Sunday Sermon [Category Five Hype]

¡Hola! Everybody…

Brazilian Day today! Did I mention I was invited by a friend to spend ten days in Rio earlier this summer? I had to turn it down because I had just gotten laid off and I needed to hold on to what little moolah I have (which is fast running out). It’s been my dream to visit Brazil; hopefully, I’ll get there before my dick stops working… LOL

* * *

-=[ Style Over substance ]=-

The media and politicians enjoy a symbiotic relationship during possible impending disasters. The resultant perfect storm of hype over Irene runs the risk of making Americans even more likely to ignore warnings in the future.

 -- Howard Kurtz on coverage of Irene, a category 1 storm

This time last week, we were all assaulted with one of the largest, most destructive storms in decades. No, I’m not talking about hurricane Irene, I’m talking about the perfect storm of mostly misleading coverage about Irene.

You can certainly make a convincing point that Irene wasn’t overhyped, since the storm caused widespread flooding and power outages for more than 1 million customers. You can also make the case that more people might have died were it not for the heretofore extraordinary measures of evacuation orders and the media coverage that they received.

On the other hand, the nonstop TV hyping of worst-case scenarios even after more-responsible forecasters saw as early as Thursday that Irene would not be a major hurricane caused millions to expect something far, far worse. “The East Coast Katrina,” some on-air “journalists bleated. Watching the infotainment media one would have expected or the water wall from The Ten Commandments. Nothing like that showed up.

As Toby Harnden, reporter for the Telegraph, UK observed of a CNN reporter:

… it was a dramatic on-air moment, broadcasting live from Long Island, New York during a hurricane that also threatened Manhattan.

“We are in, right, no… the right eye wall, no doubt about that… there you see the surf,” he said breathlessly. “That tells a story right there.”

Stumbling and apparently buffeted by ferocious gusts, he took shelter next to a building. “This is our protection from the wind,” he explained. “It’s been truly remarkable to watch the power of the ocean here.”

The surf may have told a story but so too did the sight behind the reporter of people chatting and ambling along the sea front and just goofing around. There was a man in a t-shirt, a woman waving her arms and then walking backwards. Then someone on a bicycle glided past.

Across the screen, the “Breaking News: Irene Batters Long Island” caption was replaced by stern advice from the Federal Emergency Management Agency: “Stay inside, stay safe.”

There’s a huge difference between informing the public and exploiting it for gain. Some cable anchors for example, were still reporting that Irene could strike New Jersey and New York as a major hurricane long after credible sources had reported the storm was weakening. Howard Kurtz (another media whore with whom I rarely agree) put it best when he said that this was Category 5 reporting on a Category 1 storm.

Some reporters even looked crestfallen as the Great Storm fizzled out into a mostly non-event. And it is true, as Nate Silver argues that the coverage of the storm in size was not extraordinary, but the coverage in tone certainly was. As with everything else, coverage of the storm was distorted in order to accentuate the sensational to the detriment of the public good.

One cable reporter from NY1, a local 24/7 news station, became visibly defensive when challenged by a viewer on the overhyped news reporting. He dismissed the notion that this type of coverage is motivated by financial gain, noting that the network had stopped airing commercials. For me, this was cynicism at its worst, and further undermines the credibility of already tarnished journalists. It was insulting, to say the least. 

Understanding the media reaction is simple: Irene was a big, inexpensive story capable of filling hours of air for pennies. The hurricane came to the media’s doorstep at a time when they’re all bargain-basement shopping for the cheapest crap an audience will watch. Yes, I’ve seen the reports about how millions worth of commercial time was pre-empted by storm coverage, but let’s not kid ourselves. The media outlets with the biggest audience numbers will use them to bump up their rate cards.

They'll make back the lost revenue and then some.

Corporate news is about, well, profits. But you’d have to be one dumb motherfucker to go along with that line of reasoning. The media, endowed as the “Fourth Estate” -- a vital part of our republic -- and the principle beneficiary of the First Amendment, has as its mandate the responsibility of informing the public and being a watchdog against abuses of power. When the media abdicates its civil responsibility, then we’re all fucked.

This type of media is detrimental to our quality of life and it erodes what little freedoms we could claim. In this way, is how a war criminal like Dick Cheney is allowed to break international and domestic laws and not just get away with it, but write books about breaking those laws and profiting from his crimes. Meanwhile, there’s a black or Latin@ youth rotting away in prison for stealing a bag of chips or six-pack of beer.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

Don't Drink the Kool Aid!

¡Hola! Everybody…
Dang! The Neocon Zombies are back again. I swear! You can’t kill this plague of failed ideas no matter how many time they fail. Who's next? Milton Friedman making a comeback?!! LOL!

Today, perhaps emboldened by the recent elections, the goobers, with the help of some very powerful people, are spreading misinformation about one of the most successful government programs ever (and not just in the US, but globally) in order to scare people into passively accepting benefit cuts. Even so-called “liberals” such as Lawrence O'Donnell (who calls himself a socialist ::cough::) and Dylan Ratigan, are framing the social security debate in a way that makes it a foregone conclusion that cuts must be sustained. Truth be told, O'Donnell is a dyed-in-the-wool corporate democrat cut from the same Rahm Emmanuel (and now Obama) cloth.

The assumption that SS must be cut/ taken apart/ given as a gift to Wall St. to mangle is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Don't be a sheeple (<-- same as teabagger). Check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers.

Stop. Look. Listen...

(h/t EPI, CEPR and Moveon.org)

* * *

-=[ Top Social Security Myths ]=-

(Links are italicized)

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago. What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly -- since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income (like the rest of us), Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market -- which would have been disastrous -- but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.

* * *

So please, the next time some goober muthafucka / teabagger/ conspiracy theorist/ looneytarian/ “independent” tries to shill some of this Kool Aid your way, put him/ her in their place with facts…

Love,

Eddie

The Conservative Mindset, pt. I (Right Wing-nuts)

¡Hola! Everybody... I will concede that we all live under the Chinese curse of “interesting times.” Just yesterday, I found out that Martin Luther King, jr. was a republican and (get this) Republicans were (and may still be) the OG civil rights champions! To make matters worse, receptive anal sex (taking it) puts you at risk for cancer! Then, it was explained to me that AIDS was and still is the Gay Disease (GRID) at least that’s what some right wing-nuts are saying and considering we live in a conservative society, I would venture there’s a significant portion of our population that would advance the above notions. And then you wonder why I call them twats and dry cunts? ::blank stare::

Finally, this morning I saw where an 18-year-old boy is now a convicted sex offender because, out of a fit of anger, he passed on nude photos of his then 16-year-old girlfriend. Add to this the recent TV interview of the father of Palin’s child, Levy and Sarah Palin’s response.

* * *

-=[ The Conservative Mindset, pt. I ]=-

“May you live in interesting times.”

-- Chinese curse

Today and tomorrow, I will explore findings on the mindset of conservatives. Using research findings and historical facts, I will show that at the core of the modern conservative movement you will find: resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: Fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, among others.

However, today I want to address the bullshit issues mentioned above. First, in reference to republicans having ever been a champion for civil rights -- let me quote that great example of republicanism, Abraham Lincoln:

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” [emphasis added]

So much for that bullshit.

As for MLK being a republican? There’s no proof of it at all. This canard festering like a sore on the internet has been fed by billboards paid for by Black Republicans. MLK himself likened the 1964 GOP convention to a KKK fuckfest. Well, he didn’t put it exactly that way. According to “The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.,” published after King’s death from his written material and records, King called the 1964 Republican national convention that nominated Goldwater a “frenzied wedding... of the KKK and the radical right.” MLK was for affirmative action, for unions, against the Vietnam War, most likely voted for JFK and voted for LBJ. Towards the end of his short life, MLK was sounding more and more like, yup, you guessed it, a socialist!

I refuse to address the stupidity inherent in anyone attempting to frame an international epidemic, the cause of death for tens of millions, in homophobic terms. I will only say that that form of thinking is rife in this country and popular among the religious and cultural right wing-nuts.

Finally, how is it that the only sane voice coming out of the Palin fiasco called a family is coming from the mouth of a child? Of all the voices clamoring to be heard in that sad tragedy, the only one that begins to sound like an adult is Bristol Palin, the now single mother of Alaska’s governor. And you know what she said? She said that perhaps practicing safe sex should be something other girls her age should consider.

Which brings me to the new corporate boogey man, s-exting. Just in case you’ve been sleeping under a rock, you may have missed the inordinate amount of time adults have spent on the phenomenon of s-exting a play on the phrase “texting” a text-based mode of cellular phone communication. Don’t act all new on me now: I know for a fact many of you have received or sent photos of yo ass over the cellphone. Lord knows my own phone’s memory is bursting from the preponderance of asses, teats, and chochas on my cellphone. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining, just pointing out an observation (keep 'em coming ladies! LOL!).

It seems teens have been using this technology to send nude photos to one another. Now, allow me to clarify: teens have been exploring their sexuality since time immemorial. I’m sure you did it at one time. The difference here is that the technology has the potential to make things a little murkier or problematic. As a parent, I can say that I wouldn’t want my daughter to do shit like that. In fact, you shouldn’t do shit like that (with your face attached anyway) even as an adult. You don’t want your photo being emailed to the company network; it doesn’t make for great promotional opportunities.

However, why are we criminalizing what is in effect normal adolescent behavior?!! Why are prosecutors around the nation charging these young people with child pornography crimes?!! Have we gone completely mad? What purpose does it serve to make an 18 year-old register as a sexual predator??

For what it’s worth, this is what happens when we allow a rabid, inflexible conservative mindset run rampant over our country. These are “interesting” times, indeed, but not in a positive sense. In the coming days, I hope to shed some light in the inner workings and intrinsic cognitive motivations of the modern conservative movement.

Love

Eddie