Monthly Archives: September 2011


Olbermann calls out media hypocrisy on ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest

The article from Rawstory, Olbermann calls out media hypocrisy on ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest, provided the following quote and video clip.

Keith Olbermann pointed out Wednesday night on Countdown that the major newspapers had been ignoring the five-day-long “Occupy Wall Street” protests, but would have scrambled to cover a similar-sized tea party protest.


I think this is about the third time I have made a blog post about this protest. I have also previously noted the lack of coverage in the main stream press.

The two previous posts are “Days of Rage” Occupy Wall St. and Occupy Wall Street organizer: Republicans are the ones waging class warfare.


Pa. school cancels play about Muslim poet

The story Pa. school cancels play about Muslim poet appears in The Boston Globe. The start of this story from AP follows:

A Pennsylvania school district has decided not to stage a musical about a Muslim street poet after community members complained about the timing so soon after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

I can’t even imagine what is going through your mind.  What kind of story is their about a Muslim Poet?  Is there a punch line to this blog post?

Wait, for it.  The play about a Muslim poet is the musical “Kismet”.

In the version about this story titled, Western Pennsylvania School Cancels Kismet in Wake of 9/11 Anniversary, they add the commentary:

Musicals like Rent and Godspell have encountered resistance on the school and community levels after their acclaimed Broadway runs, and now the 1953 Tony Award-winning musical Kismet faces a similar destiny in western Pennsylvania.

Yes, it is that “Kismet”.  The very musical my parents were thrilled to see on Broadway before we knew we were supposed to be afraid of musicals about Muslim poets.

I don’t know who thought up the headline  for the story as it appeared in The Boston Globe.  Maybe it was purposely chosen to give you a good shock when you found out what play they were talking about.

According to the AP story:

“Kismet’’ is an Aladdin-style love story set in Baghdad more than 1,000 years ago.

I suppose that movie theaters must now refrain from showing Disney’s “Aladdin” at any time near 9/11.

The irony for me is that I can imagine that many people reading this blog post (including some of my relatives) will be mystified at why I am making such a big deal of this.  To me, it is such a big deal because such blatant racism will seem so totally reasonable to people who claim to abhor racism.


Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers: The AP Releases Misleading Analysis of Obama’s Tax Plan

Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers: The AP Releases Misleading Analysis of Obama’s Tax Plan says the following:

As Hanlon noted, “AP’s ‘fact check’ misses the point of the Buffett rule. The point is not to ensure that rich people on average pay higher taxes than middle-class people on average,” but “to ensure that all households with incomes above $1 million pay at least what middle-class families are paying.”

This is not the first time this month that the AP’s “fact-checkers” have bungled the facts regarding Obama’s economic plans. At this rate, they should think about opening a new division to fact-check the fact-checkers.

This is no surprise to me.  When I saw the headline for the AP story, I didn’t even bother to read the story.  I knew that it would be a distortion.

After reading the exposé, I decided to follow the link to the AP story, FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? Here is the red-flag.

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

What does that even mean?  How did they take the average?  Did they average the percentages of all the included taxpayers?  Did they weight the averages by the amount of income earned by each tax payer? When the income of people making more than $1 million ranges from that $1 million to several billion dollars, then the average weighted by income is quite skewed from the average weighted by the numbers of taxpayers in each category.

When the article uses such imprecise terms, you know the article is an example covered by Greenberg’s Law Of The Media.

Another of the many red flags in the article include:

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

That is what I call half a statistic.  They don’t say it, but they obviously want you to infer that 10% of the households paying 70% of the federal income taxes is too much taxation.  To know if this inference is correct, you’d have to know what fraction of the income these 10% of households make, but they don’t tell you that.  Even if they did tell you about the declared income, they would be leaving out the unrealized capital gains of these wealthy people which may dwarf the income the IRS requires them to report as income. So to paraphrase Bill Clinton “It all depends on what the meaning of income is.”

Of course the quote is not going to emphasize that paying only 50% of federal taxes while paying 70% of all federal income taxes means that there are other hefty federal taxes other than income taxes that the less wealthy pay in larger percentages than the wealthy.

To use these tricks in their article, you would almost have to conclude that the article is purposely distorting the facts or the authors are totally ignorant of how they are misusing the numbers.  Personally, I don’t need people to report the news who know less about it than I do.  I certainly don’t need reporters who tell lies in their reports.

Click on the link under categories at the right side of this window for Greenberg’s Law Of The Media to see other articles in that category.  In the set of articles that come up, you might notice Associated Press the Faux Noise of the Print Media.


The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Recalls Obama’s Fall From Grace

For those few of us who still appreciate him, The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Recalls Obama’s Fall From Grace, is a worthwhile read.

It is hard to find just one thing to quote from the article.  The one I have chosen is just the easiest one, not necessarily the best one.

“Once that media-spun narrative is out there, from that point on all you hear is critiques of the narrative, deconstruction of the narrative, debates concerning the narrative, affirmations of the narrative, attacks on the narrative, with nobody talking about substance, because we don’t even know what substance is,” Wright said.

If you are not a fan of Rev. Wright, don’t bother to read the article.  The opening remarks of the author of the piece will have your eyes and ears flapping closed so fast that you won’t be able to see the words in the rest of the article even if your eyes wander over each and every one of them.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

By the way, I don’t agree with everything that is in the article.


The President Should Not Say Things That He Believes To Be Untrue

James Fallows wrote the article I Wonder If President Obama Really Believes This. He starts with the following paragraphs:

Read the two bits of testimony by Congressional staffers — one Democratic, one Republican — about the nihilist freefire zone that is the modern Congress. Then consider President Obama’s Labor Day pledge:

“We’ve got a lot more work to do to recover fully from this recession,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m going to propose ways to put America back to work that both parties can agree to because I still believe both parties can work together to solve our problems.”

An objective observer must of course conclude that in fact there is no way “to put America back to work that both parties can agree to,” because not agreeing is, for today’s Republican leadership, a paramount goal.

Brad DeLong’s post James Fallows: I Wonder If President Obama Really Believes This makes the following remark:

Put me down as somebody who believes that the President of the United States should not say things that he believes to be untrue. He is then relying on people’s believing that they know what you really mean–that they are in on the con–to keep them from thinking that he is a fool.

Brad DeLong has captured exactly what it is that makes me so upset when the President acts like he can get some agreement from the Republicans.  Does Obama think it is Presidential to act the fool?

Obama’s recent pronouncements where he talks about what he almost really wants for tax policy and talks about veto if he doesn’t get what he wants is the beginning of the reversal of playing the role of the fool.  Let’s see if his actions back up his words.  Too many times before we have seen Obama negotiate with himself and lose.

The point of not responding to Obama’s latest remarks with “All is forgiven” is to keep the pressure on him to follow through with actions commensurate with the talk.


Michael Moore: Liberals will come home to Obama

In the video below, Michael Moore describes how he thinks that liberals will come back to Obama.


I have perverted a reader’s emailed comment that talk is cheap to mean that it is one thing for President Obama to say he will veto the Republicans’ attempt to cut Medicare without also raising taxes on the wealthy. It is quite another to see him actually do it.

When Obama actually follows through on his threat, you may see the liberals coming home.


Occupy Wall Street organizer: Republicans are the ones waging class warfare

The summary of the video below comes from the article Occupy Wall Street organizer: Republicans are the ones waging class warfare on the Raw Story web site.

David Graeberm, one of the organizers of the “Occupy Wall Street” protest, said Monday on Democracy Now that it was Republicans, not President Barack Obama, who were engaged in class warfare.

“Well, generally speaking, when you hear a Republican talk about class warfare, you know they’re waging it,” he said. “I think that the easiest way to put what’s going on in perspective is to think the situation in the ’50s under Eisenhower, who was of course a Republican president, when tax rates on the wealthiest were actually 90 percent. I don’t remember the economy freezing up and falling apart in the 1950s. In fact, it was booming.”

“I think that for the last 30 years we’ve seen a political battle being waged by the super-rich against everyone else,” Graeberm added.


The more significant part of this video may be the discussion at the end about debt restructuring. David Graeberm talks about how debt restructuring between the wealthy or between countries is common place, yet debt owed by the poor to the rich is considered to be sacrosanct and should not be restructured.

Maybe this difference is a natural consequence of the wealthy and nations having the resources to hire good lawyers and large armies to fight their creditors whereas the poor have no power to resist their creditors if the poor should default.