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