Stupid Headline: How the New Wealth Taxes Won’t Hit You

Let’s say I wanted to write an article about how a local tax in a South Carolina town might effect local residents.  I wouldn’t give that article a sweeping title implying residents of Massachusetts or Texas might face the task.  Well, I’m not a writer nor an editor for the Wall Street Journal.

In an article by the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Sanders, she writes “How the New Wealth Taxes Will Hit You“.  That would be a pretty short article.  The answer is, they don’t.  She’s talking about families raking in more than a quarter of a million dollars annually (or laughably, families whose only income comes from stocks!  Yeah this is certainly geared towards the common man).

The language used in the headline plays into a couple conservative myths:

• Obama is raising taxes – Not for the majority of the population, in fact they are lower.
• Taxes on the wealthy will somehow impact the average voter.  Nope.

Using slick tricks like this to spread conservative propaganda shows how compromised the Wall Street Journal’s journalistic integrity is, and how weak the conservative economic platform is.  It just won’t sell without a dollop of snake oil.

I Clear Brush Like the Common Man

Someone has a crush on John McCain.  Oh look, its Washington Post Arts and Living writer Libby Copeland.  Her piece on the Senator is a piece of political fluff we could all do without:

Senator, a reporter asked, is your chi in balance?

“I think so,” McCain said, playing along. Then he got back to practicalities, pointing out where he and wife Cindy had planted fruit trees.

Golly, isn’t that just a gas?  But really folks, we oughta focus on practicalities like fruit trees.

If McCain becomes president, America will likely get to know this place as many presidential vacation homes have become known: as metaphor as well as reality. George Bush‘s Crawford, Tex., ranch is not just somewhere to relax but a place for him to engage in the physical activities that say I understand the common man. I clear brush like the common man. (Crawford is not, as has been noted countless times, Poppy’s place in Maine, with all those connections to money and Northeast privilege.)

Yes.  The site of George Bush clearing twigs off his lawn completely erased any sense that the man came from established wealth and power.

The notion of the Presidential Ranch is practically an archetype by now

And here dear old Libby really reaches for it without a leg of evidence to stand on, other than mentioning the names of Presidential retreats of yester admin.  While having the financial resources to have a retreat is a wonderful thing I’m sure, how much is it a part of the Presidential image?  Does Barack Obama have a ranch?

At one point, McCain invited some folks into the rustic cabin’s living room, which was decorated with family portraits and children’s drawings. He showed off a 2005 copy of Architectural Digest with a picture of himself and Cindy on the cover, and opened a fancy box to reveal some sort of elaborate medal.

“Look at that, huh?” he said, looking boyishly wowed. “That’s from Estonia.”

The article continues on with that same sense of childish wonder.  As if for some never-meant-to-be-explained reason, we as voters need to read a gushing review of a bbq a Presidential candidate hosts for reporters.

Perhaps it was all an unintentional exercise in Zen koan:

There is something surprising — perhaps even metaphysically provocative — about the notion of Mr. Straight Talk in such close proximity to what may be the nation’s highest proportion of crystal-wielding psychics.

Metaphysics is about the nature of reality.  It is about whether or not the material reduces to the mental.  Its about causality and meaning.  Not about whether an Orwellian named politician lives near new-agers.  And Politics is about substance.  It is not about the endless parade of character quirks and adoring write-ups the press is force feeding us in lieu of meaningful debate.  Dross like this cheapens the discourse.

Lying US into Iran

US Officials edited video and flat out lied in an effort to make Iran appear to be a danger to us.  Via Johnathen Schwarz at TMW:

Are you the kind of weirdo who thinks Congress should investigate when the Pentagon essentially fabricates a video of U.S. ships being “threatened” by Iran? Just because it could, you know, lead to a massive war based on lies? (Gareth Porter has an excellent run down of how things happened, here.)

If you are such a weirdo, you can contact Congress via Just Foreign Policy.

From the article (emphasis mine):

The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident.

Also unraveling the story is testimony from a former U.S. naval officer that non-official chatter is common on the channel used to communicate with the Iranian boats and testimony from the commander of the U.S. 5th fleet that the commanding officers of the U.S. warships involved in the incident never felt the need to warn the Iranians of a possible use of force against them.

Further undermining the U.S. version of the incident is a video released by Iran Thursday showing an Iranian naval officer on a small boat hailing one of three ships. 

That didn’t stop US Officials from presenting a very different story:

The dramatic version of the incident reported by U.S. news media throughout Tuesday and Wednesday suggested that Iranian speedboats, apparently belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy, had made moves to attack three U.S. warships entering the Strait and that the U.S. commander had been on the verge of firing at them when they broke off.

Typical of the network coverage was a story by ABC’s Jonathan Karl quoting a Pentagon official as saying the Iranian boats “were a heartbeat from being blown up”. 

The rest of the article goes into even more detail, how parts of the messages received might not have even come from the Iranian patrol ships.

This hollow manipulation of the public trust to push us into another war, when we are already short troops for our side adventure in Iraq and are unable to contribute needed troops to Afghanistan, shows how purely incompetent the Republican approach to security is.  An approach, I might add, that every Republican save for the only isolationist in the race has endorsed, and the presumed front runner in the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton, has helped enable.

This story may or may not catch fire in the press, but there is something deeply wrong with any candidate who does not seize it and make a relevant message of truth and trust a part of their campaign.

Our Military’s Propaganda Attack on US

Via Slashdot(emphasis mine):

“Wikileaks reports that US armed forces personnel at Guantanamo have conducted propaganda attacks over the Internet. (The story has been picked up by the NYTimes, The Inquirer, the New York Daily News, and the AP.) The activities documented by Wikileaks include deleting Guantanamo detainees’ ID numbers from Wikipedia, posting of self-praising comments on news websites in response to negative articles, promoting pro-Guantanamo stories on the Internet news focus website Digg, and even altering Wikipedia’s entry on Cuban President Fidel Castro to describe him as ‘an admitted transsexual’ (misspelling the word ‘transsexual’). Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Col. Bush blasted Wikileaks for identifying one ‘mass communications officer’ by name, who has since received death threats for ‘simply doing his job — posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.'”

I want to take a moment to condemn the death threats against this officer.  But for me the story here isn’t that officers and employees at Guantanamo have been putting their two cents worth onto the internet.  Nor is it that one of them, when exposed, received death threats.

It is that it is the admitted job of an officer to anonymously offer US propaganda to the web.

Let’s take a look at Lt. Col. Bush’s statement in more depth:

Mr. Assange’s report caught the attention of, among other news outlets, The Daily News of New York, which wrote about the situation on Thursday.
A denial followed a day later from Lt. Col. Edward Bush, a spokesman for the command’s public affairs office, The News reports today:

“There has been no attempt to alter/change any information that has been posted anywhere,” Lt. Col. Bush said in the statement e-mailed to us. “That would be unethical.”

Bush said in a subsequent phone call that there’s no way to know if any of the 3,000 uniformed military at Gitmo was responsible for the documented changes, but he promised his public affairs staff was not behind it. He also blasted Wikipedia for identifying one sailor in his office by name, who has since received death threats for simply doing his job – posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.

At first Lt. Col. Bush states that there has been no attempt to make any changes to wikipedia.  He then asserts that, although there is no way to know if any soldiers at Gitmo were behind the changes, he knows his public affairs staff is not to blame.  Finally he notes that one such soldier in his office has the job of “posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo”.  Lt. Col. Bush contradicted himself sharply.

If it is unethical to make anonymous changes, why is it this sailor’s job to do so?  At the very least they could create a username that indicates the information is coming from a biased source (eg “us_military_editor1” or something like that).

If officers at Guantanamo were editing wikipedia with military propaganda on their own time, or at work without permission, that would be one thing.  But if it is an officer’s job to issue propaganda and deliberately hide the source, then that speaks to a very sinister part of our government.  Wikipedia is read domestically.  This represents a covert propaganda attack, by our own military and hence our government, on us.

Fox’s Latest Push on Iran

In an article titled U.S. Military Families Insulted By Ahmadinejad Visit, Fox News goes on to show once again that they are a propaganda organ for the Bush administration:

For military families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, watching Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak to students at Columbia University showed just how disconnected certain factions of American society have become to the sacrifices of their sons, daughters, parents and spouses.

Fucking Idiots. They are leaving the claims of the Bush administration that Iran is interfering in Iraq as unchallenged and agreed upon facts. What a ridiculous statement. What the article does go on to show is how disconnected some people are from reality (emphasis mine):

“There is no consideration for people who have sacrificed so much,” said Patricia Roberts of Lithonia, Ga. Her son, Army Spc. Jamaal R. Addison, was the first soldier from Georgia to die in Iraq. Roberts said she considers the Iranian president a “terrorist” and said she was “appalled” when she first heard of his speaking engagement at Columbia.

“How can we allow him to come here, to speak to our children, when he has already said that if we go there, he will kill us?” she asked.

Yes. How can we let someone come here who said he would retaliate if we invaded his country. Why, only a terrorist would say something like that, right?

The whole article has the corrosive smell of heavy manipulation, as they go on to quote those who have lost dear people in this war. As they use their words to push us towards yet another war of choice.

Don’t let them. Fight back.

Fox News From Iraq to Iran

FOX Attacks has an excellent video showing, side by side, the parallels between the run up to war with Iraq and current efforts to do the same with Iran.

Some highlights?  The constant attempts to link Iran with Al Qaeda (just as with Iraq).  Statements that we want to avoid “another 9/11”.  Peppered throughout the video are the numbers of Fox viewers who walk away believing the lies.  Fox is actively misinforming its viewers.  That’s us, our friends, families, and colleagues.  To ironically quote Mike Evans on Fox News (yelling into the camera a la Lewis Prothero):

This Network is helping fight the media war, and the American people have been dumbed down by the secular left

Fox is the network offering spin and falsehoods in the place of news and analysis.  Let’s fight their efforts to mislead the American public.

Sign the open letter and help keep a sharp eye on the radical right wing’s loud propaganda organ.

Fight Back: Fox Isn’t a News Organization

Fox News is not a news organization. They mix in slices of current events into a hearty stew of entertainment and outright propaganda. They routinely offer false and misleading information to be consumed by their target market: us.

At some point, when a blowhard like Bill O’Reilly demonizes the left, it can feel like more of an abstract. But make no mistake that he is actively campaigning against us (Rick Perstein via Sara, Orcinus, emphasis mine):

Reflect, for a minute, on who America’s grandparents are being taught to hate: Americans who do what Americans are supposed to do, what our founders implored us to do: debate vigorously and in the open, the meaning of the public good. They used to call these people “citizens.” They’re “like the Nazi Party,” Bill O’Reilly says. They are you and me.

We don’t need to take this sitting down. We can take it right to their pocketbook:

I’ve just become a proud “FOX Attacker”. Now you can too. It’s not a boycott. It’s simply calling advertisers and informing them what FOX says. FOX can’t survive that. Have a blog? Then help spread the word.

“FOX can’t survive that.” Powerful words. In one sense this is a call to spocko Fox News. The idea being that advertisers will not want to be associated with an organization that peddles the kind of bull Fox serves up in a quivering news-lite form.

In another sense this is an aggressive step forward for progressives in the ongoing framing wars. Fox News and its controversial hosts are working overtime to paint liberals as traitors, and their media competition as liberal. Both points are demonstrably false.

In fact the accusations hurled at opponents often come back to bite them, and ironic teeth are the sharpest of all (Tom,This Modern World):

The well-known hate site BillO’Reilly.com is being investigated by the Secret Service for threatening Hillary Clinton’s life. Well, actually it was just some commenter, but by Billo’s own standards, if the comment is on his site, that means he condones it. Why does Bill O’Reilly want Hillary Clinton to die?

By advancing and making clear how we all see Fox News, we are doing more than attacking their source of funding. We are launching a direct offensive on their most valuable resource of all: their legitimacy.

A News organization with zero credibility is out of business. There is no need for a boycott.

So join the coalition against Fox News. Become a Fox Attacker. Fox is doing everything they can to paint liberals as political monsters. We must fight back. Fortunately, to fight back, we don’t have to paint. We just have to point out.

War, Lies, and Videotapes

Via Lindsay (Majikthise), golden boy Petraeus wants to rev up the old propaganda machine:

Don’t look now, but that universally beloved and clever General Petraeus wants to let the military lie to Americans the way they lie to foreigners.

Currently, the military maintains a firewall between “public affairs” and “information operations.” The former is PR and media relations for American, the latter involves deception overseas

…

Last month, Petraeus sent a memo to the Pentagon asking that the internal firewall be dissolved. The DOD says they’re developing a new policy.

Maybe then our war with East Asia will finally start yielding victorious results for our Empire. The funny thing is, in addition to planting blatantly false pr pieces crafted for the purpose, the military already lies to US citizens. The Huffington Post has a lot of links regarding the exploitation of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch and the military’s role. The military confirmed that it staged the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue.

Given what they have already gotten away with domestically, exactly what is Petraeus planning?

Why does a US General think there is a pressing need to lie to the American public?

Fox News: Wrong Too Many Times

Kos calls attention to “the most spot-on column on the Fox News debate controversy of any media outlet.”:

Fox cloaks itself in the mantle of objectivity with the nudge-nudge insistence that it—and it alone—provides “fair and balanced” coverage of the news. Then it advances its financial and ideological interests by promoting lurid accusations from conservatives against Democrats, accusations that are routinely debunked later by the mainstream media.

(emphasis mine)

Is there a point at which a line is crossed and reputation for journalistic integrity vanishes? Is it false advertising for a network like Fox to sell itself as a news organization when it functions as a blatant propaganda organ for the right?