You're Freedoming Wrong

More Equal? 

 

 Pennsylvania was the state where both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed. Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell are great symbols of the nation that are both in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, PA State Representative Rick Saccone (R -39) apparently doesn't understand what that the whole Freedom thing (you know, the Bill of Rights?) doesn't mean that one group gets more freedom while other get less.

Saccone has proposed a mandate requiring state public schools to display the motto "In God We Trust."  He argues that it is to honor the 150th anniversary of the motto being displayed on American coinage. (Interesting that the motto isn't as old as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, isn't it).

In fact, the motto was only added to our paper money in 1957, and it first appeared on our coins during the Civil war. What was so significant about 1957 that prompted Congress to approve putting a religious motto on our currency? It just happened to be the culmination of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. 

The lesson should be that the motto has been used as a mark of solidarity that reassures those fighting against a clearly defined enemy that there are on the side of right. In short, it is propaganda.

Harry Potter vs God

“It's displaying our national motto. So they can have Harry Potter on the walls, zombies and witches on brooms but not the national motto?” Saccone said. “It would just be posted in the building somewhere so the kids know what the story is behind it. It's about teaching history.”

I agree. Let's put it in our schools as a cautionary tale, right next to a display honoring other religious and moral quests --like the Crusades and pogroms throughout history.

"In God We Trust" is the passive-aggressive version of Christians yelling "Die Infidels!" And our schools should certainly teach history that includes what wars have been fought and why, how propaganda has alienated ethnic groups and cast them as a unifying enemy as an excuse for would-be conquerors to exploit the fears of the masses.

As far as I know, Harry Potter has never been used to justify a war or the slaughter of those who believe differently.

The Supreme Court was split on allowing a depiction of the Ten Commandments on federal property. Perhaps we cold take note that children are more impressionable and our public schools are meant to be an open, educational system, not a pulpit where one set of beliefs is treated as "right" while the others are just something students need to learn about.

When religion starts to run a country, it usually means less Freedom. I wonder if Rep. Saccone learned the history of the American colonies and how they were populated groups of persecuted religions?

Public schools do have to teach  students who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu. And if we ever gave children an excuse to treat them as "wrong," nothing could possibly go wrong.

The 5 Most Pointless Things from the Shutdown Coverage

Now that the doors of the government have reopened and the country can pay its bills -- for a short while at least-- here are my 5 least helpful things from the news coverage.

5. Shutdown Clocks 

 Because it really matters that everyone knows to the second how long it has been since Congress officially stopped working -- unofficially, well it has been quite a bit longer.

4. Did anyone fact-check the "reasons" the some republicans were against increasing the debt ceiling?

There used to be a school of thought that journalism meant telling the truth. Obviously, that isn't the top strength of the politicians. Hence, the idea of the Fourth Estate, another check on the government. Or we can just report whatever they say, but it is true that they did say it.

So if a Congress person says they don't want to raise the debt limit because it adds to the deficit, maybe, just maybe, a news station could mention that it really isn't the case (I'm looking at you CNN and Fox). Even Yahoo got this one right.

3. CNN's "Blame Both Sides" Fail

In an effort not to alienate any viewers from either party CNN tried to slam some democrats for not compromising and letting the shutdown take effect. Here is one problem with that. Here is another. CNN has become the middle child between MSNBC and Fox News. Instead of being non-partisan, CNN is trying to be dual-partisan, which is a fail.

2. Being Stupid or in Congress is News?

Ok, the shutdown drama was good for ratings. I get that. But reporting on people being stupid, just because its related to the shutdown is not how I imagine the media could foster bipartisan debate.
Being upset or outraged when the Federal government shuts down, and national parks close is like bombing McDonald's and then being upset when you can't get a BigMac.

Kudos to Senator Cruz and Sarah Palin who protested the shutdown of memorials after they pushed for the shutdown of the government -- in a crowd of veterans (neither of them were in the military) and someone waving a confederate flag.

Stupidity or false outrage just to get on TV - that's why we have Jerry Springer.

The # 1 reason why the shutdown coverage was pointless:

Nothing got solved, the media soaked up the ratings and rejoiced. And there is a good chance we get to do it all over again in a few months.

Oh, and there were no PandaCams.

So let me extend my thanks for all of the great coverage that really informed me about what really mattered during the shutdown.

C U Next Time we Shutdown!

Chomsky and "Red" America

The government shutdown has stilled the hallways of the Smithsonian and closed memorials and national parks across the country - and the media loves it. Big, elaborate graphics with dire overtones fly in to introduce a news segment on the shutdown, a clock ticks away the seconds in the corner of the screen, letting the viewer know with exactitude how long it has been since the government was opened (it has been a lot longer since the legislative bodies have functioned).

This article in the NY Times discusses how the people consume news in a way that resonates with their own personal beliefs, instead of gaining a big-picture understanding of current events.

This is a great observation, but it needs to go a step further: why doesn't reading or watching or listening to the news provide a comprehensive picture of the world. Why is everything either slanted to the left or the right?

This shutdown, whatever the effect on the general populace, is good business for the media. It doesn't really matter if coverage of the shutdown is accurate, because the news outlets realize that people only want to hear what reinforces their already held beliefs and not be challenged by inconvenient truths.

It's got to be true, I saw it on the news. 

 

The news media is controlled by just a few central, very wealthy, very politically influential corporations - and the news media serves the needs of the for-profit corporation, not the viewership or society in general.

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.

Excerpt from "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

In other words, the media's job is to make the population behave, not the politicians. The media actually has, at times, a vested interest in not reporting "just the facts and nothing but the facts, ma'am."
 
Why? One of the main reasons that the media works to keep the populace in check and not the other way around is because the media system is concerned with profit.

According to Chomsky (from a compilation of his interview answers):

The major decisions over what happens in the society -- decisions over investment and production and distribution and so on -- are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates and investment firms...

They are also the ones who staff the major executive positions in the government. They're the ones who own the media and they're the ones who have to be in a position to make the decisions. They have an overwhelmingly dominant role in the way life happens.

This is propaganda -- not to support a tyrannical autocrat, but to keep the plutocrats happy. To keep the populace tuned in, susceptible to the blandishments of advertisers- that is what the media wants.

  Socialism is the new red. 

One of the most powerful mechanisms in place that supports the propaganda of the media giants is (in dramatic echoing tones): the fear of communism.

It bears repeating that communism is the antithesis of capitalism. Communism is the antithesis of capitalism. (Repeated).

Put another way, communism is bad for profits. Our government has had some very lucrative dealings with dictators over the years. But communism is government dispersing profits, it is others reaping the fruits of your labor (theoretically, you would also be reaping the fruits of their labors, but it never seems to work out like that in our minds).

But, we haven't been worried about the Reds since the fall of the Soviet Union and McCarthy's witch hunt, right?

Except that, the media and their political mouthpieces and their ideologue talking heads don't always call it communism. They call it "entitlements" and "socialism." It doesn't matter that socialism and communism are vastly different. If it can be made to seem like social welfare programs are communist in nature, the inculcated masses will have no choice but to go back to the ideal ways of the benevolent capitalist overlords. Which is what our friend, the creepy, finger-raping Uncle Sam puppet, reminds us - don't let the socialists take our profits.

All hail to the capitalist overlords--or get puppet finger-raped.

Bonus excerpt from "Manufacturing Consent":

The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings:

(I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms;

(2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media;

(3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power;

(4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media;

(5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another.

The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.

The Optics of Symbology

Following up on last week's post about the failings of "simple" solutions, this week's topic is symbology (or "sssym-bol-ism"-- see clip below) and how symbolic actions offer "simple" solutions.

Many of the headlines in the news this week have a personal irritation because they affect some people who are very close to me--in a very human, personal way that could not be more distant from how the debate is being cast in the media.

I am talking, of course, about the government shutdown. More specifically, I am talking about the fact it solves nothing and changes nothing.

For those who think that the shutdown will get rid of a program that they don't like, they are wrong. The shutdown does not directly affect the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The ACA has been debated for several years, going through the forms of representative democracy (Congress, Senate and Presidential Signature). Then, when challenged, upheld in the Supreme Court.

Thanks to aatp.org for this image

I am not writing about whether or not the ACA or "Obamacare" is good or bad for the nation.

It is a futile gesture. It only provides a symbol. Sure, throwing the boxes of tea into Boston Harbor was a symbolic gesture, but this shutdown is like holding the priest hostage after the wedding is completed and everyone is at the reception.



The Affordable Care Act has been held up as a symbol of President Obama and his democratic party values. The optics of opposing the ACA are very important to some congresspersons.

It has a semiotic value that has nothing to do with the actual wheels and gears that make it work as the law of the land. It is a symbol of government oppression. A symbol of the resentment of a person who believes that their hard work is supporting the indolent takers, the dregs of our society.

And there is a face given to these takers: the poor, those with limited education opportunities, those who have fallen on hard times. They are now a symbol of the "moocher class."

It doesn't really matter if these things are true or provable (or not intended to be factual statements).

The rhetoric of the message is much stronger than facts. 

Actions have become more important for their symbolic value, the semiotic meaning that has been assigned to them, than the actual pragmatic consequences of said actions. The consequences that permeate from any action fade from the public consciousness, dwarfed and obscured by a monumental mythos that has become material monolith.

In other words, the semiotic nature of these actions--the symbology-- means that my sister and children, my niece and nephew, have very little with which to support themselves in one of the most expensive cities in America. As a contractor to the government, my sister will not even be eligible for back pay if approved by Congress.

That is your symbolism right there. A eight year-old and a six-year old whose mother has to make plans for how to feed them in case this shutdown drags on.

Good luck with the symbolic action, I am sure the optics of the real consequences are great.

If it seems that easy, you are doing it wrong

As the debate over healthcare reform nears the final rounds-- the last desperate punches are being thrown, the threat of a government shutdown looms in the near future, another debt-ceiling debacle lurks around the corner, patiently waiting to take another bite out of the country's credit rating and the economy-- the airwaves have been flooded by pundits, talking heads and various experts who just happen to have great media skills.

All of them are ready with a simple headline, talking point or summary that encapsulates a sentiment which amounts to this: this is an easy problem to fix/avoid, the country just needs to do X.

Whether the answer is to stop mandating how Americans choose to live (healthcare, abortion), or stop doing things that hurt the middle class (cutting education funding, food stamps) the answer, according to these sages of the airwaves is so simple that anyone who does not do it must be an idiot.

I wonder why these problems haven't been fixed yet? The solutions are so simple.

Part of the answer as to why it seems that the country is caught in a deep ideological divide that cannot be bridged is because everyone has a simple answer.

The challenges that we are trying to deal with at the national level aren't simple problems, ergo they don't have simple answers.

Ideologies are simple, that is why they are popular and easy to sell on the airwaves.

Big government: bad. Big Business: bad

It is generally that easy.

A Luddite might say the answer is to stop relying on technology. A Capitalist might say the answer is to let the market sort it out. A Utopian might say we all need to share and live off of the earth.

End of story, stop X behavior, or take X singular action and poof there go all of the problems. Why won't people just listen?

The Free-Market Fix: Doing Nothing, Solves Nothing

Again, complex problems generally can't be sorted out with simple actions. And-- this part is important--even simple actions have complex consequences in a complex, heterogeneous society.

Why doesn't the government simply get out of the business world, except for moderately taxing profits, and let the market self-correct? Isn't that what laissez-faire economics says? The Invisible
Hand will correct the market.

Invoking Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is the magic formula for getting government out of business. It is simple, an oscillation of self-correction like the classic wolves and rabbits poulation example from Biology 101: More wolves makes less rabbits, less rabbits leads to less wolves, which leads to more rabbits and so forth.

Simple. And wrong. (Also, if you believe in that as a format for commerce, you are encouraging anarchy-like, to-the-death business practices)

There are two major issues (well, actually it is not that simple either, but bear with me) with the laissez-faire model that have led to modern economists ditching the laissez-faire model (the real ones, not the ones who make a paycheck for spouting what someone wants them to say). First, businesses are out to make a profit, not to make things better for the consumer. Which plays into the second factor, pure competition is not a great way to make profit.

Sure, if monopolies are broken up, they can't drive up prices because there is more competition. But, just because multiple companies have to compete for market share, does not mean that they cannot draw their battle lines in a way to minimize risk--and maximize profits across the board.

That means that just because Apple and Samsung or Pepsi and Coke are competing doesn't mean that the price is going to go down dramatically.

Companies realize that even an incomplete market share can generate tidy profits as long as the margin is big enough. Simply put, they tacitly agree not to start a price war. They offer incentives that include sale prices, but neither company will drastically undercut the other because they both would rather take guaranteed profits over the risk associated with trying to win a true competition.

It gets worse. "Competitors" can outright agree to simultaneously raise prices to increase profits for both, ensuring that neither loses significant market share (well, depending on the price-elasticity of the product and pain point of the consumer--I did warn you that it is not simple).

So that is why the government needs to be involved in regulating business. The government's job is to level the playing field between buyers and sellers. How much government should be involved is another complex question.

If you don't believe me, watch this clip from the film A Beautiful Mind. It is about a real economist, John Nash, who made Adam Smith's model obsolete.

The healthcare reform plan draws on this understanding of leveling playing fields. The consumer pain point for healthcare is pretty high (if you don't pay, you could die--are you going to refuse treatment because of cost?)

That is why there is health insurance. Of course, some people are more expensive to insure-- they have more costly medical conditions. Insurance companies realized that healthy people are more profitable to insure. If one company accepts all of the higher risk patients (riskier to profits) then they are out of business.

Government to the Rescue or Invading Our Freedoms?

By mandating that everyone purchase health insurance, more healthy people are in the system. This allows insurance companies to function with a reasonable risk and accept higher cost patients. As long as the pool of the insured is large, insurance companies can afford to offer coverage to those with preexisting conditions and still make a reasonable profit. Simply put, the government mandate balances the sicker patients higher costs with the insurance companies ability to make a profit.

Is the plan perfect? No. Are there problems associated with it that will need to be addressed in the future? Almost guaranteed.  Should the country scrap it and go back to the old way with sick cancer patients losing health coverage because their treatments are too costly?

One side says simply: Yes.
They want their profits back without all of these tedious regulations. So they are running this ad:

Of course, this debate is not as simple as a gloved, governmental finger in the rear.  And it has been argued many times, and will be argued many more. But anyone who tries to tell you that the answer is simple, is simply full of it --and I don't mean full of Creepy Anti-Obamacare Uncle Sam.


Bonus: Daily Show compares Creepy Uncle Sam to Burger King Mascot and more.

More from the ‘Merica Machine: Egypt, do you know what your problem is? You aren’t ‘Merican enough.

Congresspersons Michele Bachmann, Steve King and Louie Gohmert traveled to Egypt and held a press conference. It turns out that they have all of the solutions to Egypt’s problems. Egypt simply needs to be more, well, more American. 

In this truly bizarre conference the Representatives of the United States Congress seemed to lose sight of the fact that, in Egypt, their audience isn’t full of fundamentalist, conservative Americans.  Seriously, watch the video from The Daily Show below.
 

Jon Stewart and Co’s befuddlement is orders below what I imagine the Egyptian peoples’ was. (The full video of the press conference can be found here ).

True to form, they were condescing from the get-go, like they were talking to children. Michele Bachmann's introduction set the tone: "My name is Michele Bachmann and I am a member United States Congress of the United  States of America." This preceded a bizarre parade of references to the American Founding Fathers and their infallible wisdom (from their silence, we are to assume the Founding Fathers agree with everything that is said about them).

 Let me clarify this: Egypt isn’t America.

I am sure most Americans would not take it kindly if someone from Russia or Germany came to tell America that we should act more like them and less like us.

Being American has a lot of benefits—children aren’t forced to work in sweatshop factories, we aren’t subject to an autocratic theological regime--unless these three actually get their way and make the US a “Christian” nation in which loving thy neighbor means telling them exactly what to do and how to live.

In Egypt, the people revolted and overthrew the rule of a dictator. In the elections that followed, the Muslim brotherhood took control of the government. The government then started to enact legislation that forced the entire country to live by the strict fundamentalist religious guidelines of their particular interpretation of Islam.

The funny thing about the three Congresspersons giving the press conference in Egypt is that they are very anti-autocratic Muslim law.  If it was Christian law that was being forced on to the people—in Egypt or in America—then those three start to sing a very different tune:

Steve King thinks that it is okay for a Christian to run over dogs as long as he apologizes.

Louie Gohmert thinks that not forcing members of the military to be Christian is infringing on their First Amendment rights, and that the Aurora shootings are a direct result of attacks on Christianity. 

And Michele Bachmann—there are far too many examples to quote. 

One of the benefits of being American that I personally forget to take advantage of on a regular basis is the right to be completely condescending to every other person in the world who isn’t American or Christian. 

Like Stewart says, someday Egypt might just figure it out and leave something that lasts. Something iconic that will be in people’s minds whenever they think of Egypt. Learn from America’s history because we are America and in American we have things that were built over 200 years ago.

It is a good thing that these three were there to guide the way.

In all of the turmoil of Egypt’s revolution-- and resultant election and then subsequent military overthrow of the government-- at least there is one thing in which the Egyptian people can take comfort: at least these there aren’t part of their government.

A rose by any other name...could kill you

GMOs, (Not-so)Deadly Apple juice and the most dangerous chemical in the world.

The most dangerous chemical in the world is found in almost every type of food, but the government won’t ban it, or even require it to be labeled.  Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is a major part of acid rain and it can be deadly to inhale. DHMO inhalation on average kills two children aged 14 years or younger every day (CDC). But, the major media outlets and their corporate sponsors run propaganda campaigns touting the benefit of DHMO.

DHMO really is the most deadly and destructive chemical in the world. Damage caused by DHMO costs the government and insurance companies billions of dollars every year. DHMO has been a major cause of death and destruction in some of the worst disasters in recent memory.

Hopefully, something about this doesn’t smell quite right to you, although I am telling the complete 100% percent, factual, sourced truth.

Well, mostly.

I did however omit the common name of DHMO in favor of its sinister sounding chemical name. There are also a few benefits of DHMO I haven’t mentioned. Like the fact that it improves athletic performance, it is essential to functioning ecosystems, and the fact that there would be no life on this planet without DHMO.

That’s right, dihydrogen monoxide is an odorless, colorless killer, but humanity has no choice but to live in fear of the dangers posed by DHMO.

Alright, so DHMO is really the long-form chemical name for the chemical formula H₂0.

Water. It is deadly. 

Thanks to DHMO.org for this image

Every week it seems that there is a VNR on the local or national news. A daytime talk show host has someone on their show with a doctor title (although they don’t always tell you what the doctorate is in) who tells the audience in a concerned and sympathetic voice why they should be afraid of what is in their food.

Enter “Frankenfoods”  like the so-called Golden Rice. Be afraid- be very afraid. They are not natural. They are made by mad scientists or some type of alchemists. Of course, keeping things the way they are found in nature is always better, right?  (See, natural fallacy). So stop drinking your artificially purified water (including bottled “spring” water, it has to be purified before it can be sold).

Facebook activists, documentary film makers and others have brought the anti-GMO debate onto the national stage.

Wait, I think I’ve heard this before…

Two summers ago, it was Dr. Oz, the white-toothed TV doctor who could easily find work as a used car salesman, who made American audiences aware of the danger of drinking apple juice in his segment “Arsenic in Apple Juice.”

America's response: “What?! Arsenic is a deadly chemical used in terror attacks and it is in our apple juice! I give that to my kids.”

And that is just the type of sensational headline and reaction the Dr. Oz and his writers –or, more to the point, the companies that advertise in his time slot –love.

What an important thing to bring to light: an everyday substance that can cause real danger to vulnerable, innocent children. Pictures of little Suzy in pigtails drinking a bottle of drain cleaner springs to mind.

And we can’t have that. Poisoning kids is wrong.

End of story.

These companies should be flogged, drawn and quartered and run out of America. This isn’t some third-world country where companies can just exploit the health of children for corporate gain. Mom blogs and Facebook groups took action in outrage, forcing the FDA to announce that it was reevaluating its arsenic standards.

Well, I am glad that the good Doctor saved our children from “Arsenic in Apple Juice.”

On second thought, I call Bull*&%t.

People have been drinking apple juice for decades, and we are just finding out about it know. So where are the lines of victims carrying their children to Emergency Rooms? Where are the insurance forms that ask:

Please Check Yes or No for the following:

Are You a Smoker:

Do You drink Apple Juice:

Subsequent reports found that Dr. Oz’s claims had several faults. First, not all arsenic is toxic. There is the inorganic chemical variety, which is what was put in the terrorist letters. Then there is the organic variety, which is benign. Then, there is the fact that every test that tried to replicate Dr. Oz’s results (including the FDA) could only find levels that were six time lower than Dr. Oz’s. In fact, arsenic is generally always present in the human body. So, as long as apple juice is not the only thing that one eats or drinks, there is nothing to worry about (and likely not even then).

Franken-Food for Vitamins?

There might also be arsenic in rice, according to several more scientific studies. Although the levels are not likely to be a risk to any Americans.

However, in many parts of the world, hundreds of millions of people can only afford to eat rice for almost every meal.  Arsenic is only one of the chemicals that someone who eats rice for almost every meal needs to worry about.  Pesticides, which contain chemicals that make arsenic look like a candy cane,  have to be sprayed on rice to keep insects from eating the crop. Oh, and the fact that a rice-only diet doesn’t have a lot of those vitamin things.

Genetically-modified "Golden" rice is resistant to insects, so it doesn’t require pesticide sprays and it has increased levels of beta-keratin which helps with the human body synthesize and absorb vitamins. So, Golden Rice is a short term solution to keeping the poor healthy and pesticide-free. What a terrible thing these mad scientists are doing.

But, Monsanto…, say the activists. Well, Monsanto may be the epitome of shitty, big-businesses -pardon my French. If one wants to protest their business practices, fine. But just because I don’t trust Fords, doesn’t mean that I will give up driving altogether.

Hundreds of companies use bad business practices. The only time they really change is when one of two things happens:

One, the government takes legal action against a company to the extent that it hurts the bottom-line – but lobbying paying companies don’t see that extensive action very often.

Or, public opinion creates enough of a controversy that it hurts a company’s bottom line.

That is just the problem. Like Monsanto or not, like GMOs or not they outrage being created isn't about what the TV, or Facebook, or other  actvists sources tell us.

Creating a public scare, or public outrage is just a way to get things done. Public opinion generally still relies on what used to be the fourth estate the (press/media) of American freedom to put a check on the government and shady businesses. Big businesses now mostly control the media, which have a large stake in swaying politicians through their checkbooks.

So, the point is that the media, Dr Oz and the anti-X activists are selling something. Which makes them completely trustworthy.