Cable News Ratings: Top 30 Programs In Q2 2010 (PHOTOS)

A few general conclusions can be drawn from this ratings list:

1. People love 'advocacy journalism' (term recently made famous by Lou Dobbs, the former CNN anchor). Viewers do not just want 'news' and 'reporting', they want opinion. Just about everyone now has access to news via the internet, so when they watch television, they want to know what people (journalists, pundits, 'anchors') think about these news pieces.

2. The implications of FOX News dominating are many. Does it mean that Americans are getting more conservative? Does it mean more conservatives watch TV? What about the level of education / age demographic that watch FOX News? Does it mean that FOX has better quality news programs?

3. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have on numerous occasions accused the mainstream media of being liberal-biased. And there they are, with shows attracting bigger audiences than any other 'liberal' news program. Perhaps now, with the apparent dominance of FOX news, we would be discussing whether or not there is a conservative bias in the mainstream media.

4. I still think John King is awesome. As are Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer. I think by labeling itself as an 'impartial' channel for many years, CNN has given these anchors somewhat of a mystique, causing many to wonder what their personal views are. Imagine King and Cooper being all fired up and opinionated about the issues they're discussing!

5. Rachel Maddow is on the rise, fast. She and Keith Olbermann are outshining their colleagues Ed Schultz and Chris Mathews by a mile. Maddow's sharp, crisp commentary will only help her garner more viewers. The sky's the limit for Rachel!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Petraeus Senate Confirmation: General Faces Questions From War-Weary Lawmakers

Petraeus might be a good commander. A very good one. He might even be considered to be the man who turned around the Iraq War. But he is not a saint, and a saint is what is needed to bring hope to the Afghanistan situation.

I refer to it as the 'Afghanistan situation', because the conflict there goes beyond a military war. Iraq might have been under the rule of a ruthless dictator before the United States invasion, but at the very least, it had a functioning government infrastructure that, for lack of a better term, did things. These things include essential services such as defense, sewage, health, and the like.

The Afghan government does next to nothing. Beyond Kabul, the reach of Karzai's government is next to nil. And here lies America's problem.

America's mission is nation-building, not winning a war. And on this front, from what I have read (comments from generals, Senators, analysts), most are only grading the progress a mild 'okay'.

"Beneath bipartisan rounds of praise for Petraeus lay fault lines over the nearly nine-year war. A make-or-break military push across southern Afghanistan is stuck in neutral, though U.S. officials insist there are signs of progress and reason for hope."

Here's the thing, nation-building does not take a few or even ten years. It takes decades. And the United States cannot afford to commit to this country for the next twenty to thirty years.

Lets hope General Petraeus has something up his sleeve, something that he hasn't disclosed to anyone, that can turn this war around, and win the hearts and minds of the Afghans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Scott Brown's Opposition To Bank Fee Throws Wrench In Wall Street Reform

As the piece quotes Barney Frank: "Why anyone would think that the large financial institutions should not pay the administrative costs, I don't know, but apparently you couldn't get 60 senators."

Sounds like common sense, doesn't it? Why should the taxpayers pay for this? The banks are getting away with paying their dues, again.

On the larger scale, though, this shows the kind of dysfunctional political system that the United States incorporates. The party in the majority, the democrats, cannot get anything passed without a tough time, even with 60 seats in the Senate. This is why the dems need to court the support of Senators Snowe, Collins, and Brown, which means that whether this bill passes or fails hinges whether these three Republican senators vote 'yes'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Shut down Guantanamo. Do not hesitate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html?hp#

“

Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013

“

This is deplorable. Guantanamo Bay is a symbol for everything that ‘cowboy diplomacy’ stood for; of Americans doing things on their own, without regard of the consequences of their actions. It still boggles my mind how the Bush administration got away with what they had going on at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo …Bay.

And now the Obama administration is showing hesitation – at least not trying their hardest – in shutting down Guantanamo Bay. Keeping Guantanamo Bay open represents a continuation of the Bush administration’s foreign policy paradigm.

Maybe these guys need to watch “Taxi to the Dark Side” (again, if they’ve already seen it) to know what went on in those inhumane facilities.

Is the heroin / opium problem an inevitable part of history?

"
global opium cultivation -- which is used to make heroin -- has dropped 13 percent overall, to 657 tons.

...heroin use remains solid in Europe. Consumption is particularly strong in Western countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and France, and as demand for both heroin and cocaine has grown within those nations...
"

So a drop of 13 percent in opium cultivation only pulls the figure down to 657 tons. Well that's a relief.

The statistic about the alarmingly high usage in (Western) Europe is particularly interesting. What this it mean? What are the implications of this figure? Does it have anything to do with the histories of these European countries? Does it have anything to do with the political makeup of these countries?

It has become my belief after studying history and political science in University that most countries, since the inception of countries (arguably in the 17th century, after the Peace of Westphalia), loosely follow a linear progress. Generally speaking, most countries begin as dictatorships. Some move quickly on to become monarchs and/or theocracies and / or empires. Then, usually through a period of violent struggles, these countries become democracies.

If one were to attribute the birth of the nation state to Europe (most specifically, Western Europe), then one could argue that these European nations have been on this line of historical progress the longest. As we can see, most of the Western European countries now have centuries-old democracies, some of which came as a result of the masses overthrowing monarchs (most notably Great Britain and France). Other democracies were born after extended periods of often violent struggles, some involving the toppling of empires, others involving a battle of ideologies (ex. Italy and Russia, although Russia did not become a so-called democracy until the late 20th century).

(Note that this line of historical 'progress' that I've outlined does not refer to it being 'good' or 'bad', because that would stir up a whole other debate about how 'great' the countries are, and bring into question the merits of democracy. The 'progress' in my context simply refers to the evolution countries undertake over time.)

With this in mind, let us look the non-European countries that are potentially 'next in line', or have already followed, this historical line of progress: India, China, Iran, and various African nations. The article shows that these countries all have heroin consumption rates of 5-15%.

If these countries do follow the line of progress as those of Western Europe, does this mean that heroin use in these countries will increase in the future?

The key question here is: what is the correlation between the politics of a country and its population's drug addiction problems? Britain, France, and other Western European countries now have functioning welfare-state style social democracies. Some of these countries pride themselves on this fact. It would be quite devastating if there is a relationship between the political structure of a country (more specifically, social democracy) and its drug problems.

But alas, it is nonetheless good news that opium production is down. Now if only we can ameliorate the drug problems in some of the oldest democracies in the world...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Unemployment: Outlook Grim For Jobs Bill Ahead Of Vote

A Republican filibuster for something that's actually good for America. Surprised? Nope. But think of it this way, though. The Republicans are always arguing for deficit reduction, which is fine, but why cut spending in such important services such as medicare and unemployment? Why not cut, let's see... military spending? or NASA? Because they are stubborn ideologues.

It also doesn't make sense because America's deficit is increasing no matter what. The US continues to borrow, owes China a huge some of money, and has to spend billions feeding its military endeavors. But of course, nobody in America wants to see their taxes raised, so the problem continues.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

General McChrystal Offers To Resign, According To Report

So McChrystal is being sacked for... being honest? No, he is being sacked for being disrespectful.

For example, the skilled French soccer striker Anelka was sent home from the World Cup after he got into an argument with his manager. NFL players are often benched by their coaches if they become a nuisance, in public or in the locker room.

In fact, I'd even venture a guess that McChrystal might have been under the influence of a certain substance when he made those remarks; he was being interviewed by Rolling Stone, after all. He had to have known the shitstorm he'd stir up as soon as he said those things. No military official in their right minds would be so offensive to top government officials like that.

Despite the perceived sadness and disappointment of some to see McChrystal go, it is mildly amusing that we bear witness to another figure whom we thought would bring hope and success to the government’s policies become a disappointment. Not long ago, this happened with President Obama’s economic team, namely Tim Geithner and Larry Summers (and even Ben Bernanke); critics of the administration have called for them to resign, citing competence or other more biased reasons. Yet, we never saw Geithner or Summers come out and criticize the President like McChrystal did, even if they believed, for example, that the bailout was not big enough.

That being said, if McChrystal is a good military commander, he should be given a second chance. Perhaps he should not be taking high profile positions such as that of commander for the war in Afghanistan, but he remains a useful resource for the military.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Offshore Drilling Moratorium OVERTURNED By Judge

On the surface, it kind of makes sense. But when you think about it, the ramifications of another rig exploding is too serious, hence the moratorium. What do you think the backlash would be if the White House allows drilling again and there is another spill? The administration would get nothing done, other than PR damage control and containing the disaster.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Afghanistan’s minerals: no we can’t?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/weekinreview/20mcneil.html?ref=afghanistan

Kind of follows my previous post. This piece provides more insight and better estimates as to what the discovery of vast sums of minerals in Afghanistan means.I tend to agree with McNeil’s comparison of Afghanistan to Congo: “[...] both are rugged and remote, far from coastlines and with few roads or railroads, making it hard to get minerals out and policing forces in.” It is especially unsettling seeing as Congo has been the site of one of the most brutal civil war conflicts in human history.

The main point that McNeil wanted to get across in the first half of the article is that when natural resources are discovered in less-developed countries, imperial powers come in and exploit them. But there comes a point when the cost of extracting those materials outweigh the profit from exploiting them, and Afghanistan might prove to be the case.

One of the most compelling estimates from this article is that it would take 5 to 15 years to go from where most of Afghanistan is now to an operating mine (costing anywhere from hundreds to billions of dollars), and another 5 to 15 years for the investment to turn a profit. This means about 30 years worth of dangerous work put into a country ripe with violence, corruption, and ready to collapse at any moment.

Finally, the article mentions China’s ability to exploit materials that Western nations cannot because of its state-driven policies. China already has heavy investment and influence in numerous African countries, and has brought with it its atrocious human rights reputation. The thought of China surpassing the Western nations in its quest to become the world’s dominant power (arguably it already has) by doing what the Western nations did for hundreds of years (from the 15th to 19th centuries) makes me cringe.

So if even China thinks it’s too risky to invest in Afghanistan, then perhaps no one can, for now.

A break for Afghanistan?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/world/asia/18mines.html

Depending on your perspective, this might actually be a good thing...

Yes, from just one report, Afghanistan went from a place where just about nobody cares to mineral heaven. This of course means that countries in the West will undoubtedly try to take advantage of these materials. It's what the West does, and has be...en doing it for a very long time. The most salient current example is probably the oil in Iraq, and that American companies like Haliburton are trying to make profit off of Iraq's oil.

While it is obvious that no one likes to see their own country's natural resources being exploited by foreigners, in the Afghans' case, this might not be the worst idea, seeing as most parts of the county doesn't even have roads. According to the article, companies that are eager to exploit the minerals would have to invest billions of dollars to basically build an infrastructure from scratch, everything from mines to roads (possibly railways). This could potentially mean jobs, and a way for Afghans to finally end their dependence on poppy farming.

It is certainly not the best approach to nation-building, and certainly contains an air of colonialism, but it might be the fastest way for Afghanistan to develop itself as a country.

I suspect that Secretary Gates and General Petreus would welcome this news, as recently they were being grilled on Capitol Hill by legislators who have grown impatient with the lack of progress in Afghanistan. The discovery of minerals perhaps would give the Pentagon, as well as the White House, a new cause to stay in the country.

On a side note, the article mentioned two mining / mining assessing companies situated in Canada (one in Toronto, one in Vancouver). It seems like our involvement with Afghanistan lies beyond our government policies. Perhaps it is not a bad thing.

Democrats Challenge Pentagon On Afghanistan

This isn't really the Democrats challenging Pentagon on the war in Afghanistan. This is more like the Democrats whining and asking why they have to keep supporting a war they despise, other than obvious political ramifications if opposed.

The entire American foreign policies institution, whether it be the State Department, Defense, the White House, or the Senate, were slapped in the face months ago when Hamid Karzai was 'elected' as President, in an election that was almost certain to be fraudulent. America's credibility in the international community regarded Afghanistan lived and died with Karzai, and with this election, the US has demonstrated its pathetic inability to really change the region.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senate Accepts Expanded Fed Audit

You know one is at least somewhat jaded when, upon reading the title "Senate Accepts Expanded Fed Audit", I immediately thought about the ways in which the Fed will be able to find loopholes in the process and continue its semi-secretive antics.

Then there's Chris Dodd, the supposed leader of financial reforms. The man made a lot of money prior to the financial crisis, and how he is trying to 'fix' the system. But seeing as he is not running for reelection, I guess he really is trying to change things now.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

Jan Brewer and Russell Pearce are crazy. They are nuts. They are irrational ideologues who, driven by demented xenophobia, are using what political powers they have to deny rights to American citizens.

As a result of the American Civil War, in July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment was adopted to the United States Constitution. The first section states that:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of live, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, and overrules the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1859), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

For this particular post, the key point to be taken from the above statement is that ANY person born in the United States is naturally an American.

Some Republicans in Arizona are trying to change this fact.

As you can see from TIME's article, Russell Pearce, the architect of the bill passed several months ago which would permit random inquiries into a person's citizenship status in the state of Arizona, is now planning to introduce a bill that will deny citizenship to children born in the United States with illegal immigrant children.

Not only do I think this is unconstitutional, it is also a sign of the establishment trying to prevent change, and to confront a world in which their kind (Conservative, white) is increasingly becoming the minority, with hostility.

The article says that 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born in the United States should not receive citizenship. One has to wonder how this polling process functioned, and should ask this question: were the people polled aware of the fact that the 14th Amendment specifically states that anyone born in the United States is by definition an American citizen?

A large percentage of (perhaps even majority) Americans still have, in broad terms, conservative-leaning views, whether it be social, political, or fiscal issues. Because of this, Americans are often reluctant to make drastic changes towards its foundational values (as we recently witnessed in the brutal battle for a slightly better, but in no way good enough, health care system). I'm sure that if those polled were all aware of the existence of the 14th Amendment, many of them would change their minds and allow children to become Americans.

But of course, this issue regarding citizenship is just the latest installment of a long, tedious immigration debate. Inevitably, discussion regarding illegal immigration usually reverts back to the question of 'why are they (Mexicans) coming here in the first place?' Part of, but not all, of that blame goes to poor governance on the part of the Mexicans. American multinational corporations have long used Mexico for cheap labor, which severely undermines the spending capacities of Mexicans.

It's time for both the United States and Mexico to find a solution to this immigration issue by building an honest, efficient economy, on both sides of the border.