps by calling them terrorists? Spend still more money.

Theoretically, Doyle's intent was to demonize the few conservative Republicans that still remain in Washington. But he has committed a "Biden." While attempting to slander a political opponent, Doyle exposed his party's soul, and that of Washington overall. Politicians live to spend and spend to live. They are drawn to the next federal program like a heroine addict to the next injection. Mike Doyle has affirmed the obvious; being a Democrat is to scorn fiscal discipline and financial restraint. If only fewer Republicans shared his view.

The Poser-in-Chief visits Iowa

Less than 18 months before a general election a sitting president arrives in Iowa and we’re supposed to believe he’s on an economic mission? Pardon me, but I’ve seen more believable posturing. President Obama’s trip to the Hawkeye State had nothing do with economics and everything to do with receiving mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until January 2017. However, Obama’s Iowa appearance should have an opposite effect. He provided America several reasons to grant him a change of address.

Obama chided Washington for its partisanship, calling on Congress to seek common solutions. But was he sincere? Only the most naïve would accept Obama’s olive branch without first considering his motive. There’s no genuine compromise in a liberal’s conciliatory tone. By Obama’s definition, bipartisan cooperation occurs when conservatives concede their positions, abandon their ideals, and relent to his agenda. Any hint of liberal compromise is a ruse, a means toward an end.

Obama was quick to rub Republican noses in his 2008 victory. Why should conservatives, who won in 2010, compromise with a president who exemplifies hostility toward their basic beliefs? Obama’s idea of stimulating the economy is to enlarge the federal government, a concept Republicans claim to oppose. Conservative Republicans, especially, have no reason to cooperate with his administration.

Obama waxed eloquent on the “Made in America” theme during his speech at an Iowa manufacturing facility. “I want the cars and planes and wind turbines of the future to bear the proud stamp that says ‘Made in America,’” the President chirped. But Obama’s actions betray his rhetoric.

Obama may want industry to thrive in supportive, organized labor states like Washington. But in conservative, right-to-work states like South Carolina, not so much. Obama’s National Labor Relations Board is suing Boeing for building a new aircraft manufacturing plant in Charleston, SC. The President can utter grandiose words about protecting American jobs until the cows come home. But as long as the NLRB suit against Boeing proceeds, Obama’s words are cheap.

The President appeared to recognize the components of economic dynamism that exist in America: workers, companies, industries. But coming from Obama, the praise is banal, populist rhetoric. He finds no value in America’s producers unless their achievement results from government nurturing. Toward that goal Obama supports a half-billion dollar partnership between industry, academia and the federal government, allegedly to spur domestic manufacturing. But what opportunity exists for manufacturing to advance when allied with entities -- academia and government -- that hold free markets in utter contempt?

Obama’s motives are apparent. The President visited Iowa to counter a field of Republicans who seek his job. Obama presides over an administration that must rely on credit to conceal its profligate legacy. His hostility toward private enterprise is rivaled only by his cultivation of the public sector.

Maybe we can understand Obama’s posturing to some degree. Posing is a President’s only option when honesty means defeat.

On palm pilots and Teleprompters

In politics, spin is life. Politicians and their handlers will state their case even when it’s apparent they haven’t a leg to stand on. Too often, accepting the spin as fact or dismissing it as fiction depends on whether or not the hearer agrees with the political party that created the swirl.

Sarah Palin’s palm notes are a prime example of such a political vortex. Conservatives and Republicans--they aren’t necessarily one and the same--rushed to her defense. This is a natural reaction. People will defend politicians who appear ideologically similar.

The problem conservatives face with the Palin palm notes story arises from repeated criticisms heaped upon President Obama’s use of the teleprompter. For Obama, the teleprompter is a techno palm note that keeps him focused during speeches. For conservatives, Obama’s prompter is the butt of jokes and a sign of fraud. Therefore, a hint of hypocrisy exists when conservatives defend Palin for essentially the same act.

The fact is that many, perhaps most, effective public speakers use reminders when behind the lectern. It can be the Barack Obama teleprompter or the Sarah Palin palm note. Or, it can be the small index card preferred by the great communicator, Ronald Reagan.

Reagan would conceal the cards when he walked onto the stage. Once he began his address he would glance at the cards to maintain focus and cadence. Yet the 39th President was neither ignorant nor uninformed, and using notes certainly didn’t render him an ineffective speaker.

However, the palm notes do exacerbate an existing problem for Sarah Palin. Writing notes on one’s palm is considered a grade school trick, which lends to the idea that Palin isn’t prepared for the national stage. Too, Palin’s delivery is more than a little irritating, not unlike fingernails on a chalkboard. Her folksiness and accent are fine, but she sounds whiny. A Palin speech doesn’t inspire great confidence unless the political spin sways you toward that end.

Left-wing pundits and the White House spin machine wasted no time seizing on Palin’s perceived gaffe. If only they were so quick to identify and denounce Muslim fanatics who try to blow up jetliners on Christmas Eve. The “mainstream” media also ridiculed the Palin palm pilot. Yet when Robert Gibbs lampooned Palin before the media what do you think he did? He used notes. And would you believe he wrote them on his palm?

Granted, Palin’s crib notes conjure images of adolescence. Yet Gibb’s palm note episode is much worse than Palin’s. Whether Gibbs’ intent was to ensure his accuracy or to take a pot shot at Palin is immaterial. Either way, his actions were far more immature than were hers. Gibbs’ behavior was downright childish.

For all the ideological spin surrounding Teleprompters and palm notes, conservatives are less hypocritical with their condemnations than are liberals. Why, you ask? No one claims that Palin’s speaking ability spurred her popularity. For Obama, his entire persona centers on his speechmaking prowess.

To hear supporters gush over Pres. Obama you’d think he is the greatest orator since Cicero. Obama’s image was created around his speaking skills. He is intelligent, clean and articulate, or so we’ve been told. His speeches are an intellectual breath of fresh air. And he is all of that, while on the teleprompter. However, off prompter he stammers, stalls and searches for words just like the rest of us.

Critics of Obama’s teleprompter are on slightly more solid footing than critics of Palin’s palm notes only because Obama is marketed as a solid speaker. Palin is not. But the criticisms and defenses offered from both sides of the matter prove that spin trumps substance in the political theatre.