I've sort of developed an unhealthy addiction to going to media political sites (HuffPost, Mediaite) and getting into heated discussions over the conservative conspiracy and the progressive agenda. Sorry, I should of put those phrases in quotation marks. On Mediaite, there was a discussion of Rachel Maddow's commentary on how the Fox News and the conservatives use the scare white people tactic to push their agenda. One commentor pointed to the four stories that she discussed and how she was wrong that they have a racist slant (actually he didn't, he just wanted to spout how the liberals are stupid. Seriously) I responded, and when I was done, I realized that instead of a comment I had written a blog. I haven't written one in a long time, so I just wanted to post it up here. I think it's a reasonable argument that I try to make. Of course, I was then called a racist and a lib hack. The solid arguing techniques used on these sites.

Here it is:

Johnny M said:
"Maddow is doing exactly what she claims Fox News and the Right are doing, just from the opposite Point of View. She is misconstruing the entire reasoning for each story to fit her ‘black vs white’ agenda. She and many members of the Left are the one that can only see stories in black and white."

Don’t disagree with you on that. I think Rachel took too myopic a view. Alas, the scare white people is certainly a tactic that is used. But it’s not the only one. Fear is a powerful manipulative tool. I still think how I supported the Iraq War back in 2003 because it was sold to me as something to fear. That Al Qaeda and Hussein were in co-hoots (they weren’t, if anything Hussein would’ve been our ally in fighting Al Qaeda if things were different) and the weapons of mass destruction fiasco (we seem to tend to forget those elements). Again, not racism, just out and out fear. Fox does do a good job of stirring up its base. An examination of classic brain washing and propoganda techniques could be used to show how the media and politicians use these concepts to control a society not willing to take risks and step outside to see if there is truly anything to fear.

Johnny M said: "Lets go story by story, which Maddow claims are only about race:

Van Jones: About a goverment appointed official, who signed a 9/11 truther document, had documented past activism activities, and supported the release of a police murderer."

Van Jones is a legitimate story. I don’t have enough info on it to be honest to give my assessment. But it seemed to be the right thing to investigate and certainly anyone who believes in the 9/11 truther movement should not have a position of power. But again, not too familiar with the story.

Johnny M said: "ACORN: A supposed bi-partisan publically funded organization, that was anything but – caught on tape showing people how to hide prostitution and avoid taxes. While also having several lawsuits for voter registration fraud."

I don’t get why people on the right still backs this story. The lawsuits were thrown out. The video was proven to be doctored. One of the people who told them how to smuggle immigrants into the country, reported it to the police after they left. (That’s a good American right there. Didn’t play hero, but did the right thing.) and they never dressed like pimps and prostitutes, and never showed the video that showed how one of the workers was working to get the prostitute out of prostitutiion. In other words, to rescue her. Now, not all of the stuff was solid that ACORN did, I admit that. But seems odd that an activist group that is trying to help the poor and the minorities would get such a harsh smear campaign to get rid of them. ACORN did little wrong. They had a few bad apples. And it is sad to see them go. It’s an example of zero investigation into the nature of the video and jumping the gun, which is frankly wrong (Yes, I’m looking at Congress on this one.) As a video editor, I can testify that video can be edited and manipulated.

Johnny M said: "Black Panthers: Organziation that is proud in its racism against whites… case of voter intimidation documented on tape thrown out before it even gets to court."

Dropping the case is certainly wrong. It should’ve been investigated as a criminal case. Oh, by the way, the Bush DOJ changed it from a criminal case to a civil case. Thus, they were not going to do any jail time if the case was pursued anyway by the DOJ. Now, if it is true that there is a “liberal playbook” that states pointedly not to go after blacks (and not just hearsay but actual playbook signed and approved by higher ups in the Obama administration) then yes, that is wrong as well.

Johnny M said: "Sherrod: A classic “gotcha” journalism effort by a conservative blogger against the NAACP, which last week was claiming the Tea Party was nothing but racists. Then, when it gets reversed on them – they overreact."

Okay, so the NAACP didn’t call the Tea Party nothing but racists. They came out and said they need to purge the racist elements from their ranks (specifically I feel they targeted Mark WIlliams, and the tea party got rid of him. Smart move on their part). So, if they implied that all Tea Partiers were racist, then the NAACP that the Tea Party should just go on and get rid of themselves (a logical fallacy). The NAACP is right on the issue of the Tea Party. There are some racist elements in there and some do have loud voices (too loud of voices). Now, this classic “gotcha” journalism move was to take doctored tape and preach it as gospel. The tape never mentions the reaction of the crowd. The issue of the reaction of the crowd seemed to appear after the Sherrod scandal started. The NAACP did overreact and did the one thing that most cons don’t seem to know how to do. Apologize. Has Rush or Glenn or any of those ever apologized for something they said? They can always be right (No one is). It’s funny how in the end despite doing the wrong thing, the NAACP took the high ground.

Johnny M said: "This stories are not in the media to make people fear African-Americans…they are out there to make people fear the Progressive Agenda. The more light that is shown on the agenda, the more the majority of people disagree with it which is why the Left fights so hard to paint it as a racist argument. Race makes everyone hazy so the Left can balance the playing field and try to re-shape the debate. But the more and more the Left cries Wolf in these cases, the less they are working to sway the national opinion."

Now let’s discuss stopping the progressive agenda. The progressive agenda got its start back with Teddy Roosevelt. Now, the idea of progressivism is to move society forward (it’s what progress means), and without it, we wouldn’t have the national parks, we wouldn’t have civil rights, and we wouldn’t have a lot of the luxuries that life now has to offer. That’s the amazing thing about progress. It’s good for us and evolution speaks volumes to its importance for a culture. Conservatism would’ve kept us as British Citizens. They were against revolution. In fact, most of the founding fathers could be seen as progressives. Now, progressivism has been made as a bad, scary word (conservative scare tactic) there’s no investigation into the agenda. Fear keeps people from looking deeper. I don’t fear this administration, so I’m okay with criticizing on its merits, and also praising its accomplishments. We can’t do that if we live in fear. The Cons know this, heck the Libs know it to. And I recommend coming out of your box (Lib and Con) and seeing this country for what it can be. Because no one (Con or Lib) is following in our founding fathers footsteps. And as Americans, we should all be disappointed.