Episode 21 Show Notes- Advocacy News Media Fails to Ask Real Questions

Episode Description

The advocacy news media and the political pundits fail to provide any real depth or ask serious questions. They oversimplify issues, forcing people to come to a particular conclusion. They lack intellectual curiosity and epitomize groupthink mentality. The Syria situation is simply the latest example. The PAS Report asks the serious questions, including who are the Syrian Kurds, and what is the history of the YPG? Professor Giordano provides analysis so you can make informed decisions.

Intro

Welcome everyone to another episode of The PAS Report Weekly Roundup Podcast. This is your host Nick Giordano.

Today, I want to examine two issues. I want to begin by focusing on the failures of the advocacy news media, particularly as it pertains to the Syria situation. The morons in the advocacy news media fail to show any intellectual curiosity. They fail to provide any context in their coverage, and they oversimplify issues. Rather than educate the American public on the issues, they want you to come to a particular conclusion.

I also want to continue the discussion on those who want to destroy our institutions and remake America. This week I want to talk about how some want to change who is eligible to vote. There are many calling to lower the voting age. There are also those who want to grant convicted felons, currently in prison serving their sentences, and illegal immigrants the right to vote. Once again, the media fails us by asking why these people want to make such dramatic changes to voter eligibility.

As always, if you want to see the show notes go to thepasreport.com.

The problem with the Syrian coverage

Ever since President Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Syria, we have seen phony outrage from all sides of the political spectrum. Republicans and Democrats alike are criticizing the decision saying that America has an obligation to protect the Syrian Kurds. That we are abandoning our ally. That ISIS will reconstitute and begin to rebuild its stronghold. That we will witness ethnic cleansing and genocide. That this plays into Vladimir Putin and Russia’s hands, which I am so sick hearing about Russia.

Now I readily admit that I am not sure what the best policy options are. Sometimes as the sole superpower, you have bad options and worse options. On the one hand, I don’t like the idea of abandoning allies. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of endless wars, particularly in the Middle East. I also don’t like it when people try to bring the idea of moral obligations into an issue. I expect the bloviating from the politicians. This is what politicians do.

However, I also expect the news media to provide real analysis. To ask real questions. I expect the advocacy news media not to oversimplify the issue. See, the media has the responsibility of educating the public so that the public can make informed decisions on the policy choices we face. How can the people come to a conclusion on an issue if they are not provided details? Most Americans never heard of the Syrian Kurds or the YPG. Instead, we have seen wall-to-wall coverage of the President sending out a tweet saying that impeachment is equivalent to lynching. The fake outrage is astonishing, and of course, we hear the cries of racism. I have seen more coverage of the word lynching in one day, then any analysis of who the Syrian Kurds are.

The only coverage we see is how horrific it is that the U.S. is pulling troops out of Syria. The media makes it as if it’s a simple proposition; the U.S. stays or goes. But, it’s not that simple to say whether the United States must assist the Kurds or not. This issue is extraordinarily complex, and no one holds the politicians, the media, or the pundit class accountable by asking the questions that need to be answered.

Here at The PAS Report, we will focus on the tough questions. I will break down the issue so that you can come to your conclusion. For those that say we have an obligation to protect the Syrian Kurds, why are they never asked who the Syrian Kurds are? What’s their ideology? When did we ally ourselves with them?

Understanding the Syrian Kurds

The Syrian Kurds are different from those of Iraq. The Iraqi Kurds, known as the Peshmerga, have been allied with us for a long time. If it was the Peshmerga we abandoned, I would be criticizing the decision because we have a 30-year history with the Peshmerga, and we have worked with them throughout the last 30 years.

The Syrian Kurds are different. Many of the politicians say we have an obligation to protect them, but who are they. The politicians keep talking about defending our allies in Syria. Some call it the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), but it’s the YPG, which is the largest Kurdish group. This militia wing of the YPG formed in 2011 (Foreign Policy). Some argue that the SDF formed from elements of the PKK. The PKK is a Turkish organization attempting to gain independence from Turkey. They are a recognized terror organization by the United States, and others, because of their intentional targeting of innocent civilians as a way to instill fear and force the Turkish government to change policies.

The United States allied itself with the YPG in 2015. When we first allied ourselves with the Syrian Defense Forces, we would only provide air support. Initially, we refused to provide weaponry to this organization because of the YPG’s ties to the PKK in Turkey. Reports surfaced in 2015 that the YPG were committing human rights abuses in the areas they held. These reports were coming in from Turkey, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (Rudaw).

The United Nations later began to conduct its investigation into the alleged human rights abuses, but their report concluded that they did not see any evidence of ethnic cleansing or genocide (Ekurd).

However, we changed the policy in 2017 in order to destroy the ISIS Caliphate (Bloomberg). It really annoys me when people say the SDF or the YPG helped America. ISIS was in their lands and their territories. ISIS was torturing and killing its people. Isn’t it the other way around? Didn’t we help them from ISIS’s brutal tyranny or at the very least didn’t we help each other?

The YPG has routinely stated that they are not part of the PKK, yet many argue that in the Kurdish enclaves in Syria, there are many pictures praising Abdullah Ocalan, who was a PKK leader (BBC/New York Times). The complexities of the alliance cannot be understood, especially considering that Turkey is a NATO ally.

Turkey

Some U.S. officials argued in 2015 of the dangers of arming the YPG. The United States recognizes the PKK as a terrorist organization. Under the NATO charter, we have an obligation to protect and defend Turkey. President Erdogan has complicated the situation given his support for the Muslim Brotherhood ideology.

Turkey worries that the YPG will become sovereign and embolden the PKK, as well as provide arms and support for the PKK. If we have to choose between the YPG or the PKK which alliance is of more strategic long-term interest to the United States. Sometimes we have to think beyond the here and now.

Also, if we are going to begin to view Turkey as an adversary, what are they still doing in NATO? Why hasn’t any member of the House or Senate introduced a resolution to kick Turkey out of NATO? Where are our European allies on this matter?

To stay or to go

The calls to stay in Syria are loud, and the pundit class along with the advocacy news media are pushing this idea. All we hear is the United States must protect these people. There are no challenging questions being asked. Our politicians and media cannot think critically, and all read from the same talking points. This is one giant version of Groupthink playing out on the international stage.

However, they should be pressed. For all those that want to stay, I would like to know what the mission is? How long are we obligated to protect the Kurds? Al-Assad has said that when all is said and done, he will reclaim the territory. Turkey has said, they will create a buffer and make sure the Kurds don’t try to declare independence. So are we obligated to stay 1-year? 5-years? 10-years?

Also, what is our obligation to others that are being marginalized, tortured and killed around the world? Do we have an obligation to protect those people? Far more people are being killed in China. In Venezuela, and in North Korea. Should we militarily go into those countries? Where does the moral obligation of humanity begin and end?

I can be persuaded that we need to stay in Syria, but you have to give good, well-thought-out reasons. I haven’t heard any compelling arguments on why we should stay.

Changing Voter Eligibility

Switching gears a little, I want to focus on a topic that fits in line with our discussion about those who want to destroy our institutions and remake the American government. It does parallel with the Syria issue with respect to the idea that the media fails to challenge anyone these days, and simply regurgitates talking points provided to them. Once again, the changes being proposed have nothing to do with improving the system and have everything to do with ideological reasons in an attempt to gain power and control.

Ask yourself, do you think these people would be proposing these changes if they knew it would give the opposition party the advantage?

Changing the voting age

The calls for lowering the voting age to 16 have grown louder and louder. The proponents of reducing the voting age claim it allows more people to participate in the political process. Also, they argue that the youth would be better informed about our government and institutions because voting equals buy-in. Finally, they say that many 16-year olds are working and paying taxes, so it would be akin to when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971.

Scope of Participation– All three claims made by proponents of lowering the voting age are false. First, lowering the voting age has no impact on the scope of participation in our political process. 100% of Americans can participate in the political process regardless of their ability to vote. While 16-year old’s may not be able to vote, they can contact legislators to lobby for policies/issues. In addition, they can conduct internships for elected officials, and campaign for those seeking elected office.

They have a right to protest and have their voices heard. So, while they may not be able to vote, there is no excuse for a 16-year-old not already taking part in the system. To say a 16-year-old doesn’t have a say in the system is just a lie plain and simple.

Voting creates more civic awareness & civic responsibility– Another myth perpetuated by proponents of this policy is the idea that granting 16-year olds the right to vote will result in them becoming more engaged in civics and learn about our system of governance. Recent surveys show large swaths of the American populace cannot pass a citizenship exam. Regardless of age, only 4 in 10 Americans can pass a citizenship exam. Also, according to a Woodrow Wilson study, only 27% of Americans under the age of 45 demonstrate a basic understanding of American history.

If those, with the right to vote already, do not understand and know about our government and the institutions, do we believe 16-year olds will be more responsible just because they have the right to vote?

It is similar to when we changed the voting age from 21 to 18– Many proponents argue that changing the voting age from 18 to 16 is no different than when we changed it from 21 to 18. They say that the voting age was amended in 1971 because politicians recognized that 18-year-olds work and pay taxes. The argument is ludicrous and flat out wrong. At the time the voting age was changed, we were drafting 18-year-olds to fight in the Vietnam War.

The draft presented a problem for the politicians, and they were aware of how terrible the optics were of sending 18-year-olds to fight and die in a war, but not allowing them to vote for/against the same politicians that were voting to keep the war going. Granting 18-year-olds the right to vote was just smart politics, and it had nothing to do with taxes.

Allowing prisoners to vote

Many of the Presidential hopefuls, including the frontrunner Senator Bernie Sanders, are calling for granting the right to vote for those who have been convicted of crimes and are currently in prison. They argue just because you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison; it does not mean you shouldn’t be able to vote. They say we do not take away citizenship, so we should not take away their fundamental right to vote.

The logic behind this thought process is flawed. Those who are in prison committed a crime against society and losing the right to vote is part of the punishment. Crimes impact more than just the intended victim(s). They affect the community as a whole. From taxpayer dollars to prosecute and incarcerate the individual to declining property values, crimes have a far-reaching impact on all of society. Once a felon repays their debt to society and serves their sentence, restoring their voting rights is a perfectly sound policy. Until then, those who have violated societal norms and are currently serving in prison should not have the right to vote.

Granting the right to vote to illegal immigrant

Several local jurisdictions, including in Maryland and Washington, have granted illegal immigrants the right to vote in local elections. They argue that illegal immigrants are part of the community just like any other resident of a town, village, city or state. They believe the illegal immigrant still pays taxes including sales tax, excise taxes, and some work on the books and pay federal/state income taxes (although that must be using phony documents which are a criminal offense). These people believe illegal immigrant communities have been disenfranchised and are as much a part of the system as American citizens.

This notion is absurd, and cities across America that support this policy should be ashamed. What is the value of citizenship if anyone can vote in our elections? If we are so concerned about Russia influencing our election, how is that any different than millions of noncitizens voting in an election. If 10% of the illegal immigrant population turned out to vote, they would have more influence over our election system than any foreign government. It is sad when the elected officials’ American citizens sent to office fight harder for those who are illegally here than we the people.

Closing

Those calling for changing the voting system are insincere. The only reason these proponents are calling for the changes is for political reasons. By expanding the voting population, they will be the beneficiaries and capture a larger share of the votes. These people do not care about America and our institutions. The only thing these people care about is power, and they will do whatever it takes to obtain that power.

The advocacy news media should start doing its damn job. They can contribute to the greatness of the country. They can contribute to educating society and fostering dialogue and debate. Instead, they choose to be mind-numbing robots that will just say whatever the DC, NYC, and Los Angeles establishment want them to say.

Journalistic integrity is dead, and so The PAS Report will continue to call these people out.

Please share this episode with others and take 30 seconds to write a good review on whatever platform you listen to the podcast on. Also, don’t forget to signup for The PAS Report Newsletter at https://pasreport.com. I promise to never spam you.

As always if there is a topic or issue you would like me to focus on, send an email to podcast@pasreport.com.

Thank you for joining us, stay safe, and I’ll be back next week.

Follow Nicholas Giordano

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•