Made in the US of A

For nearly 30 years, American jobs have been shifted overseas. This includes textiles, appliances, electronics, etc. With US tariffs at an all-time low, imported goods have been relatively cheap. Big business could move jobs overseas, where the labor is cheaper, and import them back. Many Americans haven't complained because they continued to get cheap goods. The overlooked result has been fewer well-paying jobs for the middle class.

Manufacturing offers some of the best-paying jobs in the country. These jobs also affect others that are part of the chain--distributors, transportation, suppliers, etc. When you lose a manufacturer, you lose more than just a local plant.

I've linked the title head to this article to a website called Made in USA; please check it out. They post this on their sidebar:

"There are 293 million people living in the United States. If each one would shift $20 a month in spending from foreign made products to American made products, that would create 5 million new jobs."

What sets this site apart from others is you can do a Search and find American companies based on a Flag system--one flag means the item was manufactured in the US, 2 flags means the content of the product was manufactured in the US, and 3 flags means the company is incorporated in the US. Often they'll include a website or phone number so you can order online or request a catalog.

Video, audio and news links are also posted at in the library.

A series on You Tube talks about the decline of America's economy and some of its causes, from immigrants (legal and illegal) to outsourcing, over-regulation (perhasp mis-regulation is a better term), etc. While we can dispute some of the causes, the end result has been a loss of at least 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2000.


Go to You Tube for the rest of the segments.

Holiday Bunk

No, this isn't about a bunk bed; this is about debunking all the end-of-year bogus claims circulating through the Internet and elsewhere. Go to factcheck.org for more details; they're also adding to the list daily in a spot they're calling "Ask Factcheck". Here are a few "urban myths" they've reported:

• It's not true that unionized auto workers at Detroit's Big Three make more than $70 an hour, as claimed by some opponents of federal aid.
  
  
• And no, 3 million workers won't be tossed out of work if aid is not forthcoming, as claimed by those favoring a taxpayer bailout.
  
  
• President-elect Obama never promised to seek a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, as claimed by some fearful gun owners.
  
  
• And no, Obama did not propose a Gestapo-like civilian security force as claimed by a Republican member of Congress from Georgia and any number of overwrought bloggers.
  
  
• Democrats in Congress are not discussing any plan to confiscate the assets in 401(k) retirement accounts, another falsehood spread about by chain e-mails and Internet postings.
  
  
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not demand a 757-size personal jet, a false claim resurrected when Democrats criticized Big Three executives for flying to D.C. on their own private jets to beg for aid.
  
  
• And Pelosi's husband doesn't own a $17 million stake in a food company that she may (or may not) have tried to help with an exemption from a new minimum wage law.

As the folks at Annenberg note, what is sad is the number of Americans who believe this misinformation. They have an interesting post-election poll that includes percentages on how many of the electorate believed the falsehoods they were hearing. The authors of this article (Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Brooks Jackson) point out the reasons why voters believe these lies:

1. political ads run many times on the air (if you hear it enough you start to believe it)
2. we have a basic need to "embrace our side's arguments and reject or ignore those offered by an opponent"
3. Partisan preconceptions (Democrats raise taxes; Republicans cut Social Security)
4. Voters aren't knowledgeable about government
5. People find it hard to change once they've formed an opinion

Keep checking back. I'm sure the new year will bring many more tidbits of misinformation.

Visions of Sugar Plums

While the country is embroiled in economic issues, from Wall Street to Main Street, the Bush Administration is diligently working behind the scenes to pass new regulations before their time is up. My title head includes a link to Propublica.org, a site I just found that lists and updates all the Midnight Regulations as they come out. It should come as little surprise that these last-minute regulations cater to Big Business and affect everything from the food you eat, the environment, even to more police surveillance. So, as you ponder those sugar plums and mulled wine, check the list--check it twice, see who's naughty....

Crooks in Government

For Illinoisans, it came as little surprise that the Gov. Blagojevich (pron. "bla-goy-ya-vich") was arrested for trying to sell Obama's vacant Congressional seat. The surprise was how stupid he was, knowing he's been under suspicion for corruption for years, to have been so blatant. And this man came into office right after Ryan, who went to jail for corruption. Unfortunately, they waited to arrest Ryan until he was out of office.

Blagojevich could still appoint Obama's senate replacement, though state lawmakers are calling for special elections to do this. IMHO, Blagojevich should step down & lets run special elections. Now, who will run?

At the same time, we have the FCC Chairman has abused his power. And don't forget Bush's abuse of power, the Pentagon abuse of power....They all seem to be doing it. I wonder if this is a membership club or just politics as usual?

Corruption is not a recent thing or just an Illinoisan thing. It's not just a Democratic thing either. Examples:

Connecticut Gov. John Rowland was threatened with the worst corruption in the state's history.
Louisiana's last 3 insurance commissioners were sent to prison.`1
Republican Bill Frist, a doctor, resigned from the Senate pending investigation into charges of "insider trading."
Sen. Ted Stevens (Rep. Alaska) was convicted on 7 counts of falsifying official Senate reports
The most corrupt state in the US is Mississippi (IL comes in #5).
Teapot Dome oil leasing corruption of 1922
Over 21 people were indicted for corruption in San Francisco in 1909.
Credit Mobilier corruption in 1872 involving Mass. reps. 2
The Whiskey Ring scandal where Dept. of Treasury officials were bribed. 3

You don't have to look hard to find corruption. We just need more Patrick Fitzgeralds to take care of 'em.


Sources:
1. Public Corruption in the United States, National Press Club, Jan. 16, 2004
2. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h234.html
3. Ibid

An economic recovery plan

This week's Obama-Chat to the nation includes economic proposals to pull out of this depression. Some features:

1. Make government buildings more energy efficient
2. Invest in national infrastructure
3. Modernize school buildings
4. Improve Internet access for all
5. Improve & modernize healthcare

This assumes a creation of over 2 million jobs, especially important since the nation just lost 1/2 million! The above items all seem to me, IMHO, to be good ones because:

1. It creates jobs in this country
2. An improved infrastructure results in better transportation, cost reductions, etc.
3. Our schools are where we teach the future workers of America
4. The use of the Internet is key to education and access to world views
5. Healthcare costs are a main reason for companies locating outside the US
6. Reducing our energy needs allows us to spend money in other, more crucial, areas

I also don't think this is enough, but it's a start. After all, he's not in office yet.

A Bird in the Hand is Worth More in the Bush

Not content with two Bushes in political office, the reigning Republican political dynasty is once again pushing favorite son, Jeb, back in the spotlight with a bid to replace Sen. Mel Martinez in FL (click blog header to read Miami Herald article). Could this be the first step to something bigger? Like a bid for yet another Bush in the White House? Well, with a name like Jeb, how can you go wrong in the South? And, since a couple southern states carried the tide for Obama, don't be surprised if the GOP is targetting to bring them back into the fold.

Early Warning Systems

According to many sources (blog title linked to msnbc), banking industry lobbyists protested regulatory changes that would have helped prevent the current financial crisis. And, the Bush Administration ignored all the warnings. Sound familiar? Think about the other ignored warnings in this administration:

• Sept. 11--they ignored CIA & FBI alarms going off all over the place
• Iraq--no WMD's, no Al-Kaida and we'd walk into a mess
• Mine Safety--mine safety suggestions were ignored (in fact, standards were reduced) and more miners died in cave ins
• Hurricane Katrina--the levees could not withstand a 4 or 5 cat storm
• Climate Change--the administration not only ignores all scientific studies (including from the Pentagon), but declares CO2 is not a harmful pollutant
• Torture--senior military lawyers dissented with the administration's conclusion that the President could order harsh interrogations
• Security firms in Iraq--the administration ignored repeated warnings about using private security frims
• Border Fences--the administration ignores warnings about the environmental impact of the border fence with Mexico
• Pakistani drone attacks--the American intelligence community warned it would benefit the Taliban & destabilize the Pakistani army

When it disregards experts & career professionals, the Bush Administration responds with denial. They attack dissension, instead of learning from it.

The White House has issued a list of times (17) where they allege to have urged Congress to do something about the banking industry. Several right-leaning blogs are using it to blame the Democrats, failing to point out that Congress was Republican-controlled until just over a year ago (and have kept threatening to filibuster since). I wonder what other warnings have been ignored.

The Obama Transition

Obama's appointments for the White House transition in January caused many in the media to report concern over these experienced veterans. Now why would this be a handicap, when some of the same people criticized Bill Clinton with his inexperienced picks back in '92? Do we really want inexperienced folks coming in to fix the myriad problems the current administration is leaving behind?

Media Matters' writer Foser asks, "When did experience become a flaw?" He complains that, back in the 90's, the media complained about the inexperience of the appointees. Now that Obama is appointing high-powered, experienced folks, they complain about a lack of change. You just can't please some of the folks some of the time! Of course, the biggest complaint is about Hillary, the epitome of satan (along with Bill) to many right-wingers.

So, if you have better suggestions, check out Obama's transition website. You can leave suggestions or share a story. Heck, maybe they'll take your resume!

Media & Yellow Journalism

MediaMatters.org writer Jamison Foser has written an excellent article that refutes mainstream media reports on the Minnesota Senate race. MediaMatters serves as an excellent source for those intent upon finding information without network bias.

As a college student, I took an intro mass communications course (with fantasies of becoming either a sports caster or writer for National Geographic) and learned you could sway your audience through your words. When reporting, you could force the reader to form an opinion one way or another. Reporters were taught to use "who, what, how, when, where" (the 5 things to always include in the first paragraph) and to use active voice. With blogs, additional writing tips are a must.

That said, Foser discusses the recount in Minnesota (required by law when an election represents 1/2 of 1% or less). Unfortunately, many media outlets, apparently including the New York Times, NBC's Today, the Minneapolis Star Tribune & media host Sean Hannity, allege sensational problems by using words like "shenanigans, chaos, mess in Minnesota" and "fishy business."

Why didn't they use "voter recount required by law" or "recount in Minnesota?" Yellow journalism (biased opinion masquerading as objective fact) popularized by Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolf Hearst in the late 19th century is alive and well in the 21st. Newspaper circulation keeps shrinking and more Americans get their news either from The Daily Show or the internet. Sensationalism sells papers and brings viewers.

Bailouts & Corporate Accountability

So, the US taxpayer (that's you & me, folks) has sent billions into Wall Street with very few strings attached (you did know that you were sending this money, right?) The result? Up until this week, banks sat on the money. Now, automakers are asking for the same fringe benefit & Congress is trying to slice a piece out of that $700 billion pie to give to them. Despite the fact that, in Sept, Congress passed a bill giving them $25 billion in loans. In the meantime, check out these staggering statistics:

• A quarter-trillion-dollar budget deficit for a single month
• Projections of up to $1 trillion for a year in the deficit
• A half-million new applications for unemployment benefits
• Unemployment jumped to a 14-year high of 6.5 percent in October
• Tax revenues were down 7.5 percent in October from a year ago
• Foreclosure rates for October increases 25%
  

The deficit with China bucked the trend and rose to an all-time high as U.S. retailers kept stocking their shelves with Chinese-made televisions, toys and games. Just what we need; more cheap products created in sweatshops with no environmental standards and shipped here to poison our people. But I digress.

So, what does the taxpayer get for her money? Stock in the largest banks, to take ownership shares in hundreds or thousands of banks by New Years. We've also got mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 1

Now, I'm not a financial wiz or anything, but if I was financially rescuing someone, I'd like a little more for my money.

• Fire all the CEO's at the financial companies getting bailout money & replace them with salaried govt workers with industry expertise.
• Eliminate golden parachutes or set a cap
• Return to the regulations in place in the 30's
• Make the Federal Reserve a govt entity
• Replace members of the SEC & give 'em more muscle
  
• Close securities & derivatives loopholes
• Install a govt trade fee (the rest of the world has this) with the revenue going to the deficit
• Require "credit card" interest rates (28%) on the payback

Now, about those automakers, who fought Clinton tooth & nail in the 90's to avoid doing anything. 2 If you wanna play ball, here's what we get in return:

• Make sure it's a loan, not a bailout (we did it for Chrysler back in the '80s) 3
  
• Mandates for hybrid/duel-fuel plugin cars by a certain time (say 2-3 years)
• Money for research on retrofit technology for existing cars and trucks
• Increase CAFE standards to 45mpg by 2010, 60mpg by 2014; 80mpg by 2020
  
• Ban oil/gas/auto lobbyists from Congress (oh, heck, go ahead & ban all lobbyists!)
• Find out why they haven't filed Chapter 11? 4
  
• Oversee executive compensation & ban any retroactive payments
  
• Award innovation at the consumer level by offering govt rebates for hybrid cars
  

Ok, I'm a little over the top on some of the above suggestions, but it doesn't seem right to me that we give 'em money for nothing. That tax bill is gonna hit soon and none of us will be laughing on the way to the bank.

Sources
1. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081113/budget_deficit.html
2. Who Killed the Electric Car, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/#here
3. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA00Aes.html
4. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2134.cfm

Joblessness in America

According to today's Business Week & ReportonBusiness.com:

• Nonfarm payrolls plunged 240,000 for the month of October
• Unemployment jumped to 6.5% in October (highest reading in 14 yrs)
• Businesses are making much bigger cuts in capital spending & hiring 1
• Advanced economies (US, Germany, UK, etc.) will shrink 0.3% in 2009 (first time since WW2) 2

These are just a few of the economic woes occurring now. The G20 meeting next week in Washington will no doubt be one of attempting to better coordinate responses to the global economy. A search of the web came up with these as possible responses:

1. More shareholder influence on executive pay 3
2. Increased powers for the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) 4
3. A stronger IMF (International Monetary Fund) 5
4. Additional policy measures to stop the downward spiral of US housing prices 6
5. Insuring financial institutions don't circumvent regulation 7
6. A Green Public Investment Stimulus program 8


Meanwhile, our bailed-out banks continue to hoard funds, exasperating the situation. 9 The fate of us all during this recession could well depend on the results of this meeting.


Sources:
1. http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2008/pi2008116_877573.htm?campaign_id=investing_related
2. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081107.RECONOMY07/TPStory/Business
3.http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN06267520081107
4. Ibid
5. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081107.RECONOMY07/TPStory/Business
6. http://www.rgemonitor.com/euro-monitor/254289/europe_catches_pneumonia
7. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=a7dnE2LYHOVE&refer=germany
8. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081124/pollin
9. http://www.progressiveinvolvement.com/progressive_involvement/2008/10/bailout-working-precisely-as-intended-gucci-wearin-champagne-sippin-plutocrats-make-out-fine-main-street-stuck-with-the.html

An Historic Day in America

So we can stand proud as Americans showing democracy does indeed work. We elected the first African-American, Barack Obama, to the Oval Office. Over 131 million people voted in this election, which means about 64% of eligible voters went to the polls. That's the best turn out in 44 years, according to a report by AP (click on blog head). That's gratifying in that, for some time now, many Americans didn't vote. Part of your responsibility in a democracy is to vote, so I hope we continue in the future.

Watch the Election on your Computer

Go here (or on the name of this post) to see all the action on your computer. Swing states include Virginia, NC, MN, FL, OH, IN, etc. My bet is the Ohio voting machines will glitch again.

SNL's Political Videos

Instead of the dire "Only 2 days left to Vote!" message, I bring you a link to hulu.com, so you can catch up on all the SNL (Sat. Night Live) Tina Fey, et al videos. Hilarious.

Media Bias

Media Matters' columnist Jamison Foser has posted an interesting article called "Media Matters: The Right's "bias" charade." He covers the last 15 years of media coverage on Presidential Candidates, as well as comments on PEJ's (Project for Excellence in Journalism) recent study. Foser's article can be found at MM, while PEJ's at PEJ.

Foser's article points to database searches of negative media reports, proving otherwise, as well as concern over some of PEJ's methodology. For instance, they ignored Radio talk shows, which are highly conservative. They also rated as negative reporting any report of negative poll numbers, despite the fact that this is simple reporting. Anyway, an interesting article worth reading.

The Economy, the Candidates, & You

In The Economist yesterday (header links to this article), it reads:

Even if the Fed did target zero, it might encourage banks just to leave their money at the Fed rather than lend it to each other, causing the federal funds market to dry up. It would also make it hard for money market mutual funds to pay a competitive yield and cover their operating expenses. Money would flow out of them and into government-guaranteed bank deposits, straining bank capital ratios.1

The article deals with the current federal interest rate drop (down to 1%). The article also notes:

Bold as its actions have been, the Fed cannot battle the recession alone. It needs fiscal policy as well, both to recapitalise lenders through the Troubled Asset Relief Programme–both banks and nonbanks, such as insurers—and to stimulate spending directly through increased public spending or tax cuts.2

John McCain's Plan 3
According to his website (just the key items), McCain promises the following to help the economic crisis:
1. Balance the budget by 2013 by cutting Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid
2. Lower business tax rates & reduce capital gains taxes
3. Minimizing health insurance & pro-union initiatives
4. A one-year spending pause
5. Stop earmarks
6. He'll tell oil producing countries that our foreign-oil dependence will come to an end
7. Summer gas tax holiday (nothing about winter on his site)
8. Repeal the imported sugar tax
9. Will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates
10. Assistance for borrowers focused on homeowners
11. Reforms like greater transparency & accountability with financial assistance

Barack Obama's Plan 4
According to Barack Obama's website (again, just the highlights):
1. A tax cut to 95% of working families
2. Tax relief for small businesses
3. Fight for fair trade to open markets; amend NAFTA
4. A windfall profits tax on oil companies, given to families as $1000 energy rebate
5. Provide $50 billion to jump-start the economy, saving 1 million jobs
6. Eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year
7. End tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas; reward companies that support American workers
8. Invest in next generation technologies, clean energy, infrastructure
9. Invest in a clean energy economy, creating new jobs
10. More accountability in subprime mortgage industry, reform bankruptcy laws, credit card bill of rights

Both sites have more details, but Obama's seems especially extensive. You be the judge. Will either plan do what needs to be done to combat the current recession and financial irresponsibility? See a side-by-side comparison done on the Obama site at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/sidebyside.php. 5


Sources
1. Approaching Zero, The Economist, Oct. 29, 2008, http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12500565&source=features_box3.
2. Ibid.
3. http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/reform.htm
4. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/index.php
5. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/sidebyside.php

Climate Change & Humanity

Frontline just released a new documentary called Heat (click the title of this blog to go to it). Learn more about the issue, then contact your Congressional representatives and urge them to do something.

Fear, Negative Ads and RoboCalls

If you live in a "swing state", are you getting "robocalls"? These are computer-generated calls that question Obama's relationships and economic platform (even Palin has criticized them); click on the header to view more on robocalls. Why is this tactic so useful? My guesses include:

1. It's cheap "marketing"
2. It keeps misconceptions in the minds of those called
3. It distracts Americans, especially those with less political knowledge
4. Though it's negative campaigning, polls show Americans are influenced by it 1

BTW: A Minnesota company owned by the CEO of the 2008 Republican National Convention is responsible. 2

I suggest that these calls are another form of fear-mongering. According to an article in Newsweek, it "reveals the power of fear to sway voters. Half a century of research has shown that fear is one of the most politically powerful emotions a candidate can tap, especially when the fears have a basis in reality...." 3 Apparently, anger comes in a close second. According to the same article, fear makes people more likely to go to the polls and vote. Interestingly, other political scientists argue that negative campaigns keep voters at home.4

One of the most renowned examples of this is Lyndon Johnson's "daisy" ad. According to David Mark, in his book, Going Dirty, "Negative campaigning works, which is why candidates regularly employ it...it is particularly effective when ads focus the electorate on a specific issue."5 According to the Journal of Marketing, this negativity effect works mainly on voters who already dislike the candidate.

"Millions of dollars are spent marketing political candidates during each election year. An increasing percentage of these dollars is spent on negative campaigning (Ansolabhere and Iyengar 1995; Devlin 1993; Lau and Sigelman 1998) because of the belief that negative information about political candidates is more influential than positive information in swaying voter preferences (Aragones 1997; Bunker 1996; Johnson-Cartee and Copeland 1991; Klein 1991, 1996; Lau 1985; Pinkleton 1997). Consistent with this belief, media gurus often give negative news quadruple weight compared with positive news (as specified by the Merriam formula used to compute media impact; Kroloff 1988). It is because of this firm belief in the weight of negative information that political pundits continue to advocate its use, despite recent data that demonstrate that negativity in political campaigning disenfranchises voters and could lead to low voter turnout and involvement (Ansolabhere and Iyengar 1995)." 6

So, the conclusion is that, no matter how popular the candidate, his or her negatives matter more than positives to the American public; we don't vote for candidates, but against. This is why more & more advertising dollars are spent on such ads.

Sources
1. Newsweek; 8/11/2008, Vol. 152 Issue 6, p34-36, 2p, 4 color
2. REsearch Minnesota
3. Newsweek (Atlantic Edition); 12/24/2007, Vol. 150 Issue 26, p24-28, 5p
4. Reason; Nov2006, Vol. 38 Issue 6, p2-2, 1p
5. Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning by David Mark. Lanham,
MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. 280pp.
6. Journal of Marketing; Jan2005, Vol. 69 Issue 1, p131-142, 12p.

Why This Election Matters

This is a video of UVA's Poli-sci prof, Larry Sabato, on why the 2008 election is so important.

McCain, Letterman & Liddy

John McCain finally made his Late Night with Dave Letterman appointment and admitted to his friendship with Watergate co-conspirator G. Gordon Liddy. Click on this blog title to view the video. Note that Letterman is the first "journalist" to ask McCain about Liddy.

Who is Liddy? He was convicted of helping mastermind the Watergate break-in, for conspiracy in the Daniel Ellsberg case and for contempt of court.1 They wiretapped DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel and then broke in to repair it.

Daniel Ellsberg is the State Department whistleblower who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971. These documents proved that Eisenhower, Kennedy & Johnson had secret plans to go to war in Vietnam. Richard Nixon attempted to prevent further publication of these papers, was overruled by the Supreme Court, and several White House aides were dismissed due to misconduct. This trial figured in the impeachment of Nixon. 2

In 1994, Liddy advised his listeners to shoot any ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms official) with "head shots, head shots ... Kill the sons of bitches ... Shoot twice to the belly and if the does not work, shoot to the groin area. Arm yourself. Get instructed in how to shoot straight. And don't register [your weapons] either." His caller replied, "And I'm aiming between their eyes." Liddy replied, "There you go. That way their flak jackets won't protect them."3

In 2004, Liddy spoke about how Adolf Hitler inspired his youth.4 Liddy has funded McCain's campaign and, as recently as May 2007, McCain was a guest on ex-convict/terrorist Liddy's radio show.5

Perhaps this is beyond the kettle calling the pot "black."

Sources:
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/liddy.html
2. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKellsberg.htm
3. http://mediamatters.org/items/200411230004
4. Ibid
5. http://www.radioamerica.org/PRG_ggordonliddy.htm

Get to know Obama

I've heard many spurious and scary comments regarding Barack Obama. I'd like to share a few things to help get to know him better. I won't try to debunk all the crazy stuff I've heard because studies show that, even when people know it's misinformation, some folks continue to think the original lie was accurate.1

First, here's a video giving a little behind-the-scenes look at him & his family.

Next, take a look at the Ayers vs G.Gordon Liddy factor at mediamatters.org. Who's the worst "terrorist?" I'll bet every American has heard Ayers mentioned recently; but who among you realized Liddy's influence on McCain & radical background?

Now, what about religion? Again, go to mediamatters.org for further info on this one. I'll bet you all have heard of Wright; how about Hagee?

Then there's this: McCain vs Obama's health on the Daily Show.2

And, an affirmation of the Keating 5 facts from CNN at Keating5 and McCain story is true.

Sources
1. http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200809150005?lid=669953&rid=16061148
2. BraveNewFilms.org

What's the matter with the Media?

Folks are asking me why the national media isn't reporting many of the things mentioned in this blog. Here are my guesses (there could be more):

• The majority of the major media outlets in this country are owned by a few corporations or wealthy individuals (it's in their interest to run what best supports their business model)
• Many news outlets have been eliminated or seriously reduced
  
• Many "journalists" today were never trained in journalism or trained in the field (hence fail in digging for answers)
  

Media Ownership

In 1983, newspapers, television & radio were less centralized, with 50 corporations controlling the majority of all news media in the US. There were more "mom & pops" if you will. After deregulation of the media by the FCC, the big boys started buying even more markets. Here's a list of the current 6 Big Boys:

• David Westin, President, ABC News
• Mark Hoffman, President, CNBC
• Jonathan Klein, President, CNN
• Bill Galvin, Vice President, CNN Headline News
• Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO, FOX News Channel
• Steve Capus, President, NBC News, MSNBC

"Nine giant companies now dominate the US media landscape, providing most television programs, films, videos and DVDs, radio shows, CDs, books and other leisure-time products and activities. They are Disney (ABC), AOL-Time Warner (CNN), Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox TV), Viacom (CBS), General Electric (NBC), Sony (the former CBS records and Columbia Pictures), Seagram (Universal film and television studios), AT&T (cable television systems, including former MediaOne), and Bertelsmann (a German firm that controls the publication of one out of ten adult trade books in the world). (Some analysts put the number at six in the mass media field, excluding Sony, Seagram and AT&T.) Their media revenues range from $8 to $30 billion a year. According to Robert McChesney and John Nichols, the authors of It's the Media, Stupid, “Another twelve to fifteen firms, which do from $2 or $3 billion to $8 billion per year in business, round out the system.” (p. 28) These include Comcast, Hearst, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Cox, Advance, Tribune Company and Gannett."1

The above was in 2000. By 2004, "only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth."2

What does this mean? It means fewer news organizations provide fewer differing viewpoints from which the American public can make good decisions. In addition, these for-profit organizations are obligated by law to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations.

Reduced News Bureaus

"In a striking effort to cut costs, NBC said yesterday that it was closing its New York bureau, which has a news staff of 11. That announcement comes a day after NBC said it planned to close its Miami news bureau, which has a total staff of 13. The closings in New York and Miami will reduce the number of NBC news bureaus in the United States to seven. In addition, the Frankfurt news bureau will be closed and the staff of the London bureau has been reduced. NBC has also reduced its employees in Boston and Pittsburgh. NBC is owned by the General Electric Company, and a number of NBC employees said they felt that G.E. had been particularly aggressive in its cost-cutting efforts."3 According to the August 15 issue of The Colorado Independent, "A decade ago more than a dozen newspapers and wire services embedded reporters in the state Capitol during the legislative session. Today only seven do."4

What does this mean? Fewer reporters are available to track down & uncover news stories. It means more news is slipping through the cracks due to lack of oversight.

Journalism or Field Training

Many working journalists actually urge their students not to get a degree in that field. Most, however, want their reporters to have a liberal arts degree and experience in the field. They also need to be fast writers. US journalists are not required to take any continuing ed courses 0r career training. "Fully half the journalists questioned in a recent survey by the Council of Presidents of National Journalism Organizations said they get no training at all...The lack of ongoing training was most evident for journalists in local TV stations...More than half (54 percent) of TV journalists said they needed training in content or specific coverage areas, but just 13 percent said they were getting that training."5

If you listen to talk radio, watch out. According to Project for Excellence in Journalism,"

"Talk radio is running America," complained Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott. "We have to deal with that problem." On June 28—more than 40 days after the introduction of a compromise immigration bill backed by President Bush and some senators—the year's most ambitious domestic legislative initiative was defeated in the Senate. Lott was not alone in attributing the bill's defeat to talk radio. Some Democrats even talked of reviving the long-repealed Fairness Doctrine as a way of potentially balancing the politics on conservative-dominated talk radio. In talk circles, this became known as the "Hush Rush" bill, a reference to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who was a vocal critic of the immigration bill.6

What does this mean? Talk Radio is commercial, and many "radio heads" are not trained journalists. They selectively feature those "facts" that best make the case for a specific ideology.

Sources
1. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/med5-d27.shtml
2. http://www.corporations.org/media/
3. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6D9113DF931A25754C0A967958260
4. http://staging.coloradoindependent.mypublicsquare.com/view/loss-of-the-capitol
5. http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0203/ijge/gj07.htm
6. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/profile.html

Just the Facts, ma'm

I have been accused of using only liberal or biased sources in this blog. I obviously take exception to that & try to find "valid" sources. Perhaps there's a difference in what one considers "liberal" and "valid"? Occasionally, I admit, I do veer off course--usually because I find the item humorous or that particular "liberal" source had the most well-written article and I didn't think I could do better. If you dig down, you'll note that I use government sources, non-partisan or at least bipartisan sources, Scientific American, Pew, The Economist, etc. Sometimes I read a research paper & note that it contains info similar to another source that is easier to read (if you've ever wafted through research & scientific journals, you'll understand!). I have found that many "conservative" sources are biased as well--so it's a struggle to sift through the flack.

Enough said. Last night's 2nd Prez Debate appears to have been a snoozer (I can't say, since I worked right through it). The header above links directly to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/debate_fact_check, so don't slam the receiver. I'm just passing it on. I think it's pulled from FactCheck.org, which I think is extremely non-partisan.

Energy, Global Warming & Globalization

Recent Headlines

• President Hugo Chavez offers to swap a natural gas vehicle for his citizens "dirty" cars--including a year's supply of free fuel. 1
• "First Hydrogen-powered plane takes to the skies in Germany."2
• "Twice as nice: Combining a Wind Farm and Solar Energy in Italy."3
• "Sweden Aims to be World's First Oil-free Nation."4
• "46% of Brazil's energy comes from renewable sources."5
• "In the face of rising energy costs," the US DOE (Dept. of Energy) offers a new website called Energy Savers with low cost tips (and more) to help homeowners save energy & stay warm this winter. 6

As the rest of the world moves forward on alternative energy, the US govt. sits back and offers website help to its citizens. Yes, there are US companies working to create energy changes (such as a plant-into-jet fuel development in N. Dakota, 7), but can we deny that government sponsorship helps to push the technology & implementation much further? (this program at NDU was through a govt grant).

Why is developing and implementing alternative energy important to the future of the US?

1. It reduces the need for fossil fuel imports from other countries (i.e., Saudi Arabia)
2. It positions us better on the world market because that energy money can be used elsewhere
3. It reduces the need to borrow from other countries whose actions can seriously undermine the American economy (i.e., China)
4. It reduces the amount of pollutants the US pours into the environment
5. It creates new jobs in the energy sector in this country
   

Why can't we just drill, baby, drill?

• No matter how some politicians insist, drilling is hazardous to the environment, affecting local animal populations, and air & water quality. 8
• Other sources, such as geothermal, are less hazardous to the environment & can produce massive gigawatts of power. 9
• To start any new program, whether drilling or alternatives, takes time. Most sources agree on about 10 years before anything is actually pumped out of the system. 10

Why should I care about all this?

1. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 to evaluate the risk of human-caused climate change." Since then, 4 reports have been released and "become the de facto conservative standard for accuracy about the scientific facts of global climate change." 11 IPCC reports reflect the work of over 2500 scientists from more than 130 countries, who have insisted that human activity has "very likely" been the primary cause of global warming since 1950. ("Very Likely, in science, indicates more than 90% certainty & is considered virtual confirmation.). No natural source for a CO2 buildup has been revealed, but utilization rates of CO2 from fossil fuels are well-known. 12 "Independent surface data from the atmosphere, the ground, and the ocean sub-surface, combined with evidence such as melting snow, ice, and permafrost, rising sea levels, and observed changes in plant and animal behavior make it clear the Earth's surface is warming noticeably."13 This translates into increased drought in the western US, more extreme weather patterns (heatwave in Europe, more violent hurricanes, etc.), melting ice & rising sea levels. Question: What kind of planet are we leaving our children?
2. According to TBoone Pickens, the US imports 70% of our oil today. That's $700 billion dollars being sent to other countries each year. World oil production peaked in 2005, with current oil facilities producing less oil and fewer new oil reserves, large enough to produce what we need for any appreciable time, to be found. 14 Question: Do we want to continue to send our dollars abroad, often to countries who have reason to hate us?
   
3. Oil supplies about 40% of the world's energy and 96% if its transportation energy. Consumption is expected to rise to 60% by 2020; transportation will be the largest growing sector. The 2 countries with the highest growth in consumption are China & India. These countries are fighting for control of the market to feed their economies. 15 In the US, the average piece of food travels almost 1500 miles before it gets to your plate. 16 Question: Since our food supply heavily relies on transportation, doesn't it make sense to reduce this cost?
4. Where are the reserves? 66% are in the hands of Middle Eastern regimes. Russia increased its output so that it became the #2 exporter behind Saudi Arabia; however, it's reserves peaked in 1999 and accounts for only 5%. In Africa, total reserves account for only 7%. Because they've increased production, their reserves are expected to be depleted faster, hence making the Middle-east an even larger exporter of crude. 17 Question: If supplies are diminishing and we invest in alternatives Right Now, doesn't it make sense to create jobs for Americans at home?
   

Today, Colorado is considered the global leader in the industry of renewable energy. 18 Europe has an energy standard called the Renewable Energy Standard, requiring certain standards in building. Wind creates 2.4 times more jobs than coal or natural gas during plant construction & 1.5 times more jobs for long-term maintenance & operation. 19 It seems logical to me that it is in the interests of our country to explore and develop safe, alternative energy. The end result will be a cleaner environment. Isn't that a risk worth taking?


Sources:
1. (Go to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_free_cars;_ylt=Agr.HCK0vtr4XobOKKc1kpNvaA8F for full story).
2. http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=first-hydrogen-powered-plane-takes-2008-10-02
3. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=wind-and-solar-in-sicily
4. http://environment.about.com/od/renewableenergy/a/oilfreesweden.htm
5. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0513-brazil.html
6. http://www.energysavers.gov/
7. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=using-plants-instead-of-petroleum-to-make-jet-fuel
8. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=to-drill-or-not-to-drill
9. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=google-invests-in-geothermal
10. http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp
11. Mann & Kump, Dire Predictions, Understanding Global Warming, DK Books, 2009, p. 6.
12. Mann & Kump, pp. 34-35.
13. Ibid, p. 37.
14. http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
15. http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
16. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
17. http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
18. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5951041&page=1
19. http://www.alternativeenergy.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1066929%3ABlogPost%3A30653

Are the Fundamentals Still Strong?

Here's a movie to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4egXbhSOhk. Most economists avow that US deregulation helped the economy to grow; they also seem to think it went too far & helped cause the current economic problems.1 Even John McCain admits it now, despite the fact he was anti-regulation up until this month.2 Go to www.therealmccain.com for more, in case you weren't convinced.

The first vote on the bailout ended in defeat, despite the fact that Bush & leaders from both parties supported it. Could it be re-election season has reared its ugly head? Isn't it funny how some of the legislators cried foul, while the past 20 years has seen them support bill after bill that reduced banking & other controls established in the 1930's. So we had a Great Depression and we don't learn from it? Will Sept '08 be called GD2 (or Black Monday) by future historians?

I wonder. The richest 400 families in the US in 2000, had a wealth of about $1 trillion. In the last 8 years, that grew to $1.6 trillion.3 If you take away the $1 trillion loss Bush claims happened on Wall Street yesterday, that only leaves $.6 trillion. Oh, too bad. I don't know how those folks will survive. There can't possibly be any connection between deregulation and greed, can there?4

A fix has to be in the works and passed; doing nothing will only exacerbate the problem--at least that's what all the economists seem to be saying.5 Interest rates have been too low, the housing market has collapsed, and all those bad mortgages (created after deregulation) have ballooned. I wonder who gets penalized? The moneylender or the ignorant homeowner? So far, the mortgage side of things is winning.6

Sources:
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26774653/
2. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/mccain.bailout/index.html
3. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/forbes/P129955.asp
4. Greider, William, The Nation, "Waiting for the Big One", Sept. 10, 2007.
5. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/9/19/analysis-washingtons-trillion-dollar-wall-street-bailout.html.
6. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26837854

The S&L Crisis, Part Deux

For those who don't remember, I offer a history lesson (as well as a political one). Up until the last year & 1/2, Congress has been controlled by the Republican Party--for 16 years! For the last 4 or so years, all THREE branches of government were Republican controlled. Right now, the Dems have a 1 vote lead in Congress--and you can't count Lieberman, because he's really a Republican in a blue coat. In order to override presidential vetos, you need 2/3 of Congress to agree--well, we ain't there yet folks. Bush likes to veto and he likes to do signing statements, changing many of the laws in favor of deregulation.

Now for the history lesson. If you were cognizant during the 80's, you might recall the S&L Crisis under Reagan. If not, go to http://www.uwsa.com/issues/cfr/quicksandl.html (or do a Google search on the S&L Crisis). Lending requirements were loosened, enforcement & oversight were reduced, etc. Foreclosed homes were placed under the RTC (Resolution Trust Corp) for auctioning instead of handled by local real estate offices. The result was things like $200,000 homes selling for $1200. In some cases, those winning the auctions had ties to the current administration (George Bush senior was one of them). One of the failed Colorado S&L's was run by, can you guess who? Jeb & George Jr. John McCain was one of the notorious Keating 5 that led to the crisis in the first place--and it cost the taxpayers over $124 Billion!

Fast forward to 1999 & we see history repeating itself. The Republicans once again began easing regulations such as Glass-Seagull (passed in the 30's to stop this sort of thing). Republicans had been chipping away at it in 1983 & 1987. Gramm-Leach-Bliley eliminated the rest of the New Deal regulations, leading to a massive amount of consolidation within financial markets. The result was risky investments designed to maximize profits.

So, here we are all over again. Another Bush in office, a series of deregulations by the Republican-led Congress
Look at Enron & Worldcom & ask yourself, "What regulations were passed to avoid this from happening again?" None. Did I mention Gramm is one of John McCain's advisors?

Sources:
1. http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2008/02/how-s-crisis-is-repeating-today.html
2. http://www.uwsa.com/issues/cfr/quicksandl.html
3. http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/slbib9.html
4. http://www.wmsa.net/People/john_mccain/ariz-republic_chap_V_1999.htm

The Real McCain

Here's a website, with videos, in case you want to find out more about John McCain. Such as:

1. His stand on oil drilling & Big Oil

2. His health records

3. His houses (at last count, 9)

4. His stand on veteran benefits

5. His position on Iraq

The website is http://therealmccain.com/ (or click the header to this blog).

Wringing our hands over Oil

When Hurricane Ike made landfall yesterday, I noticed the price of gas at the local Citgo rose from $4.09 to $4.19. Now, perhaps gas rigs came in yesterday and dropped off their latest load which, coincidentally, increased in price .10/gallon. Maybe Citgo watches the market and prices accordingly? I don't blame the gas station; they're a retailer operating on slim margins.1 Maybe investors are at it again; Ike's 'a comin' and refineries in LA & TX could reduce availability. Economics goes into action: supply is reduced, demand stays the same--price goes up. The only problem is, the supply hasn't been reduced yet. I guess I don't get economics.

Even oil company execs agree that the US is a "declining oil province and have been for 25 years." 2 What seems to be the common denominator among anyone with any energy knowledge (according to all the sources I've found) is, gasp, conservation. As Nelson Schwartz, Fortune's Europe editor, noted in 2006, "a serious push for conservation would get the attention of the energy markets and drive prices lower."3

Oil-producing nations are wary. On the one hand, prices are higher than ever, but production is stable or, in some cases, down. G. Bush has met with the Saudis to try to get a release of more oil, while Congress is pushing for sanctions.4 The mantra is "why are we buying oil from the terrorists." That in turn makes the Saudi's worry. Mike Schaefer of Energy & Capital gives us this history lesson: In 1985, the Reagan administration made a pact with Saudi-Arabia to reduce the price of oil. This would hit the Soviets hard, making it more difficult for them to influence other countries in the area. The prices dropped from $26.46 to $10.25 in about 3 months. The Soviets couldn't keep up because their oil prices were much higher; their economy began to collapse. However, the Saudis (and then the rest of OPEC) now had a trick from our playbook.5

According to Schaefer (The Truth About Oil, Part 2, Energy & Capital, Jan.12, 2007), the lesson OPEC learned was how to "cook the books." Somehow, between 1989 and 1990, Saudi officials claimed oil reserves increased by 87 billion barrels--without finding any major new fields. Five other OPEC countries magically added more reserves as well (see images above). What does this mean? There's even less world oil than we think. Add to that the fact that countries are increasing their demand, and I think you get the picture (if not, go to http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-reserves-decline/340). Schaefer later points to Canada and extracting crude from oil sands. He also reminds us that the strength of the dollar is directly tied to oil supply and cost. This is proven by the countries who've already shifted their currency from US dollars to the euro, resulting in the huge devaluation of the greenback.6

While Schaefer fails to expound on the conservation issue, others pick up the mantra. You can find video discussions on all energy-related topics at http://video.energypolicytv.com/displaypage.php?vkey=3a8d6aa2308357a268a7&channel=Conservation. I'm sure you can search the web and find writers who insist there isn't an oil shortage, that the reserves are actually much higher or that it's all just politics. But, what if they're wrong? How can you tell? Shell Oil officials are worried that demand for oil and gas will outstrip supply within seven years. 7 (Of course, they want the price to stay high, so there's an ulterior motive). OPEC insisted, a few days ago, that there's no shortage on the oil market. 8 Did you know you have to ask "what type of oil?" Light, sweet crude, which is easier to refine, is in short supply. Heavy, sour crude, with a higher sulfur content, is harder to process, but is more available.9

According to an article by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, supply is probably at parity with demand, perhaps even a little higher. 10 So, why is the price of oil and gas still outrageously high? Hossein-Zadeh believes it's because of war and geopolitical instability. "...the current oil price shocks are caused largely by the destabilizing wars and political turbulences in the Middle East. These include not only the raging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the danger of a looming war against Iran that would threaten the flow of oil out of Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz."

"To sum up, manipulative speculation and dollar depreciation account for most of the recent increases in the price of oil—speculation accounts for nearly 60 percent, dollar depreciation for almost 40 percent. This is no longer a secret. What remains largely a secret, and needs to be exposed, however, is the relationship between speculation and dollar depreciation, on the one hand, and war and geopolitical instability, on the other."11

Wow. When I started writing this article, I really had no idea that it would result in the following solution: if we get out of Iraq, oil prices will go down!

Sources:
1. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/8994
2. http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/08/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm
3. Ibid
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/05/15/bcnoil115.xml
5. http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-consumption-world/337
6. http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-saudi-ghawar/343
7. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/wef/article3248484.ece
8. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-05/09/content_6673565.htm
9. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2341
10. http://www.counterpunch.org/zadeh07122008.html
11. Ibid

1984, History, and Government

Like watching movies? Try one of these movies & other media, posted in chronological order.

1. George Orwell, 1984, the classic book on government-speak (war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and it's not an "escalation", it's a "surge"). If you enjoy reading online, go to http://www.mirrors.wiretapped.net/security/info/books/george-orwell--1984.txt. Written in 1948.
2. The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis (Bill Moyers, 1987, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430). 90-minute documentary covering Reagan & the Iran-Contra Affair.
3. Haynes Johnson, Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, 1991, Doubleday. Discusses how America became a debtor nation and ethical misconduct resulted from deregulation and ideology.
4. Capitol Crimes, an expose on corruption in the Bush Administration, in 4 parts, so plan on 90+ minutes. (Moyers, 2006, http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08012008/watch.html. Get an August '08 update at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08012008/profile.html.)
5. Inside the War on Terror (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07252008/watch2.html, July 2008). ~10 minute interview of journalist Jane Mayer on torture. Includes a transcript.
6. Scott McClellan's book, What Happened, blows the lid on the Bush Administration's use of falsehoods to get America involved in war in Iraq. (see 20 minute video at http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-33104). Also see Mike Green's book, The Whole Truth about the US War on Terror.
7. The Brookings Institution, Political Corruption in the US and Around the Globe (short read, looks to campaign finance reform, April. 08 (see http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0428corruption.aspx). Want to see who pays for what in this country? Go to http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php.
8. Corruption at Fox News & Rupert Murdoch, see http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/8556/fox_news___CORRUPTION/. The story itself is unsettling; about 11 minutes.

More Reasons Not to Vote for McCain

As if you needed more, here are my picks to date. If you click on the name of this blog, it'll take you to Bill Press' website where you can see even more.

1. He voted against raising the minimum wage 19 times.
2. He voted against veterans benefits and the GI Bill.
3. He was part of the Keating Five (dirty dealing with Charles Keating)
4. What "maverick" votes with George Bush ~90% of the time?
5. He's in favor of off-shore drilling (after being opposed to it).
6. He graduated 894 out of 899 from the Naval Academy. During his military flying career, he lost five Navy aircraft. He doesn't support POW rights. That makes him a natural for Commander in Chief?
7. He agrees with Bush's illegal wiretapping.
8. He doesn't know anything about the economy & we're a nation of whiners. Remember, you're not rich unless you make over $5 million.
9. He's in the pocket of big oil, taking over $2 million in campaign contributions. He also has a pro-big oil running mate whose husband works for BP.
10. He wants to continue the war in Iraq for 100 years. Oh, and let's bomb, bomb, bomb Iran while we're at it.




Sources:
1. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/31/mccain-minimum-wage/
2. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9ZsiYWjIyxc&refer=home#
3. http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter7.html
4. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_bush.cfm
5. http://usnews.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FRdamp291545&rf=sitemap
6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/jun/12/falloutfromthegitmoruling
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/one-interview-two-gaffes_b_105968.html
8. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-07/2008-07-14-voa27.cfm?CFID=37941943&CFTOKEN=10795194 and http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rich18-2008aug18,0,1063695.story
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJPo5IGTd0A
10. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/

Where Art Thou, American Economy?

In case you've been too busy trying to make ends meet to notice, the American Economy is in the tank. For a sobering look at

• The Current US Trade Deficit (continually ticking up),

• Wage Stagnation statistics

• An economic slideshow of the American Economy (called Charting the Economy)

go to American Economic Alert (this blog title links to it). The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, reports data showing American workers today have increasing job security (see http://www.heritage.org/), what they don't say is how valuable that job is in today's market. In a June report in USA Today (go to http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-06-08-dream_N.htm) :
"Today's economic malaise caps a prolonged period during which the typical American lost ground.

From the end of the 2001 recession through last year, median household income fell almost every year even as the economy expanded and individual workers became more productive. The most recent official data indicate that in 2006, half of all families made more than $58,407 and half made less. That compares with an inflation-adjusted peak of $59,398 in 2000.

This financial stall marked the first time since World War II that the typical family was worse off at the end of an economic expansion than at the start, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a left-of-center think tank in Washington, D.C.

"This is the first business cycle on record where the median family income failed to recover its previous peak," EPI economist Jared Bernstein says. "It's been a uniquely disappointing cycle from the perspective of the median-income family."

As the report goes on to remind us, this data was before the financial crisis and huge increase in oil prices. It should be no surprise that expensive health care premiums, college tuition rising twice the rate of inflation, and increased food & energy costs add to the mess. The middle class is being squeezed out--some say purposefully, a literal "war on the middle class" (i.e., Lou Dobbs, Thom Hartmann, http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PR&pubid=27).

This attack seems to have been going on since Reagan took office, from the firing of air traffic controllers (reducing union impact), to reduced regulation on banking (resulting in the S&L crisis), to NAFTA/CAFTA, and even more during the Bush Administration (see http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=7638). Reduced taxes to the top 1%, deregulation on banking (again), reduced environmental controls--they're all part of the current admininstration. So, within 3 years of Bush getting into office, the economy reportedly lost 2 million jobs (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=7639). He revised agreements so that foreign nations did not have to follow US labor protections, he cut worker-training programs, he proposes using "guest workers" (importing workers who get paid lower wages & can also be kicked out of the country at any time), he has harassed labor unions, he also repealed the federal ergonomics standards (as well as other health & safety regulations). This war on labor, when the largest population of workers is the middle class, can hence be construed as a war on the middle class.

What will it take for Middle America to wake up and insist on change?

Palin is not a'biden

McCain has chosen a former beauty queen from Alaska with ties to BIG OIL. Oh boy, just what we need--another Oil person in the White House to give the energy industry (who has spent over $400 million this first 1/2 of the year in advertising & lobbying) more tax breaks! She's anti-choice, pro-drilling in ANWR, pro-death penalty, wants to reduce government regulations, is anti-gay (from http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm) and was probably selected to target Hilary supporters. Those supporters don't know the issues if they think the two women have anything in common. I do like the fact that she has cracked down on corruption during her term as Gov. of Alaska. However, she's under investigation for trying to interfere with the firing of an ex-family member (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/palin-mccain-vp.html). You can catch video & other Palin info at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/08/mccain_introduces_palin_at_day.html; they seem to have picked her back in June. It seems Alaska is also suing the federal government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that her husband works for BP on Alaska's North Slope? (see http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/sarah_palin/).

From moveon.org (http://pol.moveon.org/emails/palin_announcement.html?rc=homepage):

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

• She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.¹
  
• Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.²
  
• She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. ³
  
• Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.⁴
  
• She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.⁵
  
• She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.⁶
• How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.⁷

Sources:

1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-7967348-C6OF55x&t=1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-7967348-C6OF55x&t=2

4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-7967348-C6OF55x&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-7967348-C6OF55x&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-7967348-C6OF55x&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-7967348-C6OF55x&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-7967348-C6OF55x&t=7

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-7967348-C6OF55x&t=8

The Best of the DNC

Ok, I have picked my favorite speech makers at the DNC (if you missed them, go to their videos at http://gallery1.demconvention.com/ (you might need to install a couple plugins). Click on the Full Schedule & then look for the speaker).
1. Michelle Obama's--such a heartwarming speech and a great speaker.
2. Brian Schweitzer, Gov of Montana--the best Humor of the show & you gotta love that tie.
3. Hillary Clinton--wow. What a great speech for unity.
4. Dennis Kucinich--for a study on American finances & economy (if you weren't scared before, you will be now; I bet he lost 5 pounds giving that speech!).
5. Barack Obama's--a pointed attack at McCain, the current administration, and the Right Wing Talk show hosts.
Now let's take all that energy and get the job done!

Biden's the Bomb

It was pretty amazing that the Obama Camp was able to keep Joe Biden's selection a secret for as long as they did! I knew the Big O was coming to Springfield to make the announcement; so nice, since he's the IL senator--until Jan. So what does Mr. Biden bring to the ticket? (Go here for more http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082300890.html?hpid=topnews). During the Presidential debates, I was quite impressed with his oratory and international knowledge, both of which our nation is in desperate need. He's been in the Senate since '72 and is Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's not afraid to speak out & challenge misconceptions with cold, hard facts--MSNBC has an exerpt from a June 22nd Meet the Press discussion at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26010055/?GT1=43001. (You can also check out key issues at http://biden.senate.gov/issues/).

Political Fact Checking

So, be sure to check out my favorite websites to the far right (you might need to scroll down). I refer to these often when checking for sources of information. I've just added Factcheck.org (click on the title of this blog to go to it), which is a non-partisan site created by the Univ. of PA Annenberg Public Policy Center. They're currently running info on the latest political ads coming from both Obama & McCain.

On another note, watch out for new laws or attempted new laws on voter registration fraud. Despite the fact that there has been very little individual voter fraud in the US, Republicans are latching on to the idea of requiring a valid driver's license before you can vote. No biggee, you think, right? Well, did you know that there may be as many as 21 million voting-age Americans who don't have a driver's license? In Indiana alone, 13% of registered voters "lack the documents needed to obtain state identification." (see http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/24/toobin-voter-id/). Students trying to vote near campus will be unable to do so because their college ID cards aren't eligible. A study done 2 years ago by John Lott Jr (see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925611) seems to suggest otherwise. When I did a Google search, it seems most fraud was done by groups (ACORN, county clerks, Republican staffers, etc.). It seems ironic that, up until the last election, no one really bothered that much about it because a large percentage of Americans weren't voting. (see http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab6a_2.htm). For instance, in '04, 23% failed to vote; in '02 38%. In 1990, 1994 & 1998, over 40% of Americans didn't bother to vote. For more interested details on American's and their voting habits, go to http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/gd-index.htm#6. (ANES is the American National Election Studies research database of election tools.). You can review some interesting tables at the Census Bureau, too (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2006.html). Anyway, it seems to me that, with more registered voters (and more Americans vote Democratic than Republican), the goal should be to help, not hinder, the election. After all, politics has become such a dirty word you'd think our "fearless leaders" would try to do something to clean it up.

Fact or Fiction: Lies & Exaggerations in Books

When I attended school & college, I learned that when writing, "facts" were substantiated with real proof and "fiction" was hearsay or made up. It seems authors and editors are having a hard time recognizing the difference, and the public is being misled. Remember James Frey and Oprah? (go to http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html if you've forgotten). Or the woman claiming to be a holocaust victim who lived with wolves? (see it at http://forums.buddytv.com/lost-off-topic/65709-author-lies-about-being-holocaust-survivor-living-wolves.html) So here comes a "non-fiction" (defined at http://www.allwords.com/word-non-fiction.html, among other places on the web) book that, due to bulk ordering, will automatically be placed on the NYTimes #1 bestseller list. Ok, you didn't know that the bestseller list is based on the number of books ordered, not the number of books sold to consumers? Yet, even before it hits the stacks, it's already been vetted to be inaccurate (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=corsi). On top of that, the author contradicts his own book. I'm referring to Jerome Corsi, also infamous for his attacks on Kerry in '04. In his own words, “‘The goal is to defeat Obama,’ Mr. Corsi said in a telephone interview. ‘I don’t want Obama to be in office.’” I hope Borders & B&N place the book firmly in the Fiction Section and consumers, instead of buying the book, read what they need in their in-store cafes. It apparently isn't worth the paper it's written on.