Monday, January 11, 2010

seafan's Journal - Just a profound sense of loss and betrayal.

seafan's Journal - Just a profound sense of loss and betrayal.

Since the turn of the new year, I've reached some kind of threshold in the way I view what is happening to us. I really cannot adequately articulate it yet, because it is a change so overwhelming in scope.

In the insufferable day-to-day rancor over Tiger Woods, Rush's satisfaction with his health care or the absolute standstill of Congress and the deliberate, cynical failure of our elected officials to mind the business of the people, we are finding ourselves careening toward a concrete wall with no control over the wheel.

With headlines bringing news like this over the weekend:
There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well. ----Washington Post, January 2, 2010

.....

About six million Americans receiving food stamps report they have no other income...

One in eight Americans now receives food stamps, including one in four children.

Here in Florida, the number of people with no income beyond food stamps has doubled in two years and has more than tripled along once-thriving parts of the southwest coast. ----
NY Times, January 2, 2010

It is profoundly difficult to pick yet another battle to fight.

Then I read Bob Herbert's column in the NY Times today, and it perfectly describes what I am feeling-- a penetrating forlorn and a deep sense of loss.

Bob Herbert in the NYT:
January 5, 2010

I’m starting the new year with the sinking feeling that important opportunities are slipping from the nation’s grasp. Our collective consciousness tends to obsess indiscriminately over one or two issues — the would-be bomber on the flight into Detroit, the Tiger Woods saga — while enormous problems that should be engaged get short shrift.
Staggering numbers of Americans are still unemployed and nearly a quarter of all homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Forget the false hope of modestly improving monthly job numbers. The real story right now is the entrenched suffering (with no end in sight) that has been inflicted on scores of millions of working Americans by the Great Recession and the misguided economic policies that preceded it.

.....

This is a society in deep, deep trouble and the fixes currently in the works are in no way adequate to the enormous challenges we’re facing. For example, an end to the mantra of monthly job losses would undoubtedly be welcomed. But even if the economy manages to create a few hundred thousand new jobs a month, it would do little to haul us from the unemployment pit dug for us by the Great Recession. We need to create more than 10 million new jobs just to get us back to where we were when the recession began in December 2007.

.....

The fault lies everywhere. The president, the Congress, the news media and the public are all to blame. Shared sacrifice is not part of anyone’s program. Politicians can’t seem to tell the difference between wasteful spending and investments in a more sustainable future. Any talk of raising taxes is considered blasphemous, but there is a constant din of empty yapping about controlling budget deficits.

Oh, yes, and we’re fighting two wars.

If America can’t change, then the current state of decline is bound to continue. You can’t have a healthy economy with so many millions of people out of work, and there is no plan now that would result in the creation of millions of new jobs any time soon.

Voters were primed at the beginning of the Obama administration for fundamental changes that would have altered the trajectory of American life for the better. Politicians of all stripes, many of them catering to the nation’s moneyed interests, fouled that up to a fare-thee-well.
Now we’re escalating in Afghanistan, falling back into panic mode over an attempted act of terror and squandering a golden opportunity to build a better society.

Just a profound and crippling sense of loss.

And besieged with leaders who lack moral courage, we are on a collision course with tragic social upheaval. ...

Geithner's New York Fed Pushed AIG To Keep Sweetheart Deals Secret (READ THE AIG EMAILS)

Geithner's New York Fed Pushed AIG To Keep Sweetheart Deals Secret (READ THE AIG EMAILS): "

UPDATE: This post was updated at 2:15 p.m. to reflect new information obtained by the Huffington Post regarding an ongoing investigation into these matters.


An arm of the Federal Reserve, then led by now-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, told bailed-out insurance giant AIG to withhold key details from the public about overpayments that put billions of extra tax dollars in the coffers of major Wall Street firms, most notably Goldman Sachs.

The sordid tale unfolds in a series of e-mails between the company and the New York Fed obtained by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and first publicly disclosed by Bloomberg News.

The matter is the subject of an "ongoing review" by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), communications director Kristine Belisle said in an e-mail to the Huffington Post. SIGTARP is headed by Neil M. Barofsky, a former federal prosecutor.

...

A brutal report issued in November by a government watchdog disclosed that AIG had actually been trying to negotiate better terms with the banks until - guess what? -- the New York Fed stepped in. The report held Geithner personally responsible, and led to renewed questions about his fitness for the job."

Sunday, January 10, 2010

NYT's David Leonhardt Keeps Clinging to Disproved Ideas | OurFuture.org

NYT's David Leonhardt Keeps Clinging to Disproved Ideas | OurFuture.org

The beat goes on: David Leonhardt, the Times economics blogger and tax supporter, had this exchange regarding the Senate's health excise tax on NPR's "Marketplace" program:

Leonhardt: (It's) a tax on the costliest health-insurance plan. It's an idea health economists really like.

Host: These are the Cadillac plans, right?

Leonhardt: Yeah, these are the so-called Cadillac plans. And these are plans that tend to have very low co-payments, and as a result people often get a lot of care that it seems doesn't actually improve health.

What's wrong here? First, Leonhardt says that this is "an idea health economists really like," despite the objections of the nation's leading health economist, Uwe Reinhardt (who called an underlying assumption behind the plan "nonsense.") Reinhardt's objections were echoed in a press conference yesterday by Robert Reich, and by Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute.

He could say that it's an idea some economists like. That would be accurate. It would not, however, have the same impact on NPR's listeners.

"These are plans that tend to have very low co-payments," Leonhardt added. That comment ignores contradictory findings published in the prestigious journal Health Affairs (and summarized here), which showed that benefit features like co-payments had very little effect on whether a plan would be hit by the tax.

"(A)s a result," Leonhardt goes on, "people often get a lot of care that it seems doesn't actually improve health." That last remark is based on research that has been severly questioned by other health economists (a topic I've discussed elsewhere.)

Some ideas refuse to die, even when confronted with the facts.

Monday, January 04, 2010

Washington's Blog

Washington's Blog

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2009

The Real Reason Newspapers Are Losing Money, And Why Bailing Out Failing Newspapers Would Create Moral Hazard in the Media

Conventional wisdom is that the Internet is responsible for destroying the profits of traditional print media like newspapers.

But Michael Moore and Sean Paul Kelley are blaming the demise of newspapers on simple greed.

...

You can provide a public service with small profits for a long, long time, but if you demand large ones you will destroy it. Just ask the big banks.

Moral Hazard for Newspapers

There has been talk of bailing out newspapers for months.

But the newspapers have largely driven themselves into the ground with their never-ending drive for higher profits, which led to a reduction in news bureaus, investigation and real reporting, and an increase in reliance on government and corporate press releases.

The newspapers made a speculative gamble that reducing real reporting and replacing it with puff pieces would increase its profits, just as the giant banks made speculative gambles on subprime mortgages, derivatives, and other junk, and largely abandoned the boring, traditional business of depository banking.

Bailing out these newspapers would be a form of moral hazard equivalent to bailing out the giant banks. Instead, we should let the bad gamblers lose, and make room for companies that will actually serve a public need.

The banking industry has become more and more consolidated, which hasdecreased financial stability.

Likewise, Dan Rather points out that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations. As I wrote in July:

This fact has been documented for years, as shown by the following must-see charts prepared by:

***

This image gives a sense of the decline in diversity in media ownership over the last couple of decades:

If traditional newspaper companies are bailed out, they will be encouraged to continue their business-as-usual, and new, fresh media voices will face a handicap to competition (just as the small banks are now unable to compete fairly against the too big to fails).

We need more real reporting in this country, not less. Bailing out the traditional media will create more consolidation, just as it has in the banking industry.

...

The popularity of some reliable internet news sources are growing by leaps and bounds. For example, web news sources which run hard-hitting investigative news stories on the economy - and do not simply defer to Bernanke, Geithner, Summers and other people "of the establishment persuasion" - are gaining more and more readers.


It is not because it is some new, flashy media. It's because people want to know what is going on ... and some of the best reporting can now be found on the web. ...

Progressive Breakfast: W. Post Scraps Objectivity, Backs Austerity Agenda | OurFuture.org

Progressive Breakfast: W. Post Scraps Objectivity, Backs Austerity Agenda | OurFuture.org

The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start their day.

W. Post Hammered For Partnership With Austerity Ideologue Pete Peterson

OurFuture.org's Roger Hickey sounds alarm at Fiscal Times-W. Post arrangement to advance austerity agenda: "...The Washington Post published an article, presented as a news story, which could be a signal of the death of the Post as an independent and objective news source. The piece, entitled 'Support grows for tackling nation's debt,' appeared to be one of those background news pieces common in newspapers like the Post. But article was written not by the newspaper’s reporters – and not by an objective wire service, like the Associated Press – but by a new organization called The Fiscal Times, whose founder and major backer [is] Peter G. Peterson ... Nowhere in the 'story' would the reader find reference to the fact that it is now official government policy to increase the federal deficit in order to stimulate growth and economic recovery from the worst recession since the great depression. The whole piece seems designed to give prominence to the legislation, advanced by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would create a commission to come up with a plan for slashing deficits which would be voted on – without amendments and with limited debate – by both houses of Congress. No mention is made of the fact that Pete Peterson recently testified in favor of such a commission before Conrad’s Senate Budget Committee."

Politico flags the controversy: "Critics are calling on The Washington Post to stop printing news articles from The Fiscal Times ... In a letter to The Post’s ombudsman, 14 academic and public-policy experts on Social Security said the newspaper should 'rescind the partnership, reserve opinion pieces for the op-ed page, and not allow itself to be a propaganda arm for ideologues who use fiscal distress as a stalking horse to destroy social insurance.'"

Huffington Post's Susie Madrak shreds the Post: "... if the healthcare battle hasn't opened your eyes to the fact that immensely wealthy and powerful corporate interests are perverting our democracy, you're not paying attention. Why else do you suppose the Washington Post turned over a chunk of their news section the other day to a Peterson propaganda supplement - as news content?"

FireDogLake's David Dayen notes the larger battle against the Peterson agenda: "The letter is part of a larger effort to rebut the Peterson Foundation’s money and influence with pushback from multiple angles. As the letter notes, over 40 organizations, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Common Cause, NAACP, National Organization for Women and SEIU, have objected to the deficit commission which the Fiscal Times article and Peterson’s organizations in general have promoted."

Media Matters offers a backgrounder on Peterson

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Prostitution "journalism": Yup, mainstream media is intentional propaganda. Accept the evidence

Prostitution "journalism": Yup, mainstream media is intentional propaganda. Accept the evidence

Please click and read the outstanding work of Stephen Lendman in Paid lying – what passes for major media journalism. Stephen documents major areas of propaganda. I also recommend the work of PuppetGov to artistically represent the fact of Americans being played by political “leadership” and their media whores. An example of their video work is below in powerful beauty (warning: some strong language).

In my work, to just consider one area of easily-demonstrated intentional lies of omission and commission, propaganda: I’ve previously documented the two principle fears some Americans espouse with Iran and threaten war to prove beyond doubt they are without basis in fact:
* Iran’s nuclear energy program is in compliance with international treaty, fully inspected with all evidence showing energy-use only, and all US intelligence agencies in agreement of zero evident threat of nuclear weapon production. The US is out of compliance by refusing to help Iran achieve nuclear energy and accept inspections to ensure safety.
* Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s statements toward Israel have been contrived by US political “leaders” from both parties and the corporate media as a threat when the text and context of the speech clearly and verifiably show only interest in an Israeli government that respects the rights of Palestinians. This means Americans are being lied to from their political leadership and media, just as we were lied to about Iraq. Please let that sink in.
Please verify these two facts to your satisfaction. I’ve also documented that the US overthrew Iran’s democracy from 1953 until 1979; denied by the US government until 2000, but now conservative and unchallenged history. The US aided Iraq’s invasion of Iran from 1980 to 1988, supplying chemical and biological weapons to kill Iranians defending their nation, and US military attacked and destroyed Iranian oil platforms and a commercial airliner. I've also written the facts in a story as if the US were in Iran's position.
This is in addition that we now know from US Senate and House disclosed evidence that all claims to invade Iraq were known to be false at the time they were told. Another gem to consider is the Department of Defense acknowledges they routinely "lose" 25% of their budget. No, you say? Watch this CBS 3-minute report to verify.
Because “mainstream media” doesn’t scream these facts and reveal the US illegal Wars of Aggression, they are criminally complicit in covering-up crimes. They are propagandists of an oligarchic dictatorship; literally dictating what they want us to believe. This evidence verifies for all with intellectual integrity and moral courage that the US has been subject to Orwellian lies from a controlled corporate media.
...
You're being played. Let that sink in. You are being treated as a dumb animal by both political party leaderships and the corporate media. You are being used for something, some agenda other than what they say.
Your political leaders and the corporate media are lying sacks of spin.
And this will continue to your children and on into the future unless we have a breakthrough in public recognition of propaganda and demand for truth. I advocate Truth and Reconciliation or prosecution.
As I previously wrote with documented manipulation of information:
Information Operations Roadmap is a program approved by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in 2003, and surprisingly released to George Washington University’s National Security Archive in a Freedom of Information Act request.[13] Wikipedia acknowledges its existence, but fails to inform of its content for government influence of American public opinion for support of US military operations. The existence of this document confirms governmental planning to replace fact with spin for the American public’s consumption.[14] ...

SteveLendmanBlog: Paid Lying: What Passes for Major Media Journalism

SteveLendmanBlog: Paid Lying: What Passes for Major Media Journalism

Today's major media journalism is biased, irresponsible, sensationalist reporting that distorts, exaggerates or misstates the truth. It's misinformation or agitprop disinformation masquerading as fact to boost circulation, readership, viewers, or listeners, and on vital issues lie about or suppress uncomfortable truths to provide unqualified support for state and/or corporate interests - to the detriment of the greater good that's always sacrificed for profits and imperial aims.

As a result, major media sources produce a daily propaganda diet and what Project Censored calls "junk food news," and get most people to believe it. In their landmark book, Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky explained the "propaganda model" that controls the public message by "filter(ing)" disturbing truths, "leaving (behind) only the cleansed residue fit to print" or air.

Today the media is in crisis and a free and open society at risk at a time fiction substitutes for fact, news is carefully controlled, dissent marginalized, and on-air and print journalists support powerful interests as paid liars, or what famed journalist George Seldes (1890 - 1995) called "prostitutes of the press."

As a result, imperial wars are called liberating ones. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good. Major topics go unaddressed or are misrepresented. Government and business interests are endorsed wholeheartedly. America is always called "beautiful." Beneficial social change is considered heresy. The market works best, we're told, so let it, and patriotism means supporting lawlessness and corporate outlaws by shopping till we drop.
...
[LOTS OF EXAMPLES]
...
FAIR analyzed PBS's flagship NewsHour guest list and drew similar conclusions. Like NPR, it's ideologically right and usually censors progressive content and public interest programming. In a 1990 NewsHour evaluation, FAIR compared its content to ABC's Nightline and found that it presented "an even narrower segment of the political spectrum." It then conducted an October 2005 - March 2006 analysis of all of its programs, got similar results, and determined that NewHour is even more ideologically right than NPR that tilts far in that direction itself.

FAIR concluded that NPR and NewsHour content "overwhelmingly represent those in power rather than the public" they're obliged to serve. While masquerading as public programming, they betray their listeners and viewers by offering the same propaganda and "junk food news" as the dominant corporate media. Considering their funding sources, what else would they do. ...
...
In October 2007, FAIR bemoaned the Murdock takeover because of his "penchant for using his holdings as vehicles for his personal (views) and business interests." Earlier FAIR and the Columbia Journalism Review criticized its editorial page for inaccuracy, extreme bias, and dishonesty.

The Journal is unapologetic in saying its philosophy "make(s) no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view....We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether (from) private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government.(We're) not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical."
...

Friday, January 01, 2010

The Real Top Ten Stories of the Past Decade | CommonDreams.org

The Real Top Ten Stories of the Past Decade | CommonDreams.org
...

The amazing thing is how little is ever mentioned about the stories that really mattered, those that affected the very nature of our society, its institutions, and the relation of the people to their state and society.

Those stories paint a picture of danger, of a people who have lost control of their government and the corporations that own it. But you'll hear nary a word about such difficult truths from any storyteller in the conventional media.

So here, in no particular order, are my Top Ten Stories of the Naughties, the ones that really matter.

  1. The Supreme Court hijacking the 2000 presidential election. This isn't even a historical controversy anymore. Al Gore won the national popular vote by 570,000. And we now know he would have won the Florida vote as well if the vote counting had not been stopped by the Supreme Court. This was literally a right wing judicial coup d' etat, so it's understandable that it's never mentioned in the "right" kind of circles.
  1. Bush knew of 9/11 long before it actually happened. Three years before Bush took office, the neo-cons' Project For a New American Century called for a "new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the nation into a war to seize Middle East oil. And even before the event itself, Bush-as-president was warned dozens of times of the imminent attack, the most notorious being the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S". Amazingly nothing was done to prevent the attack. But even less is it advertised that Bush knew.
  1. Iraq was all premised on lies, yet we're still there. Saddam Hussein wasn't pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction. He wasn't involved in 9/11. He wasn't engaged with Al Qaeda. As with the 2000 election hijacking, we know all these things. And we know they were false at the time they were proffered. Yet, there we are, with no intent to leave, our very presence spitting in the face of International Law and the international community we so unctuously pretend to respect.
  1. The Global War on Terror. Or more specifically, the ease with which the "GWOT" has replaced the Cold War as the justification for the ever-increasing militarization of society. What happened to the post-Cold War "Peace Dividend"? The U.S continues to spend more on the military than all the rest of the world combined. It continues to maintain over 700 military bases around the world. And it continues to manufacture excuses for foreign interventions whenever weapons makers and military logistics companies need more profits — which is forever.
  1. The fact that 2/3 of all economic growth went to top 1%. John Kennedy's social contract had a rising tide lifting all boats. But over the last decade 2/3 of all economic growth has gone to the top 1% of income earners. Meanwhile the middle class has suffered a $13 trillion writedown in wealth as a result of the housing collapse. The banking bailout and the health care "reform" debate showed as never before the extent to which corporations have captured government and use it to redirect national wealth to themselves and their owners.
  1. The Neo-Feudalization of the American economy. The top 1% of wealth holders own 41% of all the assets in the country while the bottom 40% own absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, workers are saddled with $12 trillion of national debt, an effective indentured servitude that will bind them to their corporate masters for the rest of their lives. This is the working definition of feudalism, where the rich own everything and everybody else has nothing but their proffered labor and their obligations to their masters. The Hapsburgs, the Tudors, and the Bourbons would be jealous.
  1. The surrender of civil liberties. Despite the Fourth Amendment supposedly protecting us against unreasonable searches and seizures, the government can now read your email and listen to your phone calls without any probable cause. The Obama administration has gone to court to prevent the re-institution of Habeas Corpus, suspended during the Bush administration. We are much less free, much less protected from brutalization by our own government than we were just ten years ago.
  1. The failure of "the free market" to sustain prosperity. The "free market" has long been an ideological dodge used to resist real government regulation of the economy. Still, the ideal was supposed to deliver prosperity in a stable, sustainable matter. Now we have the greatest global economic collapse since the Great Depression, with the government transferring $11 trillion to the banks to cover their sociopathically greedy bets that went bust. All in the name of deregulation, with future regulation vigorously resisted. Is this a deranged country or what?
  1. The collapse of the media. We once imagined it would guard the hen house. Yet that was an anomaly, a freak event around Vietnam and Watergate when it slipped its leash. Since then, sixty independent media outlets have consolidated into five, all retailing the ideology of the powerful, the perpetrators, laundering their lies, covering up the truth, and harassing the truth tellers. In every story mentioned above, the mainstream media have worked to ensure that the people didn't know the truth about the forfeiture of their government, their wealth, their security, and their rights.
  1. The meaninglessness of elections. This is the most embittering revelation of all. Despite the greatest electoral majority since Johnson crushed Goldwater in '64, Barrack Obama has betrayed everything he ran on. In every case where he had the opportunity to confront power — in financial bailouts, financial regulation, health care, wars and military spending, utilities and global warming, national surveillance — Obama has sided with the rich and powerful against the interests of the American people. He has probably engendered more cynicism, more disaffection with government than any president since Richard Nixon. It will deal a staggering blow to the hopes of mobilizing masses of people again for a real takeback of government. And he's not even one year into it.

History paints decades with broad brushes-the Roaring Twenties, The Depression, World War II. Historians will look back on the Naughts as the time when Americans Lost Their Country. It was the decade when all the institutions that they believed would protect them — the media, the courts, Congress, the market, a messianic new president — in fact betrayed them. It will forever more be a different country.

But not just yet. Did I tell you about the big move to locally-grown produce?

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Politics Articles | Book Reviews — Autumn of the Republic? | Miller-McCune Online Magazine

Politics Articles | Book Reviews — Autumn of the Republic? | Miller-McCune Online Magazine

Three books suggest America has slipped into a polarized state of undermined self-government. None convincingly suggests how we can slip back out.
...
Did America slip into a semiliterate, polarized, pre-fascist state over the past decade or so, allowing greedy oligarchs and corporate elites to run the government? Two books I recently read offer reasonably persuasive evidence and arguments that the country did, and a third suggests that dictatorial mindsets could besiege Americans, with an assist from the Internet, if they don't come to their more deliberative senses. Each of the books offers an informed diagnosis of the dangers that widespread ignorance and ideological polarization pose for American democracy, though none offers a comprehensive treatment for the malaise.
...
The latter list includes some of the spectacularly mind-numbing American pursuits that Chris Hedges examines in Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

Hedges submits that while they mesmerized large portions of the American citizenry, CEOs being paid millions of dollars a year to run companies that feed on taxpayer money usurped our government — with the help of elected officials bought by campaign contributions and tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists who now write many of the nation's laws.

"Those captivated by the cult of celebrity do not examine voting records or compare verbal claims with written and published facts and reports," Hedges writes. "The reality of their world is whatever the latest cable news show, political leader, advertiser, or loan officer says is reality. ...

...

Of course, they did not get into this clueless state by themselves. They were manipulated by "agents, publicists, marketing departments, promoters, script writers, television and movie producers, advertisers, video technicians, photographers, bodyguards, wardrobe consultants, fitness trainers, pollsters, public announcers, and television news personalities who create the vast stage for illusion," Hedges continues. "They are the puppet masters. ... The techniques of theater have leeched into politics, religion, education, literature, news, commerce, warfare, and crime."
...

But this scholarly 193-page diatribe, which draws from a 100-author bibliography ranging from the late neo-Marxist Frankfurt School icon Theodor Adorno (The Culture Industry) to Princeton professor emeritus Sheldon Wolin (Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism), would surely madden many proud affiliates and alumni of America's elite university system.

Hedges, who attended New England prep schools, Colgate and Harvard as a young man, and later taught at Princeton, Columbia and New York University, asserts in Chapter 3, "The Illusion of Wisdom," that Harvard, Yale, Princeton and most elite schools "do only a mediocre job of teaching students to question and think." Elite universities are in the business of producing "hordes of competent systems managers" not critical thinkers. Those statements strike me as generally accurate. But I'd expect some fierce academic blowback from this notion: "The elite universities disdain honest intellectual inquiry, which is by its nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent, and often subversive." And Hedges suggests that these high-end schools "refuse to question a self-justifying system" in which "organization, technology, self-advancement, and information systems are the only things that matter."

Hedges not only blames the elite universities for our mortgage-fueled financial crisis but is sure their alumni on Wall Street and in Washington have no capacity to really fix the economic system. "Indeed, they'll make it worse," he predicts, exchanging his reportorial register for the absolutist. "They have no concept, thanks to the educations they have received, of how to replace a failed system with a new one." (He includes George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Obama's "degree-laden" cabinet members in this group.)

...

For the most part, Thom Hartmann's Threshold: Crisis of Western Civilization functions as a general-interest intermediary in book form. ...

....

In sum, Threshold is 262 pages of scientific and historical anecdote suggesting that unregulated markets, undemocratic behavior and unecological practices lead to catastrophe. If you haven't already read a good overview of topsoil depletion, the marine fisheries crisis, rain forest destruction, the democratic behavior of red deer, the 1888 Supreme Court decision that defined corporations as "persons," the $15 million that 30,000 corporate lobbyists spend weekly when Congress is in session, President Eisenhower's premonition of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence," the 2004 computerized voting machines controversy, the $1 trillion in tax dollars the U.S. government spent on war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not on infrastructure and schools, and the subprime loan/toxic securities debacle — you can find one in Threshold. Hartmann's common-sense remedies include "recovering a culture of democracy," "balancing the power of men and women," "reuniting with nature," "creating an economy modeled on biology" and "influencing people by helping them rather than bombing them." His book offers few specifics on how these ends might be accomplished in the real world.

So are we drifting along in a pre-fascist state? Has our democratic system really fallen under the control of corporate America? Hartmann's take obviously starts and stays (far) to the left of center, and we'll just have to stay tuned and see whether future events support the dire view he and Hedges have of America's political direction. Meanwhile, I'll be on the lookout for a persuasive book telling me how it isn't exactly so, and why America can escape from the economic and ecological spectacle it has made itself.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Networks Still Hosting Military Analysts Without Identifying Massive Conflicts Of Interest

Networks Still Hosting Military Analysts Without Identifying Massive Conflicts Of Interest

Major television networks continue to host retired generals as military analysts without alerting viewers to their extensive ties to defense contractors and the Pentagon.

Military strategy is a frequent topic on TV in the wake of President Obama's announcement that he will send more troops to Afghanistan now -- and start bringing them out by mid-2011. But few television viewers have any idea that some of what they're hearing originates from men who are literally profiting from the war.

One of these men in particular -- NBC News military analyst and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey -- has appeared on MSNBC at least 10 times in the past month to criticize Obama's proposed troop-withdrawal deadline, to lavish praise upon Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, and to underscore the importance of training Afghan security forces.

But neither McCaffrey nor the MSNBC anchors ever mentioned the fact that McCaffrey sits on the board of directors of DynCorp International, a company with a lucrative government contract to train the Afghan National Security Forces. Nor did they mention that McCaffrey recently completed a report about Afghanistan that was commissioned by Petraeus and funded by the Pentagon.

...

He added, "I think there's some belief, strong belief on the part of General [Stanley] McChrystal and others, to include me, that yes, you can create an Afghan security force. I don't believe it's possible in a year. I see this as a 3- to 10-year effort, at the front end of which we're going to take casualties and spend a lot of money."

According to Forbes magazine, this 3- to 10-year effort in Afghanistan will generate about 53% of DynCorp's $3.1 billion in annual revenue, a fact that McCaffrey failed to mention.

McCaffrey describes the report he authored last week assessing security operations in Afghanistan as an "independent civilian academic contribution to the national security debate." In the report, McCaffrey effusively praises Petraeus and the top military officials in Afghanistan, calling them "brilliant" and the "absolute best leaders in uniform."

Story continues below

McCaffrey continues to be presented as an objective expert despite widespread, public evidence to the contrary. In late 2008, as part of a Pulitzer-Prize winning series about the relationship between retired generals, the Pentagon, and defense contractors, New York Times reporter David Barstow wrote an article that exposed McCaffrey for "consistently advocat[ing] wartime policies and spending priorities that are in line with his corporate interests."

According to Barstow's article, McCaffrey used his close relationship with Gen. Petraeus and his contacts at the Pentagon to secure lucrative contracts for corporations such as Defense Solutions and
Veritas Capital. Armed with extensive ties to both the government and the private sector, McCaffrey exercises a third sphere of influence through his media exposure. He did not respond to repeated messages from the Huffington Post, requesting an interview.

McCaffrey is only one of several on-air military analysts with extensive, interconnected Pentagon and corporate relationships. Retired Gen. Richard Myers, who appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on October 11 to discuss Afghanistan strategy, sits on the board of directors of Northrop Grumman, the third largest arms manufacturer in the world. But David Gregory simply introduced him as the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gregory asked Myers whether it was necessary to escalate the Afghanistan war, Myers replied: "I think you probably do [have to escalate]," and later added that he thinks U.S. allies "should pony up as well." ....

Monday, December 07, 2009

Jeffrey Blankfort: What the U.S. Elite Really Thinks About Israel

Jeffrey Blankfort: What the U.S. Elite Really Thinks About Israel

The Council on Foreign Relations is always near the top of the Left's list of bogeymen that stand accused of pulling the strings of US foreign policy. It is right up there with the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, right? Wrong. If that was the case, those arguing that US support for Israel is based on it being a "strategic asset" will have a hard time explaining a Pew Research Center survey on America's Place in the World, taken of 642 CFR members between October 2 and November 16. The Pew poll not only reveals that the overwhelming majority, two-thirds of the members of this elite foreign policy institution, believes that the United States has gone overboard in favoring Israel, it doesn't consider Israel to have have much importance to the US in the first place.

...
That apparently not a single US newspaper saw fit to report on the opinions of CFR members, under those circumstances, is not surprising. The evidence:

(1) That on a list of countries that will be the "more important as America’s allies and partners" in the future, just 4 per cent included Israel which placed it in a tie with South Korea and far behinf China, 58 per cent, India, 55 per cent, Brazil,37 per cent, the EU, 19 per cent, Russia, 17 per cent, Japan, 16 per cent, the UK and Turkey, 10 per cent, Germany, 9 per cent, Mexico, 8 per cent, Canada, Indonesia, Australia and France at 5 per cent. CFR voters were allowed to make up to seven selections.(Q19)

(2) When asked which countries would be less important to the US, Israel, at 9 per cent was behind 22 countries including Canada and Mexico and in the region Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.(Q20)

(3) What was particularly revealing is that "in the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians," only 26 per cent of the CFR sided with Israel, compared with 51 per cent of 2000 members of the general public who were polled over the same period. While but 16 per cent of CFR members sided with the Palestinians compared to 12 per cent of the public, 41 per cent of the CFRers sided with "both equally" as opposed to 4 per cent of the public. Supporting neither was 12 per cent of the CFR and 14 per cent of the public. (Q33)

(4) That the CFR has not had a major hand in making US Israel-Palestine policy nor is it in agreement with those who did is strikingly revealed by the response of its members when asked their opinion of US Middle East policies. The problem, according to 67 per cent of CFR members (as compared to 30 per cent of the public) is that the US favored Israeli too much, while only 2 per cent (as opposed to 15 per cent of the public) believed that US policy overly favored the Palestinians.. Twenty-four percent of the CFR believed US policy "struck the right balance" as did 29 per cent of the public. (Q34)

(5) The overwhelming majority of CFR members, 69 per cent, think that Pres.Obama is "striking the right balance" between the Israelis and Palestinians as compared with a slim majority, 51 per cent of the public. Thirteen percent of the CFR believes that Obama is "favoring Israel too much," as compared with 7 per cent of the public, while 12 per cent thinks he is siding with the Palestinians, a position taken by 16 per cent of the public. (Q35)

Regarding Iran, one detects the same gap between the CFR and the public. Whereas a 64 per cent-34 per cent majority of the polled CFR members see Iran as a major threat to US interests, compared with a 72-20 per cent per cent majority of the public, only 33 per cent of the CFR would support an attack on Iran should it get a nuclear weapon as contrasted with 63 per cent of the public. (Q7) ...

Monday, November 23, 2009

Fox News Runs Old Palin Campaign Footage, Reports It As Book-Signing Crowds

Fox News Runs Old Palin Campaign Footage, Reports It As Book-Signing Crowds

Last week, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show caught Fox News' Sean Hannity running old footage of September Tea Party crowds in an attempt to make Michele Bachmann's smaller November Tea Party shindig appear to be more well-attended than it was. Is Fox up to the same tricks today? Faiz Shakir at ThinkProgress thinks so, and he pulls a segment that seems to tout the crowds that greeted Sarah Palin on the stump during the 2008 campaign as throngs that are gathering to purchase Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue.

In the clip below, watch as Fox anchor Gregg Jarrett describes "pictures just coming into us" as "huge crowds" that have amassed while Palin is "promoting her new book." The pictures that are supposedly "just coming in" are actually year-old video from the presidential campaign: ...

Monday, November 16, 2009

Greg Mitchell: David Brooks on Palin: A Profile in Cowardice

Greg Mitchell: David Brooks on Palin: A Profile in Cowardice

It was amusing -- if appalling -- to watch David Brooks on the TV yesterday declare that Sarah Palin is a "joke" and only qualified to be a TV "talk show host." Last year, during the 2008 campaign, he believed exactly the same thing but refused to put it in print. It was a Profile in Cowardice and one of the biggest stains on Brooks' career in journalism and punditry.

HuffPost played a key role in bringing this to light.

Last year, in early October, the New York Times columnist admitted at a small Manhattan forum -- fortunately captured on video by then-HuffPoster Rachel Sklar -- that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was not qualified for higher office ("not even close") and, indeed, was a "cancer" on his party, the GOP. To that point, while offering some criticism of Palin as candidate, Brooks had not offered this frank appraisal to his millions of Times readers.

Days passed and he never did. I kept a running count here of days he was missing in action. Election day came and went and no Brooks slam in print on this "unqualified" angle. Although he said on CBS "Meet the Nation" that she was not fit for president, he immediately took the edge off yet, explaining that she was not his "cup of tea." And, of course, he never did say that selecting an incompetent was a fatal blemish on John McCain.

In fact, Brooks wrote, "Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin."

Brooks also mocked what he called the "smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place."

Who needs Mark Shields? Maybe Brooks should debate himself on PBS. ...

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Paranoia Strikes Deep | CommonDreams.org

Paranoia Strikes Deep | CommonDreams.org by Paul Krugman

Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things we've grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption "National Socialist Healthcare." It was grotesque - and it was also ominous. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied.

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn't a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership - in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P. press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is "mild." The signs were "inappropriate," said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, "conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

...

That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Republican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.

Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and "values," only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.

But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they'd get

what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.

Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down management. At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York's special Congressional election.

Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren't interested in actually governing, they feed the base's frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

...
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here - and it's very bad for America.

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Fairness Doctrine? | CommonDreams.org

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Fairness Doctrine? | CommonDreams.org
...

Of all the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax, that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.

Nonsense.

The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.

If you don't believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to ensure that licensees devoted "a reasonable amount of broadcast time to the discussion of controversial issues,'' and that they did so "fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints.'' That's the whole shebang.

Pretty terrifying stuff, huh?

Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio's business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.

Would talk radio's bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there's nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.

The real shock is that journalists haven't supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of "mainstream media'' outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, "Does this story serve the public good?'' they ask, "Will it get ratings?'' ...

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Fox News: Enemy Of Conservatism - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Fox News: Enemy Of Conservatism -

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
...

Whatever else this toxic, shallow and brutal perspective is, it is not now and never will be conservative - unless that word has now been so corrupted it has no meaning at all.

Here I am at a conference on two of the greatest conservative minds of the last century: Leo Strauss and Michael Oakeshott. Perhaps Strauss would have regarded this poisonous propaganda as a necessary evil to keep the demos in check (perhaps that's how cynics like Kristol can support and enable this sophomoric, near-fascist crap). Oakeshott would have never stopped throwing up, if, of course, he would even have stooped to watching.

At the core of real conservatism is a distinction between theory and practice, a deep resistance to ideology, a respect for free inquiry and the philosophic spirit, a respect for social stability and coherence, a moderation in governance and a deliberation in action.

It is really time to point out that what Hannity represents, what much of Fox News represents, is not a defense of conservatism but one of conservatism's deepest, most vicious and most pernicious enemies. I am sick and tired of having this political tradition coopted and vandalized in this manner.

Conservatism will not recover as a coherent governing philosophy until it takes this monstrous propaganda on. Conservatism will not somehow emerge through the wreckage of this current moment, until it finds the courage to note that what it has become is not some variant on its tradition rightly understood, but its conscious, active, pernicious nemesis. ...

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage To Make GOP Protest Appear Bigger (VIDEO)

Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage To Make GOP Protest Appear Bigger (VIDEO)

The tea party protests continued last week, as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann held an anti-health-care-reform rally on the steps of the Capitol. While she estimated that 20,000-45,000 people attended the event, the Washington Post reported it was actually more like 10,000.

Still, that is a sizable number of Americans exercising their right to free speech and assembly, and that warrants news coverage. But Sean Hannity and his team did more than cover the event. They not only inflated the number in attendance with their words, but actually used footage from a heavily-attended protest this summer to make this health care rally appear more popular. Hannity even pointed out that this was a huge crowd for a Thursday, when the protest footage they used was from a Saturday.

Jon Stewart and his team caught this discrepancy and ran with it, pointing out neither the color of the leaves nor sky in the tacked-on video matched that of the actual footage. They went on to mock Fox by adding more video to the interview, this time from Woodstock and the movie "300." ...

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

� What Will It Take to Break Our Trance?���������������� : Information Clearing House -� ICH

� What Will It Take to Break Our Trance? : Information Clearing House -� ICH

By Doug Page

November 11, 2009 "
Dissident Voice" -- We are rapidly returning to the uncivilized Law of the Jungle. We will soon live in a world where brute force rules. It is not only the disabled, widows, children and orphans who are vulnerable to the cruelties of this jungle. We all are. We have been brainwashed with incessant slogans like “Get the government off your back,” and “Keep more of your own money… oppose all tax increases.” Our dominant, false ideology tells us that every function of government must be privatized, so that governmental functions can be performed with business-like efficiency. (We are not told that the real reason for privatizing is to give capitalists yet another opportunity for making short term profit.) The very concept that we humans might work and cooperate together to protect ourselves from Jungle dangers and to meet our common needs is shunned as “socialism,” as if that were something evil. The capitalists have brainwashed themselves, and they have brainwashed us. They along with the rest of us hope and assume that the common good will somehow automatically take care of itself, if they think about the common good at all. Each capitalist must be concerned only with his own private profit and cannot be concerned with the common good lest some competitor captures his profit making opportunity. We are a nation of millions of brainwashed individualists, living, working, and acting under false perceptions of reality as if we were all “Manchurian Candidates.” We have forgotten that government is the only effective institution that we have to protect us from the brute force of the Law of the Jungle. If we do not very quickly awaken from our trance, and act together in a cooperative human community, millions of us will perish.

Ironically, most wealthy capitalists will themselves be destroyed in this looming Jungle.

Capitalists need government almost as badly as we do, but they will not admit it. As Adam Smith taught long ago, capitalism and capitalists can survive only with a rule of law controlling private property rights and business promises, a government to enforce those laws, and a certain level of morality. He cannot be concerned with the common good lest some competitor captures his profit. Capitalist ideology thus prohibits capitalists from protecting their own common good. As we see from the daily news, no capitalist will speak out in support of regulation of Wall Street. Capitalists say that they will discipline themselves, but they have not, can not and do not.

We ordinary citizens and voters cling to an illusory idealistic assumption that we retain the right to govern ourselves, and that if we only work hard enough in the political process, we can change things through the ballot box. We cling to this false deadly assumption despite the vast accumulation of evidence that our political process is totally dominated and controlled by approximately 5000 very wealthy individuals acting through their ownership of their corporations and their mainstream advertising agencies, TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines. Thus in these desperate times, our government has given Trillions of our tax dollars to the big banks of the wealthy without any conditions, while our government has given little or nothing to create jobs for us. This money controlled government can afford to give Trillions to the wealthy, but this government cannot afford to provide VA hospitals and medical care for everybody. We citizens and voters are kept quiet and non-rebellious because of our own brainwashed state, fueled by our addiction to consumer goods, electronic gadgets, computers and TV. ,,,

Top 10 Ridiculous Quotes by Health Care Reform Opponents

Top 10 Ridiculous Quotes by Health Care Reform Opponents

10 most patently ridiculous quotes about health care reform from the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michele Bachmann. ...

1. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." —Sarah Palin, in a message posted on Facebook about Obama's health care reform plan, Aug. 7, 2009 (Source)

2. "Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook … Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." —Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 6, 2009 (Source)

3. "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." —a July 31 editorial in Investor's Business Daily warning about end-of-life counseling in health care reform. Hawking, in fact, lives in England and has been treated by their National Health Service, which, by his own account, saved his life (Source)

4. "What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes." –Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), on what is needed to defeat health care reform, Aug. 31, 2009 (Source)

5. "You have three people in the White House that are in love with eugenics or whatever it is you would call it today. … Please dear God, read history. Please dear God read the truth of what these people have said in their own words, and ask yourself this one question: Do you trust these people enough to give them control over who lives and who dies? Because that's what health care is when you have no other choice but to go to the state." —Glenn Beck, comparing health care reform to Nazi eugenics (Source) ...

NEW YORK POST LAWSUIT: Shocking Allegations Made By Fired Employee Sandra Guzman

NEW YORK POST LAWSUIT: Shocking Allegations Made By Fired Employee Sandra Guzman

The New York Post editor fired after speaking out against a cartoon depicting the author of the president's stimulus package as a dead chimpanzee has sued the paper. And as part of her complaint, Sandra Guzman levels some remarkable, embarrassing, and potentially damaging allegations.

Guzman has filed a complaint against News Corporation, the New York Post and the paper's editor in chief Col Allan in the Southern District Court of New York, alleging harassment as well as "unlawful employment practices and retaliation."

As part of the 38-page complaint, Guzman paints the Post newsroom as a male-dominated frat house and Allan in particular as sexist, offensive and domineering. Guzman alleges that she and others were routinely subjected to misogynistic behavior. She says that hiring practices at the paper -- as well as her firing -- were driven by racial prejudices rather than merit.

And she recounts the paper's D.C. bureau chief stating that the publication's goal was to "destroy [President] Barack Obama."...

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Top Bailout Recipients Spent $71 Million On Lobbying In Year Since Bailout

Top Bailout Recipients Spent $71 Million On Lobbying In Year Since Bailout

Twenty-five top recipients of government bailout funds spent more than $71 million on lobbying in the year since they were rescued, an extensive review of federal lobbying records by the Huffington Post reveals.


A year after taxpayers forked over $700 billion to help rescue the biggest names in banking, insurance and the automotive industry, those same institutions are using portions of the cash to influence legislation with a direct impact on taxpayers.


In all, during the last quarter of 2008 and the first three quarters of 2009, those 25 institutions spent $71,199,000 on lobbying. The list includes General Motors ($11.95 million), Citigroup ($8.915 million), Bank of America ($6.427 million), J.P. Morgan Chase ($7.735 million), Goldman Sachs ($4.38 million) and AIG ($3.47 million). Some of these companies have paid federal money back. Not all of the top bailout recipients, meanwhile, spent money on lobbying.


The amount that was spent, however, is nearly identical to the lobbying expenditures these same companies made during the year preceding the federal bailout. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, bailout recipients paid approximately $76.7 million for the services of lobbyists in 2008. All of which has sparked angry pushback from good government groups and lawmakers on the Hill, who ask whether the expenditures are appropriate after these institutions took the nation's economy to the brink of collapse.


"It creates a bizarre feedback loop where taxpayer money is being used by beneficiaries of the bailout to, in some cases, thwart taxpayer protections and even to score more taxpayer money, things that taxpayers themselves will likely find quite distasteful," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The question is where does it end?" ...