An Official Palestinian State and What It Could Mean for Israel

"  Our image has undergone change from David fighting Goliath to being Goliath"  - Yitzhak Shamir, former Israeli prime minister on the state of affairs between Palestine and Israel

President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine at UN council meeting

         The Palestinian government is currently attempting to gain recognition from the United Nations to become an official state, hoping that by September their calls will be heeded and statehood will be officially granted to Palestine. Palestine had been a swath of land near Jerusalem, where Palestinians had lived for over two thousand years. In 1917, the Balfour declaration was signed, which granted Israelis the land that had been cultivated and inhabited by the Palestinians for thousands of years. When Israel was declared an official state in 1947, Palestinians declared war on the newly founded nation of Israel. The result was countless wars and conflicts between the two states that still plague negotiations today. In the end, Palestine lost almost 70% of it's territory, and is now split in the middle by Israel, between the Gaza Strip in the southwest, and the West Bank in the northeast.

The land in green shows Palestinian land, the land in white shows Israeli land
The map shows the loss of Palestinian land to Israel since 1947 throughout
various wars

         Groups like Hamas which oppose Israeli occupation of Palestinian land operate out of the Gaza Strip and have used terror tactics to gain ground on Israeli forces. They have launched home made missiles and bombs over the Israeli border for years in an attempt to deter Israeli forces from entering Palestinian land. In 2008 the "Gaza War" was initiated by Israel to stop the rocket fire into Israeli territory and to cease the shipment of arms to the terrorist group. The war that lasted three weeks resulted in almost 2,000 Palestinian deaths and only 13 Israeli deaths. It is said that for every 1 Israeli soldier killed in the half century long conflict, almost 4 Palestinian civilians were killed.

         The Palestinian Authority which is the official government of Palestine has denounced the terror tactics employed by groups like Hamas, and does not recognize them as an official political party. Although the Palestinian Authority opposes Hamas's tactics, Israel only further complicates problems by continuing to build Israeli settlements which encroach on Palestinian territory, further diminishing the terrirtory already lost by Palestine throughout the years due to Israeli won wars.This provides Hamas the needed sympathy to continue their war against Israel from both civilians and government officials alike.

Bombs over Palestine launched by Israeli forces in 2008

         Palestine now looks to bypass peace negotiations with Israel by seeking UN recognition, as talks throughout the years between Israel and Palestine to halt the building of Israeli settlements in turn for Palestinian concessions and an Hamas ceasefire have led only to broken promises and unfulfilled agreements. Israel claims Hamas's aggression is a never ending threat and that the settlements being built by Israelis contractors are not encroaching on Palestinian land. The borders which are hardly defined between the two nations give Israel the plausibility of claiming no fault of their own for 'accidentally' building settlements on Palestinian land.

         Palestine hopes to achieve the goal of obtaining statehood through the UN by September, but many in the Israeli government are opposed to the resolution, because they see Palestine as a state that is too unstable to be deemed a valid and functional state. "On behalf of whom will you present a resolution in September? Mr. Abbas or Hamas?" said Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor, insinuating that Hamas would lead the newly Palestinian state, and not the current president Mahmoud Abbas. 

         President Mahmoud Abbas seems pragmatic in his approach towards Israel, and since his election in 2008 has reached his hand out to Israel and has warranted U.S. support to come to a peace treaty between the two warring states. He has denied claims that Palestine is attempting to circumvent negotiations between his country and Israel by seeking UN recognition. Mahmoud Abbas said his nation's desire for UN recognition did not have to prevent talks, but instead could potentially be a catalyst for well intentioned and productive talks between Palestine and Israel. UN recognition would give Palestine the ability to seek UN resolutions and support, ultimately undermining Israeli dominance over the region. This would in turn give Palestine the leverage necessary to impede Israel's desires to have the upper hand in negotiations

President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia shaking hands with
President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine

         Several countries in Latin America have already recognized the state of Palestine, along with Russia, shown in the picture above with President Mahmoud Abbas and President Dmitry Medvedev shaking hands at UN council meeting. The Obama administration has not announced whether or not it supports Palestine's attempts at gaining recognition for statehood, but has indicated it does not like the unilateralism employed by Palestine to gain recognition by the UN. This comes to no surprise, as the U.S.'s long time alliance with Israel hinders almost any public support for Palestine in their actions.

          Whatever the outcome may be, Palestine seems to be the underdog in this fight. Israel's advanced weaponry, sophisticated intelligence agency and strong security forces have given the nation the upper hand in almost any battle fought against Palestine. Palestine lacks a strong and advanced army, or even an infrastructure worthy of notice. Almost 80% of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip live in extreme poverty, while almost half in the West Bank live under the same conditions. This all comes as the result of Israeli sanctions and blockades against the state, which Israel claims is in favor of the national security of Israel to prevent the arms trade to Hamas, but many in Palestine say it is just an attempt to keep the Palestinian state from becoming functional and autonomous. 

          One thing is for certain, negotiations between the two countries have yielded nothing, and Israeli ignorance of the Palestinian civilian's livelihoods only further enrages terrorist groups that see Israel as an oppressor of it's people. Meanwhile Israeli citizens are fed propaganda and outrageous claims of Palestinian aggression and savagery against it's people. Both sides must come to an agreement that can facilitate a two state solution that can live side by side without conflict. Although this may seem idealist and paternally optimistic, crazier things have happened. 

         Israel's bullying of the weaker nation has left Palestine no other option but to seek support from the international community, which has normally batted an eye to the demonized state formerly ruled under Hamas. Now that light has been shed on Israeli aggression and violations against Palestine's people and international law, the tables have turned and sympathy has been given to the Palestinian state. Hopefully these two nations can live in peace, and it is in my opinion that the only way this can be achieved is if the playing field between Palestine and Israel are leveled. This will be done through UN recognition of Palestine, which will show Israel that Palestine can't just be pushed around anymore, and that it's violation of Palestinian autonomy won't go unpunished. It's this that Israel worries about, the loss of power over the Palestinian territory which it arrogantly claims is Israel's. 

         When September comes Palestine will be crossing it's fingers and if statehood is granted to Palestine, it will surely be a day Israel will lament. But this could maybe be the beginning of fair and balanced talks between the two countries, and a gradual and eventual downgrade of military power from both sides. It is always said that the stronger party in negotiations does not have to negotiate. Now that Palestine may have the support of the international community, Israel will no longer have that luxury, and maybe the Palestinian people can finally regain their livelihood without the harsh and aggressive sanctions of it's Goliath like neighbor, Israel.

-Signing Out- John Thomas

Political Chicken in the Midst of Serious Debt Ceiling Dangers

 *******UPDATE******07/21/2011

" By using the budget's details as a means of warfare in this game of politics in order to justify being opposed to raising the debt ceiling could prove disastrous"

 

 

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform

            The 'Grand Bargain' that was so promptly denied by House Republicans earlier this week is back in the negotiations. The bi-partisan group of senators, also known as the 'Gang of 6' confirm that this may be the best option in tackling both the debt ceiling issue and the deficit simultaneously. The plan proposed by the group and originally by President Obama would cut deficits by $3.75 trillion over the next 10 years, and would include cuts in entitlement programs and accrue revenue by $1.2 trillion dollars.
              The plan was well received by President Obama, who declared that he would pen his name onto the short term deal offered by the Gang of 6. House Republicans still seem adamant to throw out any bill that involves any sort of tax hikes, even if it's just for the wealthy investors through the capital gains tax.
               Grover Norquist, President of the organization Americans for Tax Reform, is the man behind the scenes in the GOP party, pressuring Republicans to deny any bill that involves raising taxes, even if that plan has huge deductions in spending. Grover Norquist's organization sent out an oath for House Republicans to sign, stating that they will not under any circumstances sign a bill that includes raising taxes on any group, wealthy or not. All but 3 House Republicans signed the bill, making the wiggle room for negotiations just that much more limited.
               Grover Norquists obsession with the wealthy's tax rates comes at the expense of average people. When Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report posed a hypothetical question to Norquist that involved whether or not America should raise taxes if somehow terrorists kidnapped our grandmothers and wouldn't release them until Congress agreed to raise taxes on the top 2% of the country in fiscal terms, Norquist's response was quite cynical. Norquist replied "I think we console ourselves with the fact that we have pictures and memories". This seemingly defiant and unmoved man by what seems to be one of the most dire situations one could be involved in is emblematic of the almost zealot like manner in which conservative members of Congress fight for tax cuts for the wealthy.
              Grover Norquist even went on to claim that every time capital gains taxes have been raised the economy has declined. Capital gains taxes are the taxes imposed on investors when they share and trade stocks. The current rate is 15%, which is low in comparison to the past 3 decades. Politifact deemed Norquist's claim as false, as the capital gains tax has been raised and lowered over the years, and shows no correlation with the overall well being of the economy. Politifact stated that under President Reagan the capital gains tax was raised and the economy improved, meanwhile under President Clinton the capital gains tax was lowered and the economy proved sluggish. At other times the capital gains tax was raised and the economy declined and vice versa. Overall Politifact saw nothing to link the capital gains tax with the general economy.
              Senator Harkin (D-Iowa) commented on the recent opposition to repealing tax cuts for the wealthy, relating the movement to a "cult fringe" that is hindering any progress in Congress. Senator Harkin, one of the Democrats in the gang of 6 went on to say Americans want shared sacrifice from both parties, and without it voters will choose wisely this coming election. President Obama made a similar statement saying "If each side takes a maximalist position, if each side wants 100 percent of what its ideological predispositions are, then we can't get anything done."
              What must be recognized in this debate is the fact that the budget and the debt ceiling limit are not intertwined. There is no need to alter or manage the budget for the debt ceiling to be raised. They are two separate issues and while one may contribute to the problems in the other, there is no requirement for the former to be adjusted in order for the latter to be raised. The debt ceiling limit deadline is used by Republicans and Democrats alike to push forward a balanced budget plan, which is a good thing. Getting our fiscal house in order should be a top priority for lawmakers in Congress. But by using the budget details as a means of warfare in this game of politics to justify being opposed to raising the debt ceiling could prove disastrous.
              As for now anti tax zealots like Norquist and Tea Party activists in the House seem to be dominating the debate, as Democrats and President Obama seem to capitulate to their demands. A mutual sacrifice must be made and the Democrats seem more than eager to sacrifice cuts in huge entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, two of the biggest programs held dear to both Democratic lawmakers and their constituents alike if that means they can avert defaulting on the nation's debt. House Republicans don't want to budge and go back on the oath they signed to Norquist and his organization, which appear to be one of the most influential and powerful lobbying groups in America that you've never heard of. As this debate becomes more and more toxic, we can only hope for an agreement that will gain support from both parties and ultimately solve our country's huge fiscal problems.
 
 


******UPDATE****** 07/16/2011

“The reason default is no better an idea today than when Newt Gingrich tried it in 1995 is that it destroys your brand’’ - Senator Mitch McConnell

 

              The stakes are only getting higher as the deadline approaches for the debt ceiling to be raised. GOP leaders have begun to recognize the folly in their plan to politicize the debt ceiling talks. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement earlier today warned that by resisting the deal President Obama has offered and not coming to some compromise will leave the Republican party's image tarnished for the 2012 elections. Sen. Mitch McConnell said earlier today that by declining any compromise and shutting down the government would “... Give the president an opportunity to blame Republicans for a bad economy.’’. Sen. Mitch McConnell went on to compare the government shutdown in 1995 led by Newt Gingrich with the contemporary issue of raising the debt ceiling and said “The reason default is no better an idea today than when Newt Gingrich tried it in 1995 is that it destroys your brand.’’
             President Obama went on his own campaign, by appealing to the public and doing exactly what Sen. Mitch McConnell feared; showing the American public that he is not to blame for the lack of compromise. His willingness to come to an agreement that can make both parties satisfied is best exemplified in his statement earlier today.  "We have to ask everyone to play their part because we are all part of the same country". President Obama believes that by mixing a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts he can satisfy both parties and come to a mutual sacrifice. President Obama finished with "We are all in this together."
             President Obama has even offered a smaller deal to Republicans, keeping in mind that being too ambitious can lead to the downfall of a proposed bill. President Obama's communication director, Dan Pfeiffer said earlier today that Washington aides, Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama have explored "various options" with congressional leaders from both parties. His offer comes at a critical moment, when Republican leadership seems more than willing to default on America's debt to prove an ideological point. This seems too risky of a bet for the Republicans to play, especially when America's financial future and it's people's livelihood are at stake.
             While President Obama and Republican leaders have been debating a smaller, less ambitious plan, top Democrats and Republicans are in the process of devising a plan that emulates the 'Grand Bargain' originally proposed. Even House Speaker John Boehner agrees that a large plan is in order, saying to a group of Republicans that he wasn't made House Speaker to do small things. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, who is one of a select few of Senators who are committed to a bi-partisan plan that would help put America's fiscal house in order, commented on the current deadlock in talks between President Obama and Republican leadership. "We cannot as a country fail to deal with the debt threat," said Sen. Conrad, “Every serious economic analysis tells us we’ve reached the danger zone. And just kicking the can down the road? That can’t be. We’re better than that. We’ve got to be better than that.”
             Despite all the talk of compromise and collective action, the Senate has been working on a plan that would give President Obama the executive authority to raise the debt ceiling limit without congress's approval. This comes at a time when the President has been harshly criticized for his ultra vires use of executive power, whether it be through the on-going conflict in Libya or his approval to extend the Patriot act. Both of these situations set a precedent, as the executive branch of government has incrementally increased it's power over congress since the signing of the War Powers act in 1973. This gives President Obama the advantage of showing that he had the power to act unilaterally, but gave Republicans the option of coming to a mutual compromise.
             Even though Obama has this seemingly unlimited authority to raise the debt ceiling, he seems more than willing to compromise with Republican leaders in the House. This is doing President Obama's campaign for 2012 well, as his attempts at appealing to independent voters by reaching out to strike a compromise has rendered him a favorable position in the poles in comparison to Republican leadership. In a Quinnipac University study, pollsters said 48 percent of voters said they will blame Republicans if the debt ceiling is not raised, as opposed to 34 percent who will blame Obama. 45 percent of Pollsters said they trust President Obama's intentions, compared to only 38 percent for Republicans. Overall, President Obama scored a 47 percent approval rating while 46 percent disapproved.
           If you put aside the numbers and the nuances, the debt ceiling talks have basically resulted in nothing more than pandering to a select audience for an ideological motive. President Obama's willingness to compromise has left Republican leaders on the ropes. Sen. Mitch McConnell said it best when he stated that the Republican brand would be destroyed by their lack of political hindsight to come to an agreement. Sometimes it's the smart idea to stand your ground in an effort to defend your morals and views, but when it comes at the expense of the American public, that's just uncalled for. This is a situation that should not be taken so lightly whether it be economically or politically. In the long run President Obama's open hand will remain relevant in the voter's mind, while the Republican's clenched fist will only bring back memories of a party who was  obsessed with portraying the image necessary to obtain the vote from their ideological hardliners. The 2012 election will not be based on those devoted to the parties, but by the independents in the middle who could very easily swing either way. This issue will surely remain in the minds of those who cast their vote in 2012, and not many will be able to forgive the Republicans if they can't come to a compromise that shows sacrifice from both parties. 






 UPDATE ON DEBT CEILING TALKS- 07/14/2011

" The only thing on our leader's minds is who will come out on top politically from this debt ceiling debate, and that comes at the expense of the American people's livelihoods"

House Majority Leader speaking at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event

            Five days into talks over the debt ceiling issue and almost no results have been rendered. Only accusations and scapegoating for the obstruction of progress in negotiations are the main talking points in these conversations. Even within the Republican party there is confusion over how to engage the talks, with House Speaker John Boehner (R-VA) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) conflicted over the rules of engagement. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been reported to have walked out of bi-partisan meetings with Vice President Biden, has shunned any compromise offered by President Obama, and is vehemently opposed to any tax increases, even if that means closing the loopholes that give corporations the ability to avoid paying taxes that they are already required to pay.
             Rep Cantor's opinion on the closing of tax loopholes for corporations is much different than most of his counterparts. He believes the revenue accrued from the removal of tax loopholes should not be used to reduce the deficit, but instead should be directed in a way that would lower taxes. Cantor on Fox News said "If he (President Obama) wants to plug that loophole, we got to see about offsetting tax cuts somewhere else... We are not for raising taxes, period". This hard line stance has left little room for negotiation as President Obama and other like minded politicians see the need for shared sacrifice if this deal is to go through smoothly.
             Cantor's no-compromise approach has been heavily criticized from both his own party and the left. Even though on the exterior it seems that there is an internal conflict between Republican leadership and House Majority Leader Cantor, Boehner begs to disagree. Boehner today in a press conference said him and Cantor are "in this fight together," Boehner then added "any suggestion that the role that Eric has played in this meeting has been anything less than helpful is just wrong”. The need for solidarity within the Republican party is key to obtaining their objectives during these negotiations. As talks heat up over the details of the deal, politically aligning themselves with each other is a smart move for both Boehner, Cantor, and the Republican party as a whole.
             Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued harsh criticism towards Eric Cantor for his obstructionism in the talks over the debt ceiling. “With so much at stake, even Speaker Boehner and (Senate) Minority Leader (Mitch) McConnell (R-Ky.) seem to understand the seriousness of this situation” said Senator Reid while on the Senate floor. Senator Reid even went as far to suggest Rep. Cantor shouldn't even be involved in the talks, and even called him "childish". Rep Cantor brushed off Senator Reid's remarks by claiming "Leader Reid is frustrated, as we all are".
             In the midst of this fruitless exchange of political jargon, time is slowly running out. The deadline, August 2nd, is only 2 weeks away and by then some sort of agreement must be made to avoid defaulting on America's debt. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner seems to be running out of patience when he issued a statement saying "We have looked at all available options and we have no way to give Congress more time to solve this problem... We're running out of time". Federal Reserve chairmen Ben Bernanke echoed the same sentiment, warning about the consequences of an economic collapse that would reverberate through the global economy.
              What these politicians don't understand is the implications of America having to default for the first time in it's history. This would almost instantly send interest rates through the roof, scare off foreign and domestic investment, and send shock waves through Wall St. and the business community. The hardest hit of all would be the small businesses that would surely not survive the catastrophic impact of such an event. Jeffrey Immelt, C.E.O. of GE (General Electric), one of the largest multi-national corporations in the world has espoused his worries over the lack of certainty in the business community in regards to the debt ceiling, and the havoc that would be reeked on small businesses. "I just think we need certainty about the debt ceiling and we need it now. That really can only happen here. Let’s do it now". Jeffrey Immlet also claimed that the uncertainty to conjure up a deal over the debt ceiling is leading small businesses to freeze hiring over fear of the impending crisis. "Why would you invest into that [situation]?" said Jeffrey Immlet on CNN.
               Whether or not the two sides can come to an agreement remains to be seen, but for now it seems the two sides are looking for ammunition to add to their political campaigns. With only 2 weeks before the ominous deadline, the two sides at the table can't seem to come with anything to agree on, besides agreeing that the other side won't agree. Surely an agreement will come to fruition, but not before both sides can load up their arsenal with talking points and political fodder to direct at the other side. This is a moment for both parties to demonstrate who is willing to work with one another, and who is not. In the end a deal will be made. They have to, the consequences are too severe. The only question is who will come out on top politically from this debt ceiling debacle, and that's the only thing that seems to be on our leader's minds.

Signing out- John Thomas

07/12/2011

" This is another example of politicians and lawmakers trying to extract political gain at the expense of economic tragedy"

Senator Mitch McConnell

         The current partisan battle over the raising of the debt ceiling has come to a fever pitch, as President Barack Obama and Republican leaders scramble to come up with a compromise. The initial compromise of $4 trillion dollars in spending cuts mixed with $2.5 trillion dollars in revenue increases has been heavily analyzed by both sides as to the benefits or inadvertant consequences of such drastic cuts and tax hikes on an already bruised economy. Cuts to Medicare, Social Security and various other social programs are all on the table, while revenue increases by eliminating corporate tax loopholes and tax holidays for large businesses are in the talks. 
        The Republicans pledge to oppose any tax hikes has left little room for compromise, as almost all Republicans in the House of Representatives are opposed to the bill, despite the 3 to 1 ratio in spending cuts. The debate has led to bitter tensions between the two parties, whether it's the Democrats arguing that the spending cuts are too drastic, or Republicans fighting to not go back on their oath to not raise taxes.
        Whether or not the mixture of $3 dollars in spending cuts for every $1 dollar in tax hikes is actually a well devised plan that will help reduce the deficit while simultaneously helping the economy, the budget seems to be a moment for ideologues to capitalize on some political gain. Despite the warnings from the Treasury Department and Treasury Secretary Timothy Giethner on the implications of America having to default on their debt, Republicans seem to be standing firm on their commitment to not raise taxes whatsoever, even if there is huge cuts in spending as an incentive.             

        Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty said on "Meet the Press" this Sunday that such claims about the devastation of America having to default on it's debt by the Treasury Department may not be as severe as the department makes it out to be. When Tim Pawlenty was asked by host David Gregory about whether or not he believed the claims made by the Treasury Department , Pawlenty answered "Well, there are some serious voices challenging that very premise. And the answer is nobody really knows, because we've not been at this point before."
        The incessant attacks on the legitimacy of claims by bi-partisan organizations that seek to warn about the dangers of such drastic and radical moves gives Republicans credibility in their 'my way or the highway' philosophy towards raising the debt ceiling. This game of chicken between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders is like a toxin to our civil discourse, as any sign of compromise or agreement is painted as capitulation and downright surrender. This is another example of politicians and lawmakers trying to extract political gain at the expense of economic tragedy. Both parties have to realize that by politicizing such a serious and consequential issue like America having to default on it's debt for the first time in it's history is only adding to the inability of well intentioned law makers and politicians to come up with a solution that everyone can agree on.
        In the coming days it will be interesting to see what agreement the two sides come to. Senator Mitch McConnell has hinted at a compromise that is in the works between Republican leaders and President Barack Obama on how to deal with this petty and dangerous game of political chicken and finally come to an agreement. Let's just hope that the politics of this issue dissipate so the leaders in Congress can have the room to breathe freely and come to a compromise that will ensure the financial stability of America, and the world.

Sensible GOP Leadership

"  I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”- Senator Mark Grisanti

       



        Buffalo's Republican senator Mark Grisanti who had run his campaign on the basis of opposing same-sex marriage has offered a sensible and rational conclusion to his recent decision to support same sex marriage rights. Grisanti in the video above says "I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.” He goes onto say "I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman... I'm also here with a background as an attorney, through which I look at things and apply reason". His choice to turn his beliefs around he said were based on "numerous studies and research" and he continues by saying "I can not legally find an argument against gay marriage. Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife, who I love, or to have the 1,300 plus rights I share with her".

       This is a milestone for Republican leadership, and in general sensible politics. For the first time in what feels like forever, a politician is standing up against his own morals and values to decide what is good for the collective will of the people. Not only that, he has dismissed his ideological counterparts and actually did the studies and research which proved that same sex marriages would not infringe on religious communities. The ceremonies for these couples would be done in town halls or various other locations appropriate for marriage. This is Mark Grisanti's very rational and brave stance as Republicans all around him will surely denounce his reasoning.

        Unlike the Republican party's leadership under Boehner and McConnell, Grisanti has separated himself from the ideological warriors, and has made a decision based on facts, studies, and research, rather than propaganda, personal morals or religious belief. This is the kind of leadership we need in the Republican party. We need people like Grisanti to set an example for the kind of ethical behavior that all lawmakers and politicians should abide by when deliberating what would be the best for the people of this country. I congratulate Grisanti on his bold and courageous move to support gay marriage in spite of fear mongering, god fearing and politically motivated politicians. Remember when Grisanti said he "looked at things and applied reason"?... Take notes Washington.

-Signing Out- John Thomas

Conservatives Dominate the Airwaves

"  It is our duty as citizens to not hand over our minds and beliefs to those who seek to capitalize on it"

         In today's world filled with 24 hour cable news, unlimited internet information sources, various newspapers, and immediate access to coverage on any topic around the world sent right to the consumer's mobile device, there is still one means of communication that has lasted for over half a century and provides over 50 million Americans each week with their information; the radio. While the radio has seen a decline in listeners over the years, the radio remains resilient and relevant to the average American, with almost 90% of people over age 12 listening in at least 19 hours per week (1). This is quite an interesting phenomenon due to the various and almost overwhelming amount of accessible, portable, and direct means of disseminating news in today's technologically sophisticated world. But still, the radio remains to be one of the largest providers of information to the news hungry public.

        A study done by the Center for American Progress has concluded that as large of an audience that talk radio reaches, the information on the radio that is disseminated is not necessarily diverse or assorted. In fact, it reveals an alarming statistic. About 90% of talk radio stations air strictly conservative hosts and shows to it's listeners (1). This means that the information that is being spread is not credible due to it's tainted and biased view of the world, whether it be conservative, liberal, or any other ideological viewpoint. According to the study, about 2,824 hours of talk radio is aired daily, and about 2,570 hours of that air time hosts conservative shows, while only 254 hours are devoted to shows that espouse progressive views (1). The disparity between viewpoint accessibility is startling, as various means of access to information is key to developing a broad and informed outlook on the environment one lives in. 
        With this being said, how is it that conservative talk radio has been able to dominate the radio airwaves for so long? This monopoly over the airwaves has in turn given conservative talk show hosts the advantage of virtually no competition for their view on the world. This allows the talking heads to portray the image to the average listener that a majority of Americans agree with their own biased viewpoint. This can be backed up by the overwhelmingly accessible conservative ideology that you can find by scrolling through almost any AM station.

         The Center for American Progress concluded that an explanation for this can be found in some of the recent legislation enacted or disposed of in recent years. According to the Center for American Progress, "the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management" (1). To break this down, the lack of regulation on part by the FCC to ensure that only an allotted time for opinionated stations is not enforced. Meanwhile impartial, unbiased, and ethics based journalism broadcasts are not provided enough airtime or access to local radio markets, leaving an open field for these time slots to be bought by right leaning conservatives in an attempt to push their viewpoint. The dismantling of public interest requirements for broadcasting, aka their removal of requirements for radio stations to air impartial news broadcasts that do not push one viewpoint or another, has left only talking heads to fill the vacuum left by what otherwise could be news broadcasts that uphold integrity while reporting the news. 

         The Center for American Progress also concluded that a lack of diversity in ownership of public radio stations contributes to the imbalance between conservative and progressive radio. A large majority of radio stations are group owned, with a large percentage of those in the group being white, older, conservative, business oriented males. The study concludes that stations owned by minorities, women, or local owners are less likely to air conservative hosts or shows (1).

         Localism also proves to be a key factor in providing objective reporting in an area. These large media organizations who buy rights to these locally marketed radio stations are not local at all- they are usually at least transnational, if not international. This shows the lack of connect between the average listener, and the ones who provide that listener with their information. It's a means to disseminate a particular ideology, a way to influence a local area, a grassroots campaign to further indoctrinate more people into their viewpoint. This is startling that in a democracy this still goes on. Objectivity, honest reporting, and equal access to information are vital to the well being of a democracy. If we have lopsided access to information, or one viewpoint is more heavily pushed than another's we will see a country that is widely misinformed, manipulated, and easily deceived by those who seek to serve only their own self interest.

         It's those with the money who are left to push their view on the airwaves, while public funding for newsworthy shows are left to be demonized and defunded, as a campaign against unbiased news in this country has come to a fever pitch. Recent attempts by the Republican party to defund PBR and PBS has left a clear indicator of their intentions- to have the monopoly on the information provided for the average American. This attack on public broadcasting is just the beginning of the erosion of our democracy. 

        The most frightening aspect of this entire dilemma is the fact that these talk show hosts are able to pass their opinions as facts to their consumers. Even if they don't necessarily say 'this is a fact' or a 'statement', people can and do interpret these know nothing's views on the world as legitimate facts. Even no matter how much information, statistics, reports, or concrete arguments you throw at them, they still align themselves with their comfort zone, their puppet master, the one who feeds them what they want to hear, what satisfies them. It's the ability of conservatism to demonize any and all other forms of news to ensure that their brand of ideology remains relevant to their audience. It's this attack on sensible and credible journalism that gives credence to their view that only what they say can be trusted.

        They want you to believe that it is us verse them, they are wrong we are right, we are America and they are not. This is not what our country was founded on. No viewpoint should be more heavily weighed more than the other. There should be equal access to any and all sources of information, with no relevance to cost, time, or audience. This is the reason there is public broadcasting, to ensure quality, objective, impartial and unbiased reporting is accomplished by those who aim to inform, not to manipulate. 

        Maybe it's just Americans who desire not facts, but rather a cookie cutter ideology they can paste themselves into. Are we to blame for our love of nonsensical dramatics that our politicians and media organization just seek to fulfill? We have to take a look in the mirror and learn to value those that seek not to control, but to inform. Facts and evidence are to be valued, not personal values and morals. A wise man once said ""You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". We should keep in mind that these talking heads, whether they be conservative or progressive are exactly that- talking heads. They are a form of entertainment for us desensitized Americans, and we must remember that demonizing those that aim to objectively report is in itself a politicalization of a key element to our democracy. Civil discourse has made this country great and now we are letting it eat us from the inside out. For all the Limbaughs, Levins, and Savages out there, there are still those that aim to report honestly and with integrity. It is our duty to lend them our ear, and it is our duty as citizens to not hand over our minds and beliefs to those who seek to capitalize on it.

Signing out- John Thomas

Sources-

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html