Monday, July 21, 2008
We're going to sit at the Welcome Horizon one of these days, Hallelujah!
Bush can't seem to get the SOFA he wants from Maliki. Heck, there's an IKEA right down 95 in Virginia - maybe he ought to go there. Maliki offers to throw in a Table, but Bush wants an Horizon instead. How many people does he imagine want to have dinner with him? Sheesh!
The End of the Axis of Evil?
President Bush has now sent the Undersecretary of State to meet with Iranian nuclear in multi-party negotiations without Iran meeting the demanded conditions. A deal has been cut with North Korea regarding its nuclear program, in effect returning more or less to something similar to the deal Clinton cut that Bush abjured a few months after he got into office (except that now the North Koreans have actually tested nuclear weapons). And he has been reported to have acceded, sort of, to the demand of Iraqi PM al-Maliki to some sort of "time horizon" for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as part of Status of Forces Agreement. Many consider this to be a triumph of Condoleeza Rice over Dick Cheney in the waning days of the Bush administration as Bush becomes desperate to have some kind of historical legacy in the face of his continuing decline in the polls. It looks like the end of the Axis of Evil as the major focus of his foreign policy, as various hardliners complain.
It was always my view that Bush's invocation of the "Axis of Evil" was his bid to be the next Ronald Reagan, who had his "Empire of Evil" speech, rather than being a "wimp" like his dad, as Cheney kept whispering in his ear while pushing the invasion of Iraq and the dumping of the Clinton Korea policy. The change in the Korea policy was predicated on a similar outcome that Reagan was advertised as having gotten, a collapse of the North Korean regime like how the Soviet regime collapsed (although that happened during the presidency of Bush, Sr., and Reagan spent his whole second term being friendly with the perestroika leader, Gorbachev, who would make the moves that would lead to that outcome). But, the North Korean regime tested a bomb rather than collapsing, the Iranian regime (which had helped us against the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to Bush's speech) was strengthened by our overthrow of Saddam Hussein and got a much more anti-US leadership in reaction to our casting them as part of the "Axis of Evil," and the disasters in Iraq have been too numerous to bother listing, even though we are now at a point where Bush could declare "victory" (Saddam gone and a semi-stable, semi-democratic regime in place) and bring our troops home. Maybe Bush is finally almost growing up now that his presidency is nearly finished?
It was always my view that Bush's invocation of the "Axis of Evil" was his bid to be the next Ronald Reagan, who had his "Empire of Evil" speech, rather than being a "wimp" like his dad, as Cheney kept whispering in his ear while pushing the invasion of Iraq and the dumping of the Clinton Korea policy. The change in the Korea policy was predicated on a similar outcome that Reagan was advertised as having gotten, a collapse of the North Korean regime like how the Soviet regime collapsed (although that happened during the presidency of Bush, Sr., and Reagan spent his whole second term being friendly with the perestroika leader, Gorbachev, who would make the moves that would lead to that outcome). But, the North Korean regime tested a bomb rather than collapsing, the Iranian regime (which had helped us against the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to Bush's speech) was strengthened by our overthrow of Saddam Hussein and got a much more anti-US leadership in reaction to our casting them as part of the "Axis of Evil," and the disasters in Iraq have been too numerous to bother listing, even though we are now at a point where Bush could declare "victory" (Saddam gone and a semi-stable, semi-democratic regime in place) and bring our troops home. Maybe Bush is finally almost growing up now that his presidency is nearly finished?
Public corporations disguised as private enterprise
The premise put to global citizens is that corporations are purely private entities serving private ends and that the Western economies operate on the principle of the ‘free market’ which is an ideology that supports the economic system of capitalism. ‘The market’ is sacred in a society that operates under such a paradigm, therefore government and citizens have been prohibited from intervening in the workings of it.
We are told, on the other hand, that the ‘public’ realms of our society consist of such things as ‘government’ and ‘democracy’. (Albeit I am concentrating on the very limited ‘public’ areas that get the major media focus today).
‘Government is put forward as an essential evil; as a bureaucracy that must function in order to acquire the taxes necessary to perform its various functions such as to regulate industry (only when it is absolutely essential), to build public roads and bridges and to provide crucial social infrastructure and services such as ‘defense’ and basic education services.
The other public realm I mention, ‘democracy’, has several critical elements, the most essential being IMHO ‘the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.” [1]
But what happens when these two critical ‘public’ realms – government and democracy - are taken over by a relative handful of ‘private’ corporations operating in the ‘free market’?
This is a big subject and again for the benefit of practicalities I limit this discussion to a tiny area of exploration.
How can Governments collect sufficient taxes, for example, to fund essential services and infrastructure? Large corporations now control the majority of the nation’s economic output [2] and can evade taxes very easily? “In 2002 half of the world's 500 billionaires and a third of the 27 million millionaires call[ed] the USA their home. They own controlling interests in most of the large corporations that dominate the economy.” [ 3] Today, the trans-national nature of big business mean that these organisations can engage in tactics such as ‘transfer pricing’ [4] “Transfer pricing is probably the single most important reason that so many major corporations pay little or no federal income tax.” [5]
How can the public asset of democracy work in a society where citizens can no longer participate in the mass media? In 2004 the major American broadcast networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox - owned fully or partially nearly 80 percent of the new series they aired. This created a ‘market’ environment where most of the independent media businesses were either swallowed up by one of the big media companies “or driven out of business altogether.” [6] The creation and dissemination of news follows a propaganda model according to Noam Chomsky in his book entitled ‘Manufacturing Consent’. Information is filtered in a way that serves the information to the needs of the powerful. [7]
In the last decade the emergence of the Internet has resulted in the only opportunity ordinary citizens have had to be published and thus sidetrack the filters imposed by ‘private’ media corporations. Fortunately, ‘net neutrality’ has reigned up till now. ‘Net neutrality’ “is the principle that you should be able to access whatever web content or services you choose, without any interference from your Internet service provider. However, no law or rule protects citizens facing obstacles to getting access to the information on the Internet.” [8] The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE bill) “would make it impossible for those protections to be written into law or rule, making all of us vulnerable to big companies who would like to "own" the Internet and mine it for profit. Some companies like Verizon and Comcast have already announced plans to create a two-tiered Internet, where some websites and services would travel in the "fast lane" - for a fee, of course - and the rest would be relegated to a "slow lane."” [9]. This is likely to be the beginning of a host of changes aimed at limiting the free flow of information and discussion on the Internet.
Clearly, if people around the globe are to benefit from areas of public good then those arenas must be specifically defined and separated once and for all from an unfettered market. If we fail to do this we will end up with a ‘private’ rather than a ‘public’ government and live in a society that is completely organized on the basis of private profit for a tiny few; with devastating consequences. That’s if we don’t already.
[1] Lecture at Hilla University for Humanistic Studies
January 21, 2004
[2] Charles Derber wrote in his book ‘Corporation Nation – How corporations are taking over our lives and what we can do about it’ (ISBN 0–312-25461-X, 1998 page 90,) that “the myth of small business as the backbone of the American economy has not been true for fifty years.”
[3] Facts on the US Economic Empire
by etra Jaimers. Eat the State. Volume 7, #3 October 9, 2002
[4] Transfer pricing is the understatement of a corporation’s income through the overstatement of its costs by way of that corporation charging itself inflated prices for goods from one of its own international subsidiaries to another.
[5] Global Shell Games - tax evasion by multinational corporations - Statistical Data Included
Byron L. Dorgan. July 2000. Washington Monthly.
[6] My Beef With Big Media
How government protects big media--and shuts out upstarts like me.
By Ted Turner. July/August 2004
[7] Manufacturing Consent - A Propaganda Model - excerpted from the book
Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Pantheon Books, 1988
[8] Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006
[9] Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006
We are told, on the other hand, that the ‘public’ realms of our society consist of such things as ‘government’ and ‘democracy’. (Albeit I am concentrating on the very limited ‘public’ areas that get the major media focus today).
‘Government is put forward as an essential evil; as a bureaucracy that must function in order to acquire the taxes necessary to perform its various functions such as to regulate industry (only when it is absolutely essential), to build public roads and bridges and to provide crucial social infrastructure and services such as ‘defense’ and basic education services.
The other public realm I mention, ‘democracy’, has several critical elements, the most essential being IMHO ‘the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.” [1]
But what happens when these two critical ‘public’ realms – government and democracy - are taken over by a relative handful of ‘private’ corporations operating in the ‘free market’?
This is a big subject and again for the benefit of practicalities I limit this discussion to a tiny area of exploration.
How can Governments collect sufficient taxes, for example, to fund essential services and infrastructure? Large corporations now control the majority of the nation’s economic output [2] and can evade taxes very easily? “In 2002 half of the world's 500 billionaires and a third of the 27 million millionaires call[ed] the USA their home. They own controlling interests in most of the large corporations that dominate the economy.” [ 3] Today, the trans-national nature of big business mean that these organisations can engage in tactics such as ‘transfer pricing’ [4] “Transfer pricing is probably the single most important reason that so many major corporations pay little or no federal income tax.” [5]
How can the public asset of democracy work in a society where citizens can no longer participate in the mass media? In 2004 the major American broadcast networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox - owned fully or partially nearly 80 percent of the new series they aired. This created a ‘market’ environment where most of the independent media businesses were either swallowed up by one of the big media companies “or driven out of business altogether.” [6] The creation and dissemination of news follows a propaganda model according to Noam Chomsky in his book entitled ‘Manufacturing Consent’. Information is filtered in a way that serves the information to the needs of the powerful. [7]
In the last decade the emergence of the Internet has resulted in the only opportunity ordinary citizens have had to be published and thus sidetrack the filters imposed by ‘private’ media corporations. Fortunately, ‘net neutrality’ has reigned up till now. ‘Net neutrality’ “is the principle that you should be able to access whatever web content or services you choose, without any interference from your Internet service provider. However, no law or rule protects citizens facing obstacles to getting access to the information on the Internet.” [8] The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE bill) “would make it impossible for those protections to be written into law or rule, making all of us vulnerable to big companies who would like to "own" the Internet and mine it for profit. Some companies like Verizon and Comcast have already announced plans to create a two-tiered Internet, where some websites and services would travel in the "fast lane" - for a fee, of course - and the rest would be relegated to a "slow lane."” [9]. This is likely to be the beginning of a host of changes aimed at limiting the free flow of information and discussion on the Internet.
Clearly, if people around the globe are to benefit from areas of public good then those arenas must be specifically defined and separated once and for all from an unfettered market. If we fail to do this we will end up with a ‘private’ rather than a ‘public’ government and live in a society that is completely organized on the basis of private profit for a tiny few; with devastating consequences. That’s if we don’t already.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
Abraham Lincoln. November 21, 1864 in a letter to Colonel William F. Elkins
[1] Lecture at Hilla University for Humanistic Studies
January 21, 2004
[2] Charles Derber wrote in his book ‘Corporation Nation – How corporations are taking over our lives and what we can do about it’ (ISBN 0–312-25461-X, 1998 page 90,) that “the myth of small business as the backbone of the American economy has not been true for fifty years.”
[3] Facts on the US Economic Empire
by etra Jaimers. Eat the State. Volume 7, #3 October 9, 2002
[4] Transfer pricing is the understatement of a corporation’s income through the overstatement of its costs by way of that corporation charging itself inflated prices for goods from one of its own international subsidiaries to another.
[5] Global Shell Games - tax evasion by multinational corporations - Statistical Data Included
Byron L. Dorgan. July 2000. Washington Monthly.
[6] My Beef With Big Media
How government protects big media--and shuts out upstarts like me.
By Ted Turner. July/August 2004
[7] Manufacturing Consent - A Propaganda Model - excerpted from the book
Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Pantheon Books, 1988
[8] Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006
[9] Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006
Means Testing Medicare
Tyler Cowen is my favorite conservative. Sometimes I actually agree with -- not very much, but sometimes I do. Today in his New York Times article he advocates means testing for Medicare. He acknowledges the possibility that means testing will make Medicare a welfare program, causing it to lose support -- but he suggests that things are so dire we do not have another choice he does not seem to take seriously Mark Thoma's suggestion that single-payer could create substantial cost savings.
I am not sure how big a threat Medicare really is. Any sane political system would find massive savings in the defense budget, but sanity is a scarce commodity. Taxes on the very rich and taxes on purely speculative activities could go a long way to supplement Medicare. Unfortunately, such policies will not be discussed outside of third-party politics.
I am not sure how big a threat Medicare really is. Any sane political system would find massive savings in the defense budget, but sanity is a scarce commodity. Taxes on the very rich and taxes on purely speculative activities could go a long way to supplement Medicare. Unfortunately, such policies will not be discussed outside of third-party politics.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
A Different Kind of College?
The New York Times has a fascinating article about Berea College, a school that has no tuition, but expects students to work 10 hours a week. The school has a healthy endowment of $1 billion, but seems to use it for supporting education rather than fancy buildings.
I never heard of the college before last year when I saw a flyer on the Internet for small summer program to study imperialism and then spent time with families in Mexico. One of my students got accepted and was enthusiastic about the program, but I have never thought to inquire about the college.
I assume that without tuition at the college lacks the bloated bureaucracy that characterizes most higher education today. The article might just be excessive hype, I hope that is not the case.
I never heard of the college before last year when I saw a flyer on the Internet for small summer program to study imperialism and then spent time with families in Mexico. One of my students got accepted and was enthusiastic about the program, but I have never thought to inquire about the college.
I assume that without tuition at the college lacks the bloated bureaucracy that characterizes most higher education today. The article might just be excessive hype, I hope that is not the case.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
How the Left Wing Created the Credit Crisis. Yes, Indeed!
James Grant is a knowledgeable student of the credit system, but today he goes off the rails, blaming the left wing for the credit crisis. Here is the most striking passage:
Grant, James. 2008. "Why No Outrage?" Wall Street Journal (19 July): p. W 1.
Would a publically owned agency have behaved the same way, lowering standards to increase share costs?
By and by, the lefties carried the day. They got their government-controlled money (the Federal Reserve opened for business in 1914), and their government-directed credit (Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Banks were creatures of Great Depression No. 2; Freddie Mac came along in 1970). In 1971, they got their pure paper dollar. So today, the Fed can print all the dollars it deems expedient and the unwell federal mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combine for $1.5 trillion in on-balance sheet mortgage assets and dominate the business of mortgage origination (in the fourth quarter of last year, private lenders garnered all of a 19% market share).
Grant, James. 2008. "Why No Outrage?" Wall Street Journal (19 July): p. W 1.
Would a publically owned agency have behaved the same way, lowering standards to increase share costs?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Harrisonburg, Virginia to Host an Obama Office
The front page of the July, 17 Washington Post has a story, "Obama Adds 20 Va. Offices in a Big Push To Win State," with the following later in the story: "Many offices will be in traditional Republican strongholds, such as Harrisonburg in the Shenandoah Valley and Lynchburg in southern Virginia." Many observers, both Republican and Democrat, say that this is an effort to "show momentum" and how much more money Obama is raising than McCain, with Virginia not having gone for a Democrat for president since LBJ in 1964. They say Obama will need to show up in person for these extra offices to really have an effect, although he is currently somewhat ahead of McCain in the polls statewide.
Anyway, the office here in Harrisonburg, just a couple of blocks from my house, opens up this Saturday afternoon. This evening people were working there painting and putting up all kinds of signs and stuff. I think I shall drop in for the Open House at 2 PM. Heck, maybe we will even get a visit from him at some point.
Anyway, the office here in Harrisonburg, just a couple of blocks from my house, opens up this Saturday afternoon. This evening people were working there painting and putting up all kinds of signs and stuff. I think I shall drop in for the Open House at 2 PM. Heck, maybe we will even get a visit from him at some point.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Science today - an easy way to lie to the public
“…We submit evidence on the hazards of GM to the government's scientific advisory committees again and again over the years, only to be met with bland denial and dismissal[1]. Fortunately, some good governments all over the world are taking heed, and are rejecting GM on account of uncertainty over safety…”
“…Two right-wing chemical industry supporters--Dennis Avery and Steven Milloy--have used the Public Health Service's announcement to claim that this invalidates all research on endocrine disruption. As ludicrous as that assertion is scientifically, their claims are a potential source of confusion for people who do not follow this issue closely. I have therefore posted below a detailed analysis of what they are claiming. Dennis Avery's commentary (see below) is a classic example of PR spinning that seizes upon an element of truth and then distorts it in ways to serve a larger purpose, in this case arguing to weaken standards that protect public health from pesticide exposures. Milloy is a fellow-traveler who has written similarly false assertions[2]…..”
Animal tests false reassurance[3]
“Animal tests on the kind of drug given to the six men ill in a London hospital may not be the best way of evaluating the effects in people, an expert warns. The drug they took stimulates a protein only found in humans…..”
“..No pesticide label signal word is present to guide users on toxicity, protective clothing and equipment. False and misleading statements[4] now occur on pesticide labels that confuse consumers. Labels providing the impression that the product is non-toxic are a grave concern as by default they encourage unnecessary human and environmental exposure…”
“..Also tolerated are biased viewpoints, including those linked to powerful vested interests[5]. Many scientists are employed by or receive research funds from companies or government bodies, and both expect and are expected to come up only with results useful to those bodies. Scientists receiving money from chemical companies to study pesticides seldom draw attention to the limitations or dangers of pesticides: they simply do studies within a framework which assumes that using pesticides is the appropriate thing to do. Physicists working on nuclear weapons design do not stray outside their narrow task. Engineers employed by automobile companies do not propose studies looking for safety problems or alternatives to the car [15].
[1]Puncturing the GM Myths. ISIS Press Release 08/04/04
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMmyths.php
[2] Analysing Dennis Avery's Misrepresentations. Our Stolen Future
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/myths/2002-0120avery.htm
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4817178.stm
[4] Submission, American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators
aapse.ext.vt.edu/pdfs/25b_pos.pdf
[5] 'Scientific fraud and the power structure of science', Brian Martin
Published in Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html
“…Two right-wing chemical industry supporters--Dennis Avery and Steven Milloy--have used the Public Health Service's announcement to claim that this invalidates all research on endocrine disruption. As ludicrous as that assertion is scientifically, their claims are a potential source of confusion for people who do not follow this issue closely. I have therefore posted below a detailed analysis of what they are claiming. Dennis Avery's commentary (see below) is a classic example of PR spinning that seizes upon an element of truth and then distorts it in ways to serve a larger purpose, in this case arguing to weaken standards that protect public health from pesticide exposures. Milloy is a fellow-traveler who has written similarly false assertions[2]…..”
Animal tests false reassurance[3]
“Animal tests on the kind of drug given to the six men ill in a London hospital may not be the best way of evaluating the effects in people, an expert warns. The drug they took stimulates a protein only found in humans…..”
“..No pesticide label signal word is present to guide users on toxicity, protective clothing and equipment. False and misleading statements[4] now occur on pesticide labels that confuse consumers. Labels providing the impression that the product is non-toxic are a grave concern as by default they encourage unnecessary human and environmental exposure…”
“..Also tolerated are biased viewpoints, including those linked to powerful vested interests[5]. Many scientists are employed by or receive research funds from companies or government bodies, and both expect and are expected to come up only with results useful to those bodies. Scientists receiving money from chemical companies to study pesticides seldom draw attention to the limitations or dangers of pesticides: they simply do studies within a framework which assumes that using pesticides is the appropriate thing to do. Physicists working on nuclear weapons design do not stray outside their narrow task. Engineers employed by automobile companies do not propose studies looking for safety problems or alternatives to the car [15].
[1]Puncturing the GM Myths. ISIS Press Release 08/04/04
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMmyths.php
[2] Analysing Dennis Avery's Misrepresentations. Our Stolen Future
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/myths/2002-0120avery.htm
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4817178.stm
[4] Submission, American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators
aapse.ext.vt.edu/pdfs/25b_pos.pdf
[5] 'Scientific fraud and the power structure of science', Brian Martin
Published in Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
88
There are 88 keys on a piano, as many as there are years in Justice Stevens' life so far. I would ask self-styled progressives upset with Obama to reflect on this number - and, having done so, shut up and get to work!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
BARRON'S ON BOARD
by the Sandwichman
"LIVING WELL IN THE 21ST CENTURY WILL REQUIRE THAT we soon begin the transition away from a capitalism driven by the quest for profit and growth," wrote James Gustave Speth in an "Other Voices" op-ed in the June 30 issue of Barron's, Changing the Object of Capitalism. Leading off Speth's prescription for transforming economic activity is a shorter work week. "The economy might even evolve to a steady state, where a declining labor force and shorter work hours are offset by rising productivity."
Gus Speth, meet Sydney J. Chapman and Ira Steward.
"LIVING WELL IN THE 21ST CENTURY WILL REQUIRE THAT we soon begin the transition away from a capitalism driven by the quest for profit and growth," wrote James Gustave Speth in an "Other Voices" op-ed in the June 30 issue of Barron's, Changing the Object of Capitalism. Leading off Speth's prescription for transforming economic activity is a shorter work week. "The economy might even evolve to a steady state, where a declining labor force and shorter work hours are offset by rising productivity."
Gus Speth, meet Sydney J. Chapman and Ira Steward.
Mass Media’s Global Monopoly and the Legal Freedom to Lie
After the Second World War the mass media in Europe, America and Australia developed into monopolies. Generally speaking radio and television in Europe became state services and subject to heavy censorship. In the United States a few giant news services and networks emerged. The Hachette and Havas organisation in France took control of many of the small to medium sized newspapers and the conservative Axel Springer clique in West Germany gained control of nineteen newspapers with a total circulation of eighteen million. In 1970 five newspapers reached more than two hundred thousand readers each in Italy. “Many of the major British newspapers were almalgamated during the sixties by the Lord Rothermere, Lord Thomson and Cecil King groups. In the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, all the media were state controlled. Whether privately or state controlled, however, the mass media represented a revolution in communications that enabled them to exert unprecedented influence over public opinion.” [1]
Since Robert Anchor described this process of media concentration in 1978 the mass media have meanwhile become even more monopolized. In 1983 the number of major mass media companies in the US shrank from several hundred in the 1950s to about 50. “These fifty corporations in 1984 became twenty-six in 1987, twenty-three in l990, and then less than twenty in 1993. In 1996 the number of media corporations with dominant power in society was closer to ten. Today it is at most eight…” [2]
QUESTION: In an age that witnesses (i) the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other dangerous technologies; and now (ii) the legal freedom of political candidates to lie [3]
WHERE DOES THE MONOPOLISATION OF MASS MEDIA LEAVE US?
[1] ‘The Modern Western Experience’ by Robert Anchor, University of Southern California. 1978. Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. ISBN 0-13-599357-1. Pages 272-273.
[2] A thesis submitted by GRAEME CHEADLE to the European University Center for Peace Studies Stadtschlaining/Burg, Austria in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an MA degree in Peace and Conflict Studies 24,806 WORDS (91 PAGES). MAY 2005
[3] ‘Split court says candidates can lie’ by Ralph Thomas.Seattle Times Olympia bureau, Friday, October 5, 2007. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003926782_scow05m.html
Since Robert Anchor described this process of media concentration in 1978 the mass media have meanwhile become even more monopolized. In 1983 the number of major mass media companies in the US shrank from several hundred in the 1950s to about 50. “These fifty corporations in 1984 became twenty-six in 1987, twenty-three in l990, and then less than twenty in 1993. In 1996 the number of media corporations with dominant power in society was closer to ten. Today it is at most eight…” [2]
QUESTION: In an age that witnesses (i) the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other dangerous technologies; and now (ii) the legal freedom of political candidates to lie [3]
WHERE DOES THE MONOPOLISATION OF MASS MEDIA LEAVE US?
[1] ‘The Modern Western Experience’ by Robert Anchor, University of Southern California. 1978. Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. ISBN 0-13-599357-1. Pages 272-273.
[2] A thesis submitted by GRAEME CHEADLE to the European University Center for Peace Studies Stadtschlaining/Burg, Austria in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an MA degree in Peace and Conflict Studies 24,806 WORDS (91 PAGES). MAY 2005
[3] ‘Split court says candidates can lie’ by Ralph Thomas.Seattle Times Olympia bureau, Friday, October 5, 2007. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003926782_scow05m.html
Monday, July 14, 2008
In thinking about medical care for my debate, I have been thinking about the shenanigans of the insurance companies.
The Marginal Revolution blog points to an insurance policy to cover businesses whose insurance providers refuse to pay. How long will it be before people with people will need to buy comparable policies for their medical care.
"New Product Covers Legal Costs If Buyers Decide to Challenge Claim Denial." Sclafane, Susanne. 2008. National Underwriters Property and Casualty.
"New Product Covers Legal Costs If Buyers Decide to Challenge Claim Denial." Sclafane, Susanne. 2008. National Underwriters Property and Casualty.
The risk that a claim won’t be paid -- a potential downside that every buyer of insurance faces -- was an uninsured exposure until recently, according to the developers of a new policy to provide coverage so that risk managers can contest such rejections.
The new coverage, available to businesses of all sizes, will pay up to $250,000 in legal expenses associated with contesting the denial of an insurance claim under a commercial policy.
We know that wrongful coverage denials occur in our industry. There’s a reason coverage attorneys exist today,” Mr. White [Jason White, a managing director for Professional Services Group of Swett & Crawford, in the Los Angeles office of the Atlanta-based wholesale brokerage] said, explaining the impetus for the product launch. In fact, he noted, the idea came from a coverage law firm—Surdyk & Baker in Chicago.
Obama and GOP Energy Arguments
I am going to probably annoy all my co-bloggers and most readers as well by saying that I think that Obama should just flip flop and agree to let states allow oil drilling offshore beyond a 50 mile limit, if they want to, granting this GOP policy line. While in 1969 near inshore spills ended up on beaches in Santa Barbara (triggering the nationwide ban), and there were oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Katrina, most such drilling would be relatively harmless, like that in the North Sea. Now, I am not claiming that such drilling would lower oil or gasoline prices or is any long or short term solution for US energy problems. It most definitely is not, and Obama clearly should continue to put the emphasis on conservation and better technologies as he is. However, as a strictly political matter it seems that a majority of Americans believe the GOP line on this that such drilling will help, and I fear that McCain will be able to sway some voters in certain crucial states by pushing this line, which has been picked up big time by the usual claque of commentators on Fox News and elsewhere, being endlessly and repeatedly pushed like a Big Lie.
Another line that is being pushed by these folks is that the "US has more oil than Saudi Arabia (!)" which suggests that "energy independence " might be viable, if we were only willing to go for it. The basis for such claims are the likely large amounts of shale oil the US has in western Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. However, such oil is most likely not producible at less than $95 per barrel, and I do not see the companies viewing it as sufficiently likely the price will stay above that to do it. There is also the very serious problem of enormous water requirements (and pollution resulting of multiple sorts), which are serious problems out there. Estonia is producing shale oil to get out from under reliance on the Russians, but I saw a report that they are using 91% of their water to do so. I find that number hard to believe, especially given that they have a lot of water, but even if that number is exaggerated quite a bit, it is a sign of how water-hungry shale oil production is. So, no, I see no reason for Obama to go along with that one at all.
Another line that is being pushed by these folks is that the "US has more oil than Saudi Arabia (!)" which suggests that "energy independence " might be viable, if we were only willing to go for it. The basis for such claims are the likely large amounts of shale oil the US has in western Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. However, such oil is most likely not producible at less than $95 per barrel, and I do not see the companies viewing it as sufficiently likely the price will stay above that to do it. There is also the very serious problem of enormous water requirements (and pollution resulting of multiple sorts), which are serious problems out there. Estonia is producing shale oil to get out from under reliance on the Russians, but I saw a report that they are using 91% of their water to do so. I find that number hard to believe, especially given that they have a lot of water, but even if that number is exaggerated quite a bit, it is a sign of how water-hungry shale oil production is. So, no, I see no reason for Obama to go along with that one at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)