Constant mischaracterizations in the Lamont Lieberman race. Extremism in Congress. Misleading on Iraq. Worst environmental policy in history. Reckless fiscal policy. Huge giveaways to the pharmaceutical industry and defense and reconstruction contractors. Misfocused, Islam inflaming, terrorism "strategy" and rhetoric -- even while violating the Constitution to spy, unchecked, on American citizens. Signing statements that don't interpret, but blatantly change the law.
An administration that argues that
Article II says it can do whatever it wants, unilaterally and clandestinely, regardless of other Constitutional provisions or the Bill of Rights, and even regardless of prior existing law, all in the name of "national security."
Secretive processes that close off the goverment of the people for the people by the people, FROM the people. Demonization of disagreement. Further demonization of the press, for not reiterating right wing spin even more, or for (in those rare instances) simply doing its job.
Democrats being mischaracterized. Issues being misconstructed. Voters being misinformed.
A Grand Canyon like chasm between political perception and reality.
Etc.
_____________
ALL of this relates most fundamentally to ONE THING.
The way most people get their information, and the actual content of it. Which in turn leads directly to their voting decisions, and their subsequent responses.
_____________
In a democracy, information serves as the fuel. The oxygen. The lifeblood.
While the open access of the Internet may help, most people get their information from mainstream media sources, be it TV, newspapers, radio, the Internet, or something else. The small percentage that does not (mainly relying predominantly on non mainstream Internet news sources, which themselves must derive much of their news content from mainstream sources, before refining, clarifying, or spinning) are often already polarized, or otherwise tend to have a strong point of view they wish to support.
In essence, most information comes from the mainstream media. It is from where most people derive their knowledge base, and their peceptions; both conscious, and, more importantly, subconscious.
Thus, by definition, a democracy is only as strong as the quality of its mainstream information.
For it to work well, mainstream information has to be good: For people to interact, respond appropriately to policy, processes and statements, and, yes, again and most importantly, to vote.
_____________
Yet, in the past several years, mainstream information has been poor, if not often irresponsibly presented.
For example, HOW CAN voters make informed choices with mainstream pieces like THIS, from CBS news? A piece which, as noted below, merely cites highly misleading yet critical far right talking points almost as fact -- with no context, correction, analysis, or relevant underlying facts provided. And as the Matter Matters link below illustrates, this is not so much an anomaly as the predominant general pattern today.
FOCUS. On what, you ask? On the problem. Not the periphery, or only the results. Want to make the most impact? Then don't fart about fixing the hood of the car when the engine does not work. Go to the engine. Our mainstream source of information. The lifeblood of democracy.
Two things need to be done, on a wide scale, both here, and well beyond here (including by the DNC and other moderates, independents, and, yes, even well informed moderate republicans who are appalled at what their party is becoming).
First, make the effective case to America that the media decidely slants its coverage to the right. For two reasons. One, to redress this projectionist (the "best defense is a good offense") strategy by the far right wing to substitute in its own beliefs for the facts, for very effectively demonizing the media for not doing the same, and with therefore convincing much of America that it is the media, and not the facts, which are slanted against it. Two, so that Americans, who right now in the mainstream have this perception turned upside down on its head, can be aware of it and respond appropriately.
Second, make the effective case to the media iself. Both in general, and, wherever applicable (which is almost always constant), specifically (blockquotes for emphasis).
For example, with respect to the key CBS piece cited above, WRITE AND CALL CBS (politely, courteously). Please encourage others to do so as well. Paul Waldman at MEDIA MATTERS, who tells me "anybody tells you that contacting the media doesn't matter [they don't know what they are talking about]" is right. They are human. Make the case.
CBS News
524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-975-4321 (ask for Internet Group)
(212 975 3247) (programs department)
Fax: 212-975-1893
There's also a contact link on page bottom of article, limited to 250 words.
Other media contact info is here and on Media Matters' site noted above.)
_____________
With respect to the critical points "covered" in the CBS article itself, both the President and the Attorney General insist therein that the NSA surveillance program is Constitutional. The President believes this, "strongly," according to his words, and the Attorney General, "Very Strongly," according to his.
No context is provided by CBS. No underlying facts. No cogent Analysis.
Why the program is blatantly unconstitutional, and why it is not a subjective issue, is assessed in some depth, here.
In essence, Article I of the Constitution states that ALL laws enacted, shall be passed by Congress. Article II states that the President take care that they be faithfully executed.
Also see the Bill of Rights (and the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments therein).
Thus, can the Executive, consistent with these Amendments, eavesdrop on, wiretap, and intercept communications of U.S. citizens at its sole discretion? In other words, can it simply spy on citizens at its pleasure, as is routinely done in most non democratic states the world over, and never done without oversight to ensure cause in any democratic states? In general, consistent with our Bill of Rights, the answer is of course no.
Under some circumstances, and with appropriate checks and oversight, the answer is yes. But without a procedure for such intrusive and potentially "Big Brotherish" actions, we are back to the orginal Bill of Rights problem, and, worse, back to no checks or oversight if such power is ever exercised, which in itself is enormously inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
So Congress passed a law, FISA (updated Post September 11), which, along with the Federal Wiretap Act, lays out the manner in which such covert spying may be permissably conducted upon us, U.S. Citizens, and making it a felony to do otherwise. The requirements are simple; basically, some cause -- such as, for example, there may be some potential connection to terrorist groups or information, etc -- and some oversight. Thus it set forth the simple requirements of a warrant, now obtainable either before or afterwards from the FISA Court, so that such spying could not be done willy nilly, without any cause, or without any such checks or oversight on how such power is actually exercised.
FISA has also been in existence for almost 30 years. The current President signed it again, as Amended under the USA Patiot Act signed in the wake of September 11, 2001, and tweaking and granting some expanded powers under it, to make it procedurally compatible with our perceived post Sept. 11 needs. The current presidential administration then nevertheless both ignored FISA, and instituted the clandestine NSA surveillance program at hand in direct contravention of it.
The administration asserts, backed by a miniscule group (with respect to those with any expertise on the matter, such as constitutional scholars and lawyers) of very outspoken and almost invariably far right wing supporters, that the President has this power under the "Commander in Chief" clause of the Constitution to protect "national security;" thus meaning by definition that the Executive has the power to do whatever it wants in the interests of National Security -- the Bill of Right's or laws dutifully passed under Article I of the Constitution, and the Executive's duty under Article II to take care that the laws be faithfully executed -- be damned.
While the President as "Commander in Chief" may have some quasi legislative authority in the absence of specific legislation on a matter (and as checked by the Bill of Rights as well) with respect to commandering our armed forces, there is no such "magical power" stated or implied in that clause for the Executive Branch to ignore pre existing law or other provisions of the Constitution; either in the name of "national security," or anything else. To assert otherwise turns the entire premise of checks and balances under our Constitution upside down on its head.
Under the President's claim -- that laws that prohibit unwarranted eavesdropping are irrelevant, let alone given the fact that such unwarranted eavesdropping is of highly questionable constitutionality even in the absence of such laws -- nothing, not the will of the people expressed through Congress nor the laws that they pass, nor the other provisions of the Constitution of the United States, can prevent the Executive from doing what it wants in the name of national security.
This an absurd view -- yet it is what is being asserted as "fact," and spun in this instance to seem "reasonable" because of our fear of terrorism, and the wholly irrelevant, and also unverifiable idea presented by the administration that this activity is -- and always will be -- "very limited."
The CBS article offered nothing. No context, no facts, not even what FISA or the Constitution says, or what the great majority of legal scholars have rather unambiguously stated, etc.
To the masses, the issue is presented by CBS only as if it is some debate with two very partisan sides -- and, since the President and Attorney General "believe" this strongly, it must be reasonable.
Yet the President's ensuing statement, that he "disagrees" with the Judge's decision on constitutionality because, "If al-Qaeda ia calling into the U.S, we want to know why," is extremely misleading in almost every way imaginable.
Quite the opposite of what the President directly implied to the America people, FISA DOES allow us to spy on al-Qaeda when it calls into the U.S., and more. As noted, it doesn't even require the warrant to be procured beforehand, if time is an issue, and was amended after the September 11 attacks, and in response thereto, as part of the USA Patriot Act. The administration, on its own, and secretively, simply ignored FISA, and instituted a sweeping program to spy on citizens -- unchecked and with no oversight -- in direct contravention of it; thereby, as noted, also violating Articles I and II of the Constitution, and raising potential 1st, 4th, 5th, and arguably 9th, and 10th Amendment issues as well.
Yet again, similar to many other news segments, no adequate context, or relevant facts, are provided by CBS, let alone any objective contextual analysis of the facts that does not carefully avoid any inadvertent partisan ramifications. "Earth is flat" pablum is regurgitated, and the story moves on as if it was talking about the weather.
_____________
This is how people remain misinformed: poor, if not outright misleading coverage by the mainstream news sources from which the overwhelmingly majority of America gets its news and information. And the problem is present not just because the media has become overly corporatized and oligopolistic (although that is another fundamental issue that needs be addressed). But because constant, highly orchestrated pressure from the far right, which understands the potency of the media, has convinced America of its supposed "bias" (and which, again, will never support the media until is simply reports (like Fox), what and how the far right wants it to report -- something far different than what is envisioned under the first Amendment, and which comprises the most essential structural component of democracy; an independent and robust press.)
But for more factual information to include in your correspondence/conversation with CBS and other news sources, re FISA and the wider picture, see here. Other sources that simply and non partisanly lay out the relevant facts would also be helpful to add, as a comment.
Some quick editorial type points that may be relevant/helpful are here.