Showing posts with label FOX News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FOX News. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

FOX NEWS KILLS?

An elderly women passed away on February 16, 2012. Her death is signficant because after she fell ten days earlier she refused to go to the doctor because she didn't want "Obamacare" to get all her information.



Whatever ailments or complications that came after her fall, the fact remains that they were all left unchecked. Her daughter, Tracy Knauss, posted this in her Facebook page.


... when she fell ten days before she died, she refused to go to the doctor because, "I don't want Obamacare to get all of my information! she declared, recalling the warnings from FOX News "anchors." She was emphatic.

Karoli, from Crooks & Liars wrote this:


Don't write this woman off as some ignorant back-country hick. She clearly wasn't. She owned a company at one time. She paid attention to events and politics in the news, or at least, in the news as she understood it. She, like most of her neighbors, voted Republican. But until Fox News came along, Republicans weren't stupid. They had different philosophies about government and its role, but they weren't blatantly invested in advancing a lie-based ideology until Fox News came along.

As she made out her will she told her lawyer, "I don't want any of my money going to the Muslim Brotherhood!" One could assume that, as a follower of Fox News, she's referencing our "Muslim President."

I'm not privvy to the entire story (perhaps she had serious medical problems before). But her sentiments and her refusal to act can't be overstated. Living your life according to misinformation which is spit out to pursue a political agenda does a disservice to every American in the country.

Mainstreaming ignorance, fear, and stupidity is not what the 1st Amendment is supposed to be about.

- Mark

Thursday, January 26, 2012

YEAH, LET'S TAX THE POOR ...

Responding to President Obama's call for a fairer tax code, Fox News is demanding that the poor pay more in taxes. A couple of points here.

First, as I've pointed out elsewhere, President Ronald Reagan was on board with revising the tax code so that millionaires paid a greater share than bus drivers.




Second, even if we turned the poorest Americans into paupers and industrial slaves and taxed and confiscated everything the poorest 50% of Americans own today (about 2.5% of our nation's wealth), this would amount to roughly $1.2 trillion (give or take a few hundred billion).



While $1.2 trillion is a lot of money this amount still wouldn't pay for the first installment of the Wall Street bailout (well above $4 trillion, to date), let alone for the amount that that we, as taxpayers, are now responsible for (between $9-14 trillion).

Third, Adam Smith, the intellectual godfather of capitalism, believed that higher tolls on luxury carriages should be charged. Why? Because the "indolence and vanity of the rich" should be made to pay for the public good.



Fox News ... clueless, again.

- Mark

Saturday, January 14, 2012

FOX NEWS A JOKE ... STILL



Fox News is at it again (actually, they don't ever stop). They're busy trying to give the economy that President Bush left to President Obama a makeover. Put another way, they're lying.

Media Matters has the story, and links, here. I especially like this reference to unemployment rates under Bush (which I blogged about here and here):

In addition to blurring the timeline, media conservatives inflated Bush's economic performance. In August, Limbaugh claimed that Obama inherited "an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent." A few days later, Hannity claimed Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. Fox's Brian Kilmeade hearkened back to a time when things were "a lot better" under Bush, when unemployment was 5 percent. All of these figures are "flat out lies." Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent.

Long story short? Fox News lies, but their viewers don't seem to give a damn. Sigh ...

- Mark

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Thursday, October 27, 2011

BUNKER MENTALITY

Leaders and politicians who understand they can't hold their own in the civilian population often find themselves looking for shelter and comfort. Whether it's at the end of their days in power, or because they need a place to hole up and nurture their crazy ideas, the outcome is the same. They develop a paranoid bunker mentality. With that, here are a couple of famous bunkers that helped protect those whose ideas ultimately couldn't survive the light of day ...

Hitler's bunker ...




Saddam Hussein's Spider Hole ...




Moammar Gaddafi's drainage pipe ...




The high tech bunker of many modern day conservatives ...


Just saying.

- Mark

Thursday, October 13, 2011

BILL O'REILLY: THIS WEEKS VILLAGE IDIOT

While defending Wall Street and the big banks, Fox's Bill O'Reilly asked why there haven't been any investigations into Wall Street criminality if what they did was so bad. In an exchange with Cornell West and Tavis Smiley, O'Reilly argued that there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing because "they didn't violate any laws!"

What an idiot.



We haven't had big investigations - let alone convictions - after the 2008 market collapse because we dumped trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts and other guarantees into the financial sector. In the process we effectively removed the threat of receivership, bankruptcy, disgrace, or the full force of our legal system from Wall Street's horizon. This is the way our legal and political system works for white collar executives with money.

So, it's not that there wasn't illegality and theft in the lead up to 2008. It's just that the rules of the game prevents our financial mandarins from having to account for their actions. And, yes, this undermines the integrity of our market system.



Specifically, O'Reilly needs to take a look at:


Purified Toxic Crap ...
Bailouts essentially turned straw into gold by using taxpayer funded cash, to purchase toxic "legacy assets" for example. To date, well over $5 trillion in watered stock, bad assets, and toxic securities have been pretty much cleaned up (forcibly) by the U.S. government taxpayer. If the worst is cleaned up, what do you go after?

Information Blackouts ...
One of the cornerstones of any market economy - and any democracy - is transparency. Without it you can't get good information. Guess what? Bailout payout information was deliberately withheld from the public on orders from current Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner. With an information blackout the most toxic and ethically challenged market instruments have been able to fly under the radar (and then get cleaned up).

Out of Court Legal Settlements ...
Instead of entering into court battles - which are critical for building precedent and case law - financial firms like Goldman Sachs routinely pay fines into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This is chump change when you look at the trillions the financial industry has hauled in (and the trillions more we're on the hook for). It's hard to get convictions when you can pay a taxpayer subsidized fine and walk away.

Right to Sue is Waived ...
At the center of all the toxic payouts in 2008 was A.I.G. In exchange for getting bailout cash, A.I.G. was forced to give up it's right to sue Wall Street firms in court. In a few words, A.I.G. was given an offer they couldn't refuse: Take the money and shut up, or you don't get any help at all (and you might even get caught up in a legal dragnet too). But it gets better (or is that worse?). At one point during the height of the market crisis in 2008 the Federal Reserve demanded unusual national security procedures before it would share or supply critical A.I.G. bailout related documents.

For whatever reason, none of this adds up for Bill O'Reilly.



So, to simplify, you can't be sued or convicted if the problem is purified with a pile of taxpayer backed cash ... information is deliberately withheld or distorted ... you pay record fines to avoid court trials ... and if the initial keystone bailout institution is told they can't sue as a condition for receiving taxpayer money.

Let me repeat the point. You can't get investigations - let alone sued - if the state intervenes to help you bury the financial bodies. It's that simple.

If you understand this you know why Bill O'Reilly is this weeks Village Idiot.

- Mark

Addendum: As you can imagine, things haven't gotten any better over the years. Corporate America is busy playing Blame Games, and are suing one another for selling toxic crap to one another. Similarly, we're learning about the usual political stonewalling and massive lobbying of state attorney generals, which prevents or undermines larger investigations. All of this is critical for understanding why there haven't been any investigations because of how the FBI acknowledged that "mortgage fraud was substantial" as early as January 2008.

UPDATE: Here's Robert Reich with more examples of Wall Street seeking and getting legislative and legal cover from Washington.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

OCCUPY WALL STREET & FOX NEWS

Check out this interview story, which Fox News decided not to air after the interviewee was told that he had an open mic to “put any message you want out there,” without manipulation ...

The story went viral after The New York Observer (not Fox News) gave the interview some media legs.

So after a news editor admitted "infiltrating" D.C. protests in order to undermine it, and GOP congressman Peter King (a Fox News darling) stated we can't allow more coverage of Occupy Wall Street, a narrative seems to be emerging. Unless it's a Tea Party protest - which defends tax cuts and reckless deregulation (i.e. more of the same) - the Right, and Fox News, want nothing to do with demonstrations on the street that question financial subsidies for corporate America and Wall Street's taxpayer subsidized gains.

One would presume that this is the rationale for the crowd chanting "Fox News Lies!" and forcing Geraldo Rivera to flee an Occupy Wall Street event.

- Mark

Friday, August 19, 2011

FALSE EQUIVALENCY AND THE GOP's CULTURE OF LIES



"The great enemy of the truth is very often
not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest,
but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic."
- John F. Kennedy


Have you ever wondered how Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservatives have been able to convince so many Americans to turn against President Obama, or to work against their own interests? It's tied to disinformation and a culture of lies, and can be traced to something we call false equivalency. Here's how it works.

False equivalency occurs when someone falsely compares what one person did (or does) against a "similar" action without taking into account context, wide differences, and facts that make the comparison ridiculous. It's a technique designed to distract and dilute the facts, which is crucial if you want to muddy the political waters, or provide cover for failure.

It can be as simple as someone staying up all night with a sick baby and then saying, "I'm tired, I didn't sleep at all last night because I stayed up caring for the baby," only to be met with, "Yeah, I'm tired too, I stayed up past my bedtime watching Jay Leno." Another example of a false equivalency (FE) might go something like this claim, which I dealt with yesterday on the Jaz Mckay radio show.


I came to this country as a Canadian, but I assimilated and eventually became a U.S. citizen legally. All Mexicans should be able to assimilate, and become a legal citizen like me, as well.

The reality here - which I incorporated into my reply (after I asked a few questions) - is that assimilation is much easier if you have a law degree (the caller did), if you already speak English, if you're fair skinned, and if you arrive in the U.S. from an Anglo-Saxon country, like Canada. These factors are far different than if you are a poor, uneducated, Spanish-speaking Mexican.

The Canadian-Mexican comparison is not the same. It is a false equivalency comparison designed to ignore or hide very real contrasts.


So, why am I bringing this up? Because of an evolving story that's starting to gain traction in conservative circles. The story began with President Bush in 2008 (and perhaps as early as 2000, as we'll see).

As he was preparing to leave the White House President Bush, with the economy collapsing, President Bush falsely claimed that things weren't so bad because he entered the White House with a recession, and was leaving with a recession. Specifically, he said during his final press conference as president:


"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession."

Nothing to see here. I'm leaving things exactly as I got them. Right ...

Look, at the end of the day the economic situation that President Bush inherited was in no way comparable to the economic disaster that he left President Obama. To make the claim that President Clinton left a recession is delusional. But wait, it gets better. It's also a lie.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research a recession is officially declared when you have two consecutive quarters (six months) of GDP decline. This never happened under President Clinton. Growth slowed during one quarter, but not two. But the deception doesn't end there.

President Bush conveniently ignored that President Clinton left him hundreds of billions in budget surpluses. The CBO projected that these surpluses would grow and generate about $5.8 trillion by 2011. President Bush blew through all of this, then left President Obama with annual trillion dollar deficits.




But this didn't prevent President Bush and his team from lying about the "Clinton's recession" (that never was) so that they could falsely draw parallels to the "Bush recession." And it worked. By 2004 the false equivalency "Bush Recession = Clinton recession" claim had at least 62% of Americans believing the falsehood that an economic recession "began during Bill Clinton's administration, before George W. Bush took office."

Along the way Team Bush and the GOP were aided by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative mouthpieces. This is important to understand today because two of the biggest mouthpieces of the right - Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity - are now planting the utterly false idea that when President Bush left office the unemployment rate was around 5.6% . Huh?

Check out this chart on unemployment rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ...

No matter how you slice it, when President Bush left office at the beginning of 2009 the unemployment rate was right around 7.5%, and climbing. Proving that stupidity and mendacity are contagious among like minds, on Monday Sean Hannity claimed that President Obama "inherited unemployment at 5.6 percent."

Both Limbaugh and Hannity lied by deducting two percentage points from Bush's unemployment figures simply because they want to attack President Obama, and then get America to abandon him. If the economy and the nation go down in flames in the process, too bad. 


What's happening here is that the far right is in the process of trying to rewrite history, not so much because what they say is true, but because they understand that false equivalencies that involve lies actually work. Suggesting that what President Bush left President Obama is equivalent to what Bush inherited from President Clinton is patently false, and part of an evolving narrative of lies.

If the GOP can wrap these lies up into another false equivalency story about unemployment and the economy, even better. The question is whether the American public will fall for it, again.

- Mark

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

RON PAUL PLACES, THEN IGNORED (by everyone)

The Christian Science Monitor picked up on this Jon Stewart clip, and asks "Did Ron Paul's presidential bid just get a big boost from Jon Stewart?" In his opening comments Stewart made it clear that Fox & Friends (among others) virtually ignored how Ron Paul not only came in second, but barely lost out to Michele Bachmann in the Iowa Straw poll last week.



Ron Paul's reward for his popularity in Iowa? He gets ignored and became the Republicans "13th floor" in the post-straw poll analysis. Too funny. Check out the Stewart piece here.


http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:394630" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars="">



- Mark

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

DON'T TAX "JOB CREATORS" ... AND OTHER GOP MYTHS


Don't tax the "job creators."

Sounds like another stupid but effective Frank Luntz sound byte for his GOP and Fox News drones, don't you think? Still, these are words the republican party and other conservative groups would have you believe we need to follow if we want to save the American economy. It doesn't matter that over the past 30 years that:

* Middle class wages have stagnated or dropped, while hours worked have climbed for the vast majority of Americans.
* With tax breaks corporate America sent or created 2.4 million manufacturing jobs abroad while eliminating 2.9 jobs here over the past 10 years.
* An assortment of tax breaks, subsidies, and bailouts helped the 400 richest Americans increase their wealth by $30 billion during the 2008 market collapse.

The last figure is especially important for two reasons. First, in the process of increasing their wealth by $30 billion during the 2008 market collapse the total combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans reached $1.57 trillion, which was more than the combined net worth of 50% of the U.S. population. Second, $30 billion is enough to provide 500,000 school teacher, firefighter, or police jobs at $60k per year.

You would think that this would be enough to get most Americans to reconsider how and why America's wealthiest class got richer during an economic downturn, while the middle class stagnated or saw their economic position deteriorate. Indeed, you would think someone would ask whether we need to suspend or rescind the Bush tax cuts, which cost our nation about $300 billion in revenue. Think again.

Instead, most Americans are buying into the notion that they need to work harder. Oh, and they're told not to press congress to tax the job creators of America.

Much of this argument is a product of the regular rantings of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Probably taking their cues from Frank Luntz, they're claiming that wealth in America is a product of hard work alone, so we can't tax the wealthiest Americas because they have the most money, which means they're working the hardest. Legacies, trusts, inheritances, bailouts, favorable legislation, legal waivers, court settlements, lobbying, etc. have nothing to do with building or maintaining wealth in America.

According to Fox News and Rush's ditto heads if the rich are getting richer it's because they're smarter and work harder than you and me. Conversely, if you lose your job or your wages stagnate you are a loser. Or you're simply not working hard enough. End of story. So work harder, moron.

Nothing is said about:

* Legislation that pays corporations to take jobs overseas.
* Government bailouts that payout and then reinforce crooked contract deals on Wall Street (since the early 1980s).
* Tax cuts that are neither requested nor necessary, which we have to borrow from the Chinese to pay.

The fact that 90% of America did not share in the income gains during the aughts is viewed as inconsequential. Wealth was created somewhere, so you just need to "work harder."


This is an interesting position when you consider that the GOP and other conservative groups have spent the better part of the past 30 years going after private and now public unions in an effort to gut the funding source of the democratic party. In the process they have vilified ordinary blue collar Americans - like teachers, firefighters, and police forces - while extolling the virtues of a pampered elite that have gotten congress to underwrite bailouts, then sponsor one favorable piece of legislation after another for their financial causes.


With conservative mouthpieces manning the communication lines, we now live in an America where many Americas believe that wealth has nothing to do with favorable legislation, tax cuts, bailouts, trade legislation, and organized attacks on labor but, instead, flow to those who work hard. But as Business Insider demonstrates, the evidence tells us otherwise - and it's unambiguous.

Here's a look at what's happened to tax rates on the top 1% of income earners, and the corporate tax burden in America, since the 1960s.




To reinforce the point, here's another look at the direction of taxes on the richest Americans (they went down), and tax revenues from individuals in general (increased), corporations (nose dived), and payroll (sharp increase on FICA/Medicare) over the past 40 years.


Now, after being promised more jobs, more income, and more wealth for everyone in America if we just reduced regulations on corporations and cut taxes on the rich that America would be riding a wave of full employment and prosperity, right?

Today, while Americans don't work as many unpaid hours as workers in China or Mexico, the vast majority of American workers are working longer hours for less pay (again, unless you're in the top 10% of earners). And it shows, when you look at growing wealth disparities in America ...



Still, we're told that if you haven't gotten richer as a result of Reaganomics-inspired policies and market friendly legislation it's because you need to work harder. It's your fault.

Indeed, in spite of all the legislative gifts and tax breaks that corporate America and the rich have received we have little to show for it other than a casino economy, a national debt that's 14 times what it was in 1980, record income and wealth gaps, and more than 9% unemployment. But instead of walking things back, or trying to understand what happened, we've taken an inglorious path of blaming or killing the messenger. America's Vichy Republicans are winning the day.

Out of a job? Loser. Less take home pay? Whiner. No jobs? Go after unions. Increased wealth gaps and budget deficits in America? Cushy pensions. Record bonuses and pay for Wall Street? They earned it. And on it goes ...

The end result is that today we're told that we can't afford government, while the wealthiest Americans can't be taxed because they're "job creators." This is laughable when you consider that projected budget surpluses by the CBO in 2001 ($5.8 trillion) could have paid off our national debt (perhaps this year), while Bush's tax cuts did little more than encourage speculation and widen wealth gaps in America. Throw in the fact that corporate America eliminated 2.9 million jobs during the Bush years while creating 2.4 million jobs abroad and you have one serious WTF moment.

Fortunately, there are a group of wealthy Americans who are both patriotic and understand what America's financial terrorists are doing to our country.




They understand that if America's top quintile (one-fifth) of income earners pay a majority of federal taxes (67%, 2009 figures) it's because they received a majority of our nation's income (53%) and have captured a majority of our wealth and productivity gains over the past 30 years.

They understand that if the top 10% of America's wealthiest have captured and now control more than 70% of our wealth that America is better if they also pay the lion's share of our nation's income taxes. And, no, they don't buy into the myth of income tax free loading, or similar talking point absurdities. Billionaire Warren Buffet is one of these individuals, and recently called for taxing America's richest at a higher rate, while "Millionaires for Fiscal Strength" have been calling the GOP out for their fiscal stupidity for some time now.

President Obama should call BS on the GOP's job creator lie, and start a real jobs program. And he can start by taking a page out of Peter the Great's book, and focus on our crumbling infrastructure.

- Mark

Saturday, August 13, 2011

STEWART EXPOSES FOX HYPOCRISY (again)

Jon Stewart exposes Fox News hypocrisy, again. This time it's Megyn Kelly and entitlements ...

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:394505" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars="">


- Mark

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

NEWS NUGGETS FROM "CLIMATE PROGRESS"

* If you want to connect the dots between the News Corps scandal in the UK and the dangerous lies and disinformation from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, check out this piece.  

* My God, when it comes to understanding science and the weather (and pretty much anything else for that matter) Rush Limbaugh's an idiot ...

* Speaking of the weather, the state of Texas prayed for rain in April. Unfortunately, there's little to show for Texas' state sanctioned 3 day pray-a-thon. Has God forsaken Texas? Think about it. With Texas state agencies battling record wildfires and heat, the severity of the Texas drought makes it look like God might actually hate Texas more than he hates gays ...




Perhaps the rain maker, President Obama, needs to make a few more stops in Texas, like he did in May ; -)

- Mark

Monday, June 20, 2011

A LESSON IN THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

Have you ever wanted to know what constitutes a Straw Man argument? Well wonder no more.


A few weeks ago I penned this op-ed on GOP budget myths for our local paper, the Bakersfield Californian. This morning a friend called to let me know that this was the op-ed response. It's too funny (and a bit sad too when you consider that this kind of argument passes for serious public debate in many corners of America).

With that, I think it's important to take a quick look at what the Straw Man argument is all about ...



The key to making a Straw Man argument is getting people to believe that you're addressing the key points of your opponents argument when, in fact, you've misrepresented, taken out of context, or oversimplified the original arguments (creating grotesque caricatures of your opponent helps the cause too). Put more simply, you recreate your opponents argument, but do so in such a poor manner that it's easy for you to take it apart.

In many cases it's easy for those making a Straw Man argument to distort or poorly recreate their opponents position because they don't really understand the points made in the first place. Or they have no real understanding of the topic.


While no one really knows the origins (etymology) of the Straw Man argument, it's often tied to the idea of scarecrows and dummy figures, which are created to give the illusion of reality. These recreations, as we know, are picked apart (by crows, as it were) and easily tossed around because they're poor substitutes for the real thing.

The overall goal of the Straw Man argument is to give the impression that you've covered the points when what you've actually done is distorted or trivialized the original issue(s). If you do a real good job you can get your opponent to respond to your poorly made argument, which sucks your opponent down an intellectual cul-de-sac, where facts are redirected, innuendo replaces substance, and the original points are lost.



The classic Straw Man argument might go like this:
Person A: Our prisons are stuffed with petty criminals who drain our financial resources. We need to decriminalize the actions of those who use small amounts of pot to help ease prison budgets.

Person B: Legalizing drugs will only lead to more crimes by those looking for drug money. More crimes means you will be mugged and robbed. Be afraid of supporting those who want to legalize drugs.
In the example above, if you get into a debate with Person B you have to go off track to explain that your original argument is tied to public finance and the decriminalization of small, petty users. Person B, on the other hand, will have none of it. That's the goal. They will try and paint you as a supporter of drug users and crime. Points of fact are lost to ideology and point scoring. Policy is undermined in the long run.

In the case of my op-ed article on GOP budget myths the author who responded to my piece begins by ignoring the very specific numbers I present on the sources behind our budget deficit. He then says plainly "Both the GOP and the Democrats have annual deficits. The GOP is the party trying to change that behavior." And, like a bad horror movie, the Straw Man begins to grow ...


In the process the author ignores how President Reagan tripled our national debt, how President Bush doubled it, and that President Clinton left budget surpluses to his successor. He also ignores what I had to say specifically about the origins of our budget deficits today. And on it went ...

If anyone were to respond point-by-point to the arguments made by the author they would be drawn into a cul-de-sac of ignorance, where political grandstanding and point scoring drowns out the real issues that need to be addressed. Fox News does this. Rush Limbaugh does this too. Glenn Beck is a master of the tactic.

That many Americans don't understand the tactic is most unfortunate.

 - Mark  

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

FOX NEWS HITTING NEW RACIAL LOWS

This Fox News intro from Eric Bolling is both childish and disrespectful (at best) ...




During the segment, Human Events editor Jason Mattera declared that "Barack Obama likes to defecate on American allies," and Bolling had this exchange with Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith:


REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA): There are good guys. There are bad guys out there. We've got to stay engaged.

SMITH: We don't have to have them at home, though.

BOLLING: Thank you, Smitty.

SMITH: We don't have to have them in our White House and entertaining them.

BOLLING: Where? Where? Where? Go ahead, say it. Where?

SMITH: In the hizzy.

BOLLING: In the hizzy. Thank you, Smitty.

SMITH: Do we really have to have them in the White Hizzy?
Did Fox News ever refer to the White House as the "hizzy" when President Bush visited with African leaders?


Fortunately, Whoopi Goldberg had an interesting - if not humorous - response to Bollings' ignorant race-baiting introduction ...


- Mark

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

STEWART EXPOSES FOX STUPIDITY (again)

Once again, Jon Stewart shows how foolish and petty Fox News is ...




These guys are pathetic and poisonous. I won't comment on the racial undertones behind the Fox commentary. Sean Hannity, especially, looks like a complete tool.

- Mark

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

UNDERSTANDING BIAS, AND DELUSION

Do you ever wonder why people fool themselves into believing arguments made by creationists, witch doctors, Fox News, and other fact-challenged charlatans? By way of Barry Ritholtz, we get a brief introduction into a topic I discuss all the time with my colleague from the Department of Psychology, Dr. Luis Vega.

Disconfirmation Bias
n. The tendency to accept supportive evidence of a belief uncritically, but to actively refute or discount evidence that challenges that belief.

Example Citations:
In other words, when we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we’re being scientists, but we’re actually being lawyers. Our “reasoning” is a means to a predetermined end — winning our “case” — and is shot through with biases. They include “confirmation bias,” in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and “disconfirmation bias,” in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial.
—Chris Mooney, “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science,” Mother Jones, April 18, 2011

My colleague, Dr. Vega, says that in the extreme attempts to rationalize what's not true can lead to bouts of delusion (or delusions of grandeur). More generally, though, what we're talking about is "selective attention" that's designed to confirm personal biases and beliefs. This allows people to rationalize anything they want. Whether we're talking about Holocaust deniers, the "birthers" or losers like this ...



... the results are the same. People can convince themselves about things that simply aren't true. All they need is regular confirmation.


- Mark

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

YES, CLINTON'S SURPLUSES WERE REAL



While I don't often do this, I posted "Ten Myths About Our Budget Mess (and Why the GOP Isn't Serious About Solving It)" onto my Facebook account. I have a high school friend who took exception to the claim that President Clinton produced budget surpluses. He even argued that budget surpluses never existed.

But they did, as these Congressional Budget Office charts make abundantly clear ...





So, how exactly did my friend come to believe that budget surpluses under President Clinton weren't real? Two reasons.

First, he watches Fox News. I can't do anything here.

Second, if we dig a little deeper, we find that my friend - like many of our Fox viewing friends - ignored the difference between national debt and annual receipts (or revenues). Confusing debt with revenue should not occur. Here's what happened.

STEP 1
First, (apart from watching Fox News) my friend posted these debt numbers which show that our total debt load never went down from year to year under President Clinton ...

Ending National Debt Deficit

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion ... $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion ... $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion ... $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion ... $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion ... $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion ... $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion ... $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion ... $133.29 billion

What my friend is focusing on here is our TOTAL DEBT LOAD (which you can access here).

Then he directs our attention to a second set of numbers, which show how much our national debt climbed annually - even during the Clinton surplus years. The numbers presented make it look like we didn't put a dent into the total budget deficit. Ergo, for our conservative friends, there was never a surplus.

And the (fake) Fox News crowd goes wild.

STEP 2
Next, my friend ignores that there is a difference between total debt and actual annual revenue.

What does this mean, you ask?

Think about it this way. If you have a home mortgage, credit card debt, and other expenses that keep piling up this is your total debt load (our national debt). If you don't pay the principal down, or if you don't earn enough during the year to pay the total interest on your debt load, your TOTAL DEBT (or, our national debt) will not come down. It will increase.

However - and this is the key point - this doesn't mean that you didn't earn more money during the year. It just means that your total debt load climbed.

Allow me to elaborate ...

STEP 3
In your household you can earn more money by taking a second job, getting a raise, or being rewarded a bonus. If your raise, or your new job, or your bonus don't earn you enough to pay down your debt loads and/or doesn't earn you enough to cover the interest payments your TOTAL DEBT LOAD will still climb ... even if your annual income also grows.
 
So, for example, you could get a raise or a second job, and watch your yearly income increase. But if you're buried under a ton of debt to begin with you're not going to be able to pay down the principal or the interest on your debt (it's actually a little more complex than this, but ...).
 
My friend ignores these dynamics, as do the people at Fox News.

CONCLUSION
If you ignore the distinction between annual revenue (tax receipts) and total obligations (national debt) you will not be able to acknowledge that revenue increases one year doesn't necessarily mean your total debt will go down. Revenue surpluses will not put a dent into your debt load if you're buried up to your eyeballs in debt (or spend more, as Bush did).

This is what happened to the Clinton surpluses. They got sucked up by the Reagan-Bush I tidal wave of debt, and completely disappeared under Bush II's financial tsunami of unfunded tax cuts, unfunded Medicare D, unfunded war policies, and market collapse.


If you run your household budget you probably understand this debt-revenue contrast.

At the end of the day Democrats have demonstrated over and over again that tax-and-spend is more responsible than borrow-and-spend. Put more bluntly, Democrats have proven over time that they are better stewards of our money than the GOP.

And, yes, Clinton's surpluses were real.

- Mark

Monday, April 11, 2011

FOX ... WHERE THE TRUTH LIES


OK, in the past I've shared with you this ...



and this ...



... but this is classic. Courtesey of bannedinhollywood.com we get "If Fox News had Been There Throughout History ..." Click the link to see enlarged print.


- Mark