The War Economy

April 5th, 2011 by Whitey 2 comments »

The military has become an integral part of our economy. What happens when something becomes incredibly profitable?…Will we get more of it, or less of it?

Weaponry is one of the last remaining manufacturing sectors in the U.S. We are the largest producer and exporter of arms and munitions on earth. The U.S. Government spends more on the military than all other nations combined—about $1 trillion annually. The cost of our military adds tremendously to the deficit. Conservatives typically ignore military spending and favor cuts in social program instead (what they call “entitlements”; i.e., programs that assist people in need). Of course, it isn’t just conservatives. There are many in congress who have military jobs in their district or state that they aim to protect by voting to maintain (or increasing) military spending. Also, private military contractors make massive political donations that make peace candidates almost non-existent. With these elements in place, it makes it very difficult to rein in our ever-expanding military.

We now have over half a million military personnel serving on more than 737 military bases all over the world. These bases are on more than 130 countries. According to the late military scholar, Chalmers Johnson, these bases facilitate the “policing” of the globe and are meant to ensure that no other nation, friendly or hostile, can ever challenge us militarily. He predicts that military spending will “sooner or later…threaten our nation with bankruptcy.” Many would argue that a strong military is necessary because it is a deterrent to potential adversaries. Really? Then explain to me why our tax-payer-funded military bases include a ski center, over 200 military golf courses, dozens of luxury jets, and many luxury hotels. Conservatives like to compare government (public) workers (such as military personnel and Wisconsin teachers) with private workers, insisting, for instance, that Wisconsin teacher, police, and firefighters’ pensions and wages are too generous compared to what private workers are paid (to justify why unions should be crushed). So I am sure they will not want to make the argument that military personnel should have private golf courses and other superfluous luxuries that those in the private sector do not enjoy. Come on! We don’t need 200 military golf courses…but we do need more and better-paid teachers! If we are sincere about the deficit, there are plenty of places in the military to cut–including out-dated Cold War-era nuclear facilities and weapons.

In 1961, President Eisenhower delivered his farewell address. His message was a warning against the massive influence of the military:

“We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist” (source). See the video of the speech:

See this excellent interview with filmmaker Eugene Jarecki: (his film, “Why We Fight”, is included in its entirely at the end of the post.)

Listen to this radio interview with Eugene Jarecki about the military-industrial complex: Unwarranted Influence

Article #1 – Worldwide Military Bases

Article #2 – Civilian Control of Military is a Joke

Article #3 – The Hidden National Security Budget

Néstor Kirchner of Argentina,

NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: [translated] Bush told me the best way to revitalize the economy is war and that the United States has grown stronger with war. Those were his exact words.

OLIVER STONE: Were there any eye-to-eye moments with President Bush that day, that night?

NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: [translated] I say it’s not necessary to kneel before power. Nor do you need to be rude to say the things you have to say to those who oppose our actions. We had a discussion in Monterey. I said that a solution to the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war and that the United States has grown stronger with war.

OLIVER STONE: War. He said that?

NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: [translated] He said that. Those were his exact words.

OLIVER STONE: Was he suggesting that South America go to war?

NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: [translated] Well, he was talking about the United States. The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by the various wars. He said it very clearly. President Bush is—well, he’s only got six days left, right?

OLIVER STONE: Yes.

NÉSTOR KIRCHNER: [translated] Thank God.

JUAN GONZALEZ: That was former President Kirchner. And these comments of President Bush that he says about the United States growing strong through war, I don’t think that’s ever been reported anywhere.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this issue of war and, of course, the statement that President Bush made, which to me was startling, is, in essence, when our government goes to war, not only does it spend huge amounts of money that it turns over to the contractors who assist the war, but also technological development always increases sharply, sponsored by the government. And then, after the war, these same companies then use the new technological development to open up new arenas of business. So, in that sense, I think Bush was talking about how war—

OLIVER STONE: Yeah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —forces the productive forces ahead and allows capitalism to continue to exploit.

OLIVER STONE: It’s a hard way to die.

(source)

Conclusion

The only way we can control the deficit, reduce war, and promote peace is by putting pressure on our government to change course. We need to “starve the beast” of the military-industrial complex, and perhaps create a Department of Peace, as others have suggested. To learn more about this important topic read on…

» Read more: The War Economy

2 comments »

Posted in Economic Policy, Foreign Policy, War

Tags: economy George Bush military military spending military-industry complex War

Power in a Union

March 7th, 2011 by Whitey No comments »

Have you even wondered why we have the 8-hour work day or the 40-hour work week? Why we have weekends? Why employers frequently provide benefits to employees? And why we have employment insurance, workers compensation, a minimum wage, and worker health & safety laws? We have all of these benefits—which increase the quality of our lives—because of the work of labor unions. Labor unions have been a essential force for democracy in the U.S. for over 100 years. In many cases, members of labor union members were killed by the police as they protested for labor rights. It is not an exaggeration to say they died so you and I could have our weekends off.

“We can thank organized labor for rest rooms and smoke breaks and clean places to eat lunch; for safety laws, paid vacations, sick leave, pension and insurance plans — policies and procedures that most of us take for granted…The labor movement also helped bring us social reforms, such as child-labor regulation, free public education and the concept of equal pay for equal work. We enjoy these gifts whether or not we belong to unions…But one of the biggest contributions from organized labor that we don’t appreciate, because it’s so very close to us, is our middle class way of life. In large measure, organized labor’s efforts over decades established the American middle class. Decent wages and job security allowed workers to buy homes and cars and send their kids to college, which fueled our economy and what we now so easily disdain as middle-class life.” (source)

The essential value that unions provide to workers is that they collectively bargain with employers on behalf of all or part of the organization’s workers, with the threat of a strike. This creates an equal partnership between management and workers; something individual workers don’t have on their own (an individual worker could never walk into management and demand more pay, better benefits, and increased safety procedures). This kind of management-worker partnership is an accepted part of business throughout most of the European Union (see Steven Hill’s book, “Europe’s Promise”), and has led to a much better quality of life across the board, and an even a stronger economy! They have an excellent safety net in place during times of high unemployment, allowing workers to receive job training and placement counseling. It is an excellent way to mitigate market downturns (yes, the European Union is a capitalist economy!), and create quick recoveries.

A friend of mine, who is a professional speaker, calls the corporation “the last monarchy.” He begins his keynote presentation by asking his American business audience if they would rather have a Queen instead of an elected President (my friend is British, by the way). The answer is 100% “no.” He then asks if they would rather have a centrally-planned economy (like totalitarian communism) rather than a free market economy. Again, “no” is the consensus. Then he asks, “If you don’t want these things for your nation, why in the world do you put up with them in your workplace?” (And yes…he does this with management in the room!) He goes on and gives examples of companies that practice democracy in the workplace; for example, companies that allow their workers to elect their management teams and select their own supervisors. His ideas are inspiring and would undoubtedly engage the full capacity of workers in ways that lead to incredible results. However, I don’t think most management teams are willing to make such concessions. In the absence of a massive change of thinking by CEOs across the country, we need a powerful institution like labor unions to bring a sense of democracy and voice to workers, to counter the power differential that exists in the workplace. Down with “the Last Monarchies”! As we will see below, this is not just important for workers in unions, but it is essential to preserving democracy and economic freedom and security.

When Governor Walker of Wisconsin decided to go after public worker unions under the guise of “balancing the budget,” he started a battle against middle-class America (part of a larger war that has been going on ever since the New Deal). After three weeks, the people of Wisconsin are still protesting this outrageous course of action. The governor gave breaks to corporations earlier this year, and now he needs to close the budget gap by taking it out of the last union stronghold: Workers in the public sector.

Unions have been a key institution for creating a thriving middle class in America for the past 100 years (source). Currently, inequality is at nearly a 100-year high in the U.S., and it is highly correlated with the steady decrease in union membership and influence over the past 30 years. (More jaw-dropping data on U.S. inequality.) After its high water mark in the 1950s, union membership started to decrease as the economy shifted to service-based jobs, and manufacturing jobs were sent overseas. The decline of unions accelerated after President Reagan took a hard stand against unions early in his presidency. Big business followed his lead in union busting. As a result, wages have stagnated and wealth has been redistributed upward to the superrich.

For every American citizen who values freedom, equality of opportunity, and hard work, they should support labor unions. Like any institution, labor unions are not perfect, and there are certainly areas that need to be reformed (one improvement would be giving employers options to replace poor performing employees, which is difficult under some union contgracts), but overall, unions serve a very important function that needs to be upheld and strengthened.

In his new book, Joshua Holland writes an excellent chapter on why unions still matter. He says,

“There’s a substantial body of research that shows a crystal-clear relationship between unionization rates, stagnating wages, and increased inequality and poverty. That’s true in all countries…[and they] perform no worse in terms of creating jobs.” Yet there has been a concerted effort by the Corporate Right to turn the American people against unions; to make them believe that, “unions are corrupt, perhaps even mobbed up, and their work helps only union bosses and their political patrons, while screwing over workers.”

A New Kind of Capitalism

February 20th, 2011 by Whitey 2 comments »

“Capitalists have done a remarkably poor job of safeguarding the future of capitalism.” (source)

Capitalism can mean dramatically different things to different people. To a Wall Street executive it means being able to accumulate unimaginable wealth. To big business it may be a competitive game that must be won at all costs, even at the expense to the public interest. To a small businessman with a great idea, it might mean being able to turn his passion into an occupation, and enjoy the freedom of self-employment. To many, it is a system that has increased the standards of living for millions. To its victims, capitalism is a monster whose greed leaves many behind, and even commits great crimes against vulnerable citizens. Which view is correct? All of them.

If by “capitalism” we mean creating markets that meet the needs of the public, allowing the best ideas and products to succeed through demand, then this is a highly democratic system that should be encouraged. If capitalism means “greed is good,” and we should look out for our own self-interest at all costs than this is a very anti-social, destructive philosophy that must be tempered.

According to Mother Jones Magazine, “Just before the market crashed, one Wall Street manager wrote to another, ‘Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters.’” This is one small example of how the greedy version of capitalism can lead to untold suffering (market crash, lost retirements, unemployment, etc.).

Over the past two years, as the dust of the Great Recession began to settle, a host of business leaders and prominent economic leaders have started to imagine a new kind of capitalism; one that is responsible, broadly-enjoyed, and sustainable. Below, we have included excerpts from these leaders, including Bill Gates, Michael Porter, Elizabeth Warren, James Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz, Fareed Zakaria, and others.

There are common themes in their writings, including the need to regulate corporations, balance the interests of the public and private profit, and the need to have a strong social purpose that goes beyond the profit motive.

Keep reading. » Read more: A New Kind of Capitalism

2 comments »

Posted in Corporations, Economic Policy

Tags: Bill Gates capitalism Corporate responsibility Elizabeth Warren Fareed Zakaria greed James Galbraith Joseph Stiglitz Michael Porter reform Social capitalism Social responsibility

Infrastructure: The Best Government Investment

February 5th, 2011 by Whitey No comments »

In his recent State of the Union speech, President Obama promoted infrastructure development as an essential component to remaining competitive in the world, for providing jobs, and keeping our economy strong. Here’s what he said:

“Our infrastructure used to be the best, but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”

We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, constructed the Interstate Highway System. The jobs created by these projects didn’t just come from laying down track or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town’s new train station or the new off-ramp.

So over the last two years, we’ve begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. And tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble those efforts. (Applause.)

We’ll put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We’ll make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based [on] what’s best for the economy, not politicians.”

Infrastructure spending was only 7.5% of the 2009 stimulus. Yet one dollar invested in infrastructure has a return of $1.59 in GDP growth, while most tax cuts don’t even return 50 cents.

“The performance of the nation’s transportation system is not keeping pace with the rate of growth of the demands on that system,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “As our economy recovers, the nation’s transportation infrastructure must be prepared to meet the projected growth in freight and population. Yet our index shows that from now through 2015 there will be a rapid decline in the performance of the system if we continue business as usual. Right now we’re on an unsustainable path.”

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained, “The one thing we know is that the good thing about federal spending is it’s actually spent, that it actually does boost the economy. And if it’s infrastructure, it also leaves you with something of value afterwards. Whereas if you do it the way the Republicans want to do it, which is always tax breaks, first of all, it might not be not be spent or it might not help the economy at all. And then, you’ve got nothing to show for when the thing is over.”

See this press release by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Chris Farrell’s Bloomberg article, “U.S. Infrastructure Spending: No Time to Get Cheap,”

“Spending now on infrastructure stimulates the economy in a way that will help provide for long-term higher economic growth that will increase future tax revenue and bring down the debt-to-GDP ratio,” says David Aschauer, economist at Bates College.

The most striking example in U.S. history of the economic payoff from infrastructure expenditures has been largely obscured with time: the building of the Erie Canal. It was a 363-mile-long canal dug through the middle of New York State. A bold adventure, it cost about $7 million, an astounding sum equal to more than a third of all the banking and insurance capital in New York State (and more than three-quarters of the federal budget in 1810). The Canal was started in 1817 and finished 8 years later, after much political wrangling.

Perhaps even more striking (considering the current economic climate), after the panic of 1818 the price of money and labor fell sharply when the economy sank into recession. “By 1820, the canal commissioners were drawing contracts at prices 30 percent to 40 percent below what they had paid during the first three years of construction,” notes the late Peter Bernstein in Wedding of the Waters: The Erie Canal and the Making of a Great Nation.

When it was done, the cost of commercial transport plunged. For instance, it had taken three weeks and $120 to send a ton of flour from Buffalo to New York City before the canal opened. Afterwards, it took 8 days and $6. “The Erie Canal would prove to be the most consequential public works project in American history and make New York, both state and city, the linchpins of the American economy for more than a century,” writes historian John Steele Gordon in An Empire of Wealth. (source)

“In their 2005 paper, ‘Healthy Returns,’ they calculated that Americans gained more than $788 billion a year from transportation infrastructure and paid taxes and fees of $185 billion to support that infrastructure…’These findings establish clearly that strong commitments to surface transportation and the spending required to support it well serve America’s economic interest,’ they concluded.

Conclusion

The construction industry is in a depression, with about 20% unemployment. A national infrastructure investment will immediate improve the lives of hundred of thousands of workers in the construction industry, it will revitalize this critical part of our economy, it will improve public safety by improving our run-down public infrastructure, and it will inject new money into the economy in a way that will give us a strong return. Enough fear-mongering about the deficit. We need a substantial injection of capital into infrastructure now. Republicans need to stop filibustering initiatives to pass infrastructure investments. And Democrats need to make this priority number one! It is a priority that will affect all Americans in a positive way.

Further Reading:

http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/pfma06/EdwardGramlich.pdf

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf34/conf34b.pdf

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2010/september/us-chamber-commerce-releases-first-ever-indexes

No comments »

Posted in Economic Policy

Tags: economy infrastructure Obama

Why We Need a Green Revolution

January 30th, 2011 by Whitey 2 comments »

It is time to get past the false choices that we’ve been presented with in regard to the environment. The typical “either/or” thinking about all things “green,” and the inaction that results, has left us behind much of the industrial world. The discussion should not be a choice between economics or the environment, or capitalism verses nature. And we should be well beyond the debate between global warming alarmists and climate-change deniers. We have some who correctly state that, ”2010 remains on pace to be the hottest or second-hottest year ever recorded” (source); while others use a snow storm in D.C. to “prove” that global warming isn’t real (source).

The bottom line is this: Climate change (or global warming, if you like) is a well-tested, provable fact, not a hypothesis. The question that scientists have been working on in recent years has been, “To what extent is global warming being influenced by human behavior?” This is a key question because the answer empowers us to do something about this problem, especially as we learn more about the devastating consequences of global warming to our planet. The answer from the scientific community has been an overwhelming, “yes, it is caused by human activity.” Now we can take action to reverse the trends. Right?

Wrong. Unfortunately, there is serious opposition to taking action. Energy companies spend millions funding junk science front groups who will try to keep an element of doubt about global warming in the minds of voters. Conservatives have largely been in the pockets of big oil, defending the status quo of dirty energy at every turn. Rather than fighting regulation and supporting big oil’s interests, the business community should be supporting clean energy, and the new jobs and vibrant economy that will come with this vital and emerging field. It is destined to be the next big economic bubble—certainly something conservatives should be able to get behind.

President Obama used the word “energy” nine times in his recent State of the Union address. He sees the need for a green revolution as a way of creating jobs, filling our ever-increasing energy demands, and yes, a national security measure. He said in last week’s speech:

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology -– (applause) — an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we’re seeing the promise of renewable energy…we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. (Applause.)

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. (Applause.) I don’t know if — I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. (Laughter.) So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. (Applause.)

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

Thomas L. Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, has made a similar argument about the need for a green revolution to propel our economy toward greater competition (see clips below).

Thomas L. Friedman

Friedman’s more recent book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–and How It Can Renew America, makes an excellent case for why we need a green revolution now.

2 comments »

Posted in environment

Tags: climate change environment global warming

State of the Union 2011: A Review

January 27th, 2011 by Whitey 2 comments »

President Obama’s State of the Union speech was a clear signal that he wants to work with House Republicans to get things done over the next two years. He focused on making America more competitive through education, infrastructure development, better government, and innovation. He spent more time on proposing a centrist agenda moving forward than he did on touting his accomplishments of the past year. Almost of of his proposals are centrist policy prescriptions–things that are difficult for anyone to disagree with. A CBS New Poll reported that 92% of people who watched the speech approved of Obama’s proposals, with only 8% who disapproved. The tone of his speech, and the agenda he is pursuing, are signs that he wants to keep going full steam to get things done, in spite of losing the House. But this is also a sign that he is gearing up for 2012.

See Rachel Maddow’s analysis on how Obama is steering to the center–the real center.

Here is a great breakdown of the speech by the Washington Post.

Manufacturing of Consent

January 26th, 2011 by Whitey 1 comment »

Democracy requires the free flowing information, critical thinking skills, and broad participation. When monopoly powers of any kind interfere with these principles, democracy suffers. Today, more than ever before, our democracy (or “Democratic Republican,” if you like) is under assault by monopoly powers–powers that control the media, political representatives, and write the rules for our society. Policy that flows from the interests of the powerful would never be accepted by the electorate, and using force wouldn’t work today (and would interfere with kind of market “freedom” that the powerful want to uphold). So the only way to get the electorate to go along with the interests of the powerful is to use propaganda. People’s consent must be engineered, manufactured. (…And it explains why conservatives still exist today, despite such broad access to real facts!)

The powerful have been using this method for centuries, but with greater sophistication since World War I. This explains why a citizen could make a comment like, “Keep your government hands of my medicare”; it explains why they would support repealing the “death tax,” which only effects the heirs of the very wealthy. It explains the strong connection that many Americans make between love of country and support for military strength and war. It explains why an under-paid employee will reject the idea of a labor union, viewing it as connected to socialism. More recently, it explains the overall low polling scores of the healthcare bill of 2010—even though most Americans accept specific ideas in the bill, many are willing to march to Washington with the Tea Party in protest…not realizing that they would benefit greatly from many aspects of the new law.

Understanding how power works is critical for citizens in a democracy, because it empowers them to fight back, and to remain independent. One of the best models for understanding power in general, and thought control specifically, is MIT professor Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model. Chomsky has been called by the New York Times, “Arguably the most important intellectual alive.” The Nation magazine has said, “Not to have read him is to court genuine ignorance.” The Boston Globe called him, “America’s most useful citizen.” The New York Times Books Review proclaims: “Chomsky is a global phenomenon…perhaps the most widely read voice on foreign policy on the planet.” He has also been called the most cited living scholar. His propaganda model was developed with Edward Herman. (See links to their books below.)

Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model goes beyond the worn-out narrative of the “liberal media” that was conjured up by the Right. The model does not assume some kind of back-room conspiracy either. It is an “institutional analysis” of how facts become “filtered” to present content to the public that favors the media’s real customer: big businesses, those who advertise with the media establishment. As a result, media content comes out with a bias that favors the interests of those in power: the rich, corporations, etc. (However, there are independent media sources that are supported by consumers rather than “sponsors” and advertisers; some of the best sources are: Democracy Now!, The Nation magazine, public radio and TV, the BBC, Al Jazeera, city weekly magazines…see the links section of this blog). A documentary film about Chomsky’s model was released in 1993 (and it is excellent…and free online!). See also Chomsky’s books, “Media Control,” and “Necessary Illusions.”

We have included a summary of the propaganda model here. This model should be studied by all who seek the liberation and empowerment of ordinary citizens.

Propaganda Model

Five Filters Intro from Keyvan on Vimeo.

Chomsky Video

Good summary from Wikipedia (source):

Editorial Bias: Five Filters

Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model” describes five editorially-distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:

Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners – often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.

The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a “de-facto licensing authority”. Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working-class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”

Flak and the Enforcers: “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet’s public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.

Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the “War on Terror“, as the major social control mechanism.

» Read more: Manufacturing of Consent

1 comment »

Posted in Propaganda

Tags: critical thinking manufacturing consent propaganda model

First Order of Business: Healthcare Repeal?

January 7th, 2011 by Whitey No comments »

House Republicans have made repeal of the healthcare bill their number one priority. Politico reported: “The House on Friday cleared a key procedural hurdle in repealing the landmark health care law, voting 236-181 largely along party lines to move ahead to next week’s final vote on repeal.”

Republicans say they care about the deficit. They don’t. The care about staying in power. Their are major contradictions in their approach to healthcare.

First, these two things can’t both be true:

The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office says repealing healthcare would cost the country $230 billion over ten years (in other words, the new healthcare law will save the country that amount over ten years
Republicans say that “the healthcare bill does nothing to rein in costs.”

In their eyes, the reason it does not rein in costs is because Obama and the Democrats got it done. If Republicans had passed the same bill, they would embrace the CBO assessment about cutting costs.

Second, they say, “Let’s start from scratch,” but their “Pledge to American” says their version of a new healthcare bill has most of the same points as the one that passed. Why does their alternative plan have many of the same ideas? Because many elements in the bill poll very well as stand-alone items, even though the bill as a whole has been effectively demonized and is polling poorly. So which is it? Are these things a disaster for our system, as Speaker Boehner alleges, or are most aspects of the law good for America, as their Pledge to America would have a us believe?

Bottom-line, it is not going to get repealed…ever. The fact say it is, by and large, a good thing for America. And Republicans have dig themselves into a whole, and they have to stay the course for the sake of power, and they are not looking out for the American people. Period.

See this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010606159.html?hpid=topnews

About the bill: I am glad there will be fewer bankruptcies now (good for the economy and lending in general), fewer uninsured young adults who are in start-up jobs with no benefits (they can now stay on their parent’s insurance longer, and not go to the ER when problems hit—and it allows their employer to keep their costs low for these positions); no child will be uninsured as a result of circumstance beyond their control, and we will get better economies of scale to lower costs when another 30 million newly-insured citizens are force to cover themselves (and lessen the ER approach to doctor visits). I am glad the government is not going into the healthcare business, just expanding regulation of the private healthcare thieves insurance industry. I absolutely love that insurance companies now have to spend a certain percentage of their revenue on direct care (pushing them into a velocity-quantity financial strategy, rather than a “denial-of-care” profit strategy that harms individuals).

Still…we still have not fixed long-term Medicare cost projections; the law probably requires too much paper work from small businesses; and we need to force doctors/clinics/hospitals to publish their costs for consumers, with insurer incentives, to involve consumers in cost control.

At the end of the day, however, the healthcare reform bill is a great thing for Americans. One has to wonder, though, given their agenda, if Republican leadership is good for America. I, for one, seriously doubt it.

No comments »

Posted in Healthcare

Tags: Healthcare House Republicans Pledge to America repeal Republicans

Let’s Take On Right-Wing Think Tanks

December 29th, 2010 by Whitey No comments »

How do you get people to vote against their own interests? How do you get working people to buy-in to false beliefs, such as the theory of trick-down economics? How do you get them to fight against policies and institutions that will give them greater opportunity, such as progressive taxes, regulatory agencies, and workers’ unions? One word: Propaganda.

Since at least the early 20th century, the powerful and privileged have used propaganda, as Walter Lippmann said, to “manufacture consent.” Since the 1950s, one of the primary distribution channels that has been used to disseminate propaganda has been through conservative think tanks. These think tanks are usually privately funded by wealthy families and corporations. They engage in policy research, advocacy, and consulting. Some of the more prominent conservative think tanks include, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hover Institute. Some have called these conservative think tanks a response to “liberal academia.” However, there is a fundamental difference between research conducted at the university and “research” published by conservative think tanks. These think tanks do not have the same level of institutional review that is required at the university. Moreover, think tanks are often exclusively funded by powerful interest groups that have a defined agenda. Not that university research is not funded by interests groups. But there is a code of research ethics and peer-review that helps filter out shoddy research. This is not the case when it comes to conservative think tanks.

This is not to say that all think tanks are negative or turn out poor research. Think tanks like the Brookings Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations are much more independent and bipartisan in their research. The problem with many of the conservative think tanks is that they are not held accountable for the lack of facts contained in their research. The function that they serve is to provide “research” citations—ideology-driven “facts”—for those who are pushing a conservative agenda; whether it is a conservative pushing a big business agenda on the Senate floor, a right-wing pundit trying to create a conservative reality for his listeners, or a columnist or author trying make push a philosophy of free market utopia.

There is nothing wrong with having many voices in a marketplace of ideas—in fact, it is preferable. But when ideas are placed on the alter of public discussion, there should be winners and losers—and ultimately, the facts should stand at the end of the day. Unfortunately this is not what is happening. Propaganda produced by conservative think tanks feeds the myths that reverse progress.

Although left-wing think tanks have also sprung up over the past decade—such as MoveOn.org, ActForChange.com, and TrueMajority.org—they do not have nearly the influence that the right-wing organization have. George Will wrote that liberals were “tardily trying to replicate that [conservative intellectual] infrastructure.” According to a FAIR report, in 2007, of the top 25 media-cited think tanks, the media cited conservative think tanks 37% of the time, whereas progressive were only cited 16% of the time. So much for the “liberal media” myth. As a result, many of the unsupported ideas of these conservative thinks tanks persist in the minds of many voters, leading them to vote against their own interests. Let’s look at one example. » Read more: Let’s Take On Right-Wing Think Tanks

No comments »

Posted in Propaganda

Tags: right-wing propaganda think tanks

The Prince of Peace

December 24th, 2010 by Whitey No comments »

During the holidays, there is ubiquitous paradox that we can see in every Christmas-celebrating consumer. On the one hand, more than at any other time of the year, we are out worshiping the god of materialism, frantically engaged in the busy race to get our Christmas shopping done—elbows out, running shoes on, cutting off the other guy with the accelerator to the floor. It is almost entertaining to observe the bizarre behavior of Christmas shopper (especially in oneself).

On the other hand, it is a time of year that many in our society chose to celebrate the life of Christ—a figure whose life and teaching are a massive contradiction to the bonanza of our shopaholic culture. Yet, in the craziness of it all, we can also see people who are genuinely kind: People who offer to let the other guy go first in line; who let that person merge in front of the on the freeway; who give generously to others in the form of donations or service; and who spend time celebrating the relationships in their lives.

I am tempted to call one group “conservatives” and the other group (the genuine Christians) “liberals.” But that is an unfair, simplistic characterization. In reality, there are gay Republicans and anti-war conservatives, pro-business liberals and anti-immigrant Democrats. The real issue in politics should be this: Are we trying to improve the lives of others or are we supporting policies that make life more difficult for the vulnerable in our society. Instead, we tend to spend our time demonizing the side that we think disagrees with our positions. In a recent interview with Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show made a great point about this us vs. them mentality:

“We’ve all bought in to the [idea that the] conflict in this country is left and right, liberal/conservative, red/blue…It amplifies a division that I don’t think is the right fight…I think the fight in the country is corruption vs. not corruption; extremist vs. regular…My problem is it’s become tribal. [It is a result of the] twenty-four hour networks, whose job is to highlight the conflict between two sides—and I don’t think that’s the main conflict in our society. [I want to] deflate that idea that it is a real conflict in our society, red/blue, democrat/republican. But I feel like there’s a bigger difference between people who have kids and people who don’t have kids than red state/blue state.” (source)

Perhaps the holiday season is a good time to remind ourselves that these divisions are unhealthy, and extending our hand to others is the more productive approach. Whether we celebrate Christmas or not, there is a powerful message in the figure who is praised at Christmas time. And it seems that very few—Christians and or non-Christians—are practicing the kind of compassion advocated by Christ. But it is the practice of compassion that is most needed in our politics and personal lives. So, in the spirit of Christmas, I am going to review the message of Christ. I think there is a very important message in his teachings that we often forget about during the busy holiday season. » Read more: The Prince of Peace

No comments »

Posted in religion

Tags: Christ compassion peace

Page 4 of 9« First...«2 345 6 »...Last »