President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.
In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.
That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.
That's a big increase. But compared with other presidents' first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.
It goes on like that.
Fiscal 2009 started October 1, 2008 and ended September 30, 2009. This was Bush's last budget, beginning before the election.
It included a bit of the stimulus spending.
There is a propaganda drumbeat aimed at DC lawmakers, that the deficit is too large. Question, will they attack the largest item in the budget, spending about $1 trillion total on military? Or will they go after what our government spends to benefit us?
My question, whose job is it to counter this kind of thing? The Obama administration is just letting it hit them. In fact, instead of fighting back, they validate the perception that they have ballooned the deficit. The problem is this hurts the rest of us out here. What to do?
News is 'news' in our corporatacracy. Currently, for example, we have the Israeli-Warmongers-Only-Perspective 'News'. See below for how the release of a UN report on the war criminal conduct on both sides of the Gaza war is widely headlined in the mainstream news (to see how news of 320 dead Gazan children in that massacre is handled (hint: 'not at all'), see NPR's Linda Gradstein):
Israel fights 'perverse' UN report on Gaza
The funniest part is this sentence --
Both sides of the Gaza conflict criticised the report for putting them on the same footing.
-- followed by 5 paragraphs of Israeli criticism of the report, and then the article ends.
Just a reminder that it is possible to headline the release of the UN report fairly: Israel, Hamas called to account. Now was that so hard?
Related is the 'Anything to get "Iran's Got Nukes!" Into the Headline' 'News':
Iran is a nuclear power: Ahmadinejad aide
Where the Iranian spokesperson is allowed to dispel the headline's glaring implication in paragraph 20:
Javanfekr said Iran is ready to face the six powers and "during the talks we will definitely speak of banning nuclear arms globally because it is not a problem for us as we do not possess any nuclear arms."
So, obviously 'nuclear power' means 'nuclear power power'. Some of you got your war on before you realized that, right? That was the intent.
Meanwhile, McClatchy continues to be a source of news. Here it provides some reality on the domestic side, first the real health care catastrophe:
Richard Silverstein writes (link below excerpt): The hasbara brigade strikes again! You always hear about Israeli attempts at media manipulation. Everyone knows it's going on but usually the process happens through dedicated volunteers like those involved with Giyus. Now, we know that the Israeli foreign ministry itself is orchestrating propaganda efforts designed to fill news websites with pro-Israel arguments and information.
A friend has received the following e mail which documents both the efforts and the agency that originated them. The solicitation to become a propagandist also includes a list of media links which the ministry would like flooded with pro-Israel comments:
Dear friends,
We hold the military supremacy, yet fail the battle over the international media. We need to buy time for the IDF to succeed, and the least we can do is spare some (additional) minutes on the net. The ministry of foreign affairs is putting great efforts in balancing the media, but we all know it's a battle of numbers. The more we post, blog, talkback, vote - the more likely we gain positive sentiment.
I was asked by the ministry of foreign affairs to arrange a network of volunteers, who are willing to contribute to this effort. If you're up to it you will receive a daily messages & media package as well as targets.
If you wish to participate, please respond to this email.
My friend did so and received this official communique from the ministry with talking points about Operation Solid Lead which s/he was to use in her/his propaganda efforts. Here are the links s/he was asked to respond to:
Blog from Southern Israel, Morit Rozen - http://soundsofwar.wordpress.com/
If you visit any of those articles you will identify the hasbaraniks easily through the pseudo-polite style they adopt and the programed arguments they advance.
Remember when the defense department was paying public relations companies to insert articles praising the Iraq war in U.S. newspapers? There rightly was a media uproar about the manipulation. We'll see whether the same happens over this.
I just hope the foreign ministry doesn't get a pass on this one. They view this as maximizing their efforts to "explain" Israel's position in the world media. I view it as a cynical attempt to flood the web and news media with favorable flackery in a vain attempt to tilt the war effort favorably toward Israel. Not only does it do Israel a disservice, it stains every legitimate effort that the ministry might make to explain Israel to the world, since no one will believe a word it says knowing it engages in such outright propaganda efforts.
Because Republican ideals seem to suddenly be up in the air, Fox News has had some trouble figuring out how to package their propaganda. They finally admitted their confusion on their Website.
After the revealing New York Times front-page article surfaced, exposing the Pentagon's role in disseminating war-propaganda in the mainstream media, the Pentagon announced it was suspending the program. This occurrence brings to light two lessons:
1.) A little media exposure of the truth goes a long way
2.)We must continue to fight for our rights to access un-biased, fact-based information pertaining to our individual and national security.
As an Internet Organizer for Progressive Future, I've been busily spreading the otherwise buried reports of the atrocities and abuses committed by military contractors in Iraq. As outraged as they made me, I had to wonder why these stories failed to reach the mainstream American public. Now I know why.
The New York Times Magazine has a new, amazing article:
"Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand: A Pentagon Campaign: Retired officers have been used to shape terrorism coverage from inside the TV and radio networks." by David Barstow, New York Times Magazine, April 20, 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...
As many of us have suspected, the Pentagon has deliberately recruited retired military officers -- who were willing to spout the military's propaganda about the Iraq war -- and fed them to the TV networks, who lapped them up. As a result, most of what Americans have heard about the Iraq war has been from the Pentagon (pro-war) perspective. This effort was very deliberate on the part of the Pentagon and there were various ways they ensured that their message, and only their message, was broadcast. The TV networks did not check the military officer's conflicts of interest and, as we are all too painfully aware, they never interviewed anyone with a conflicting perspective (particularly anyone from the peace community).
This article is quite detailed and is based on 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts, and records obtained through a Times lawsuit. I think this revelation provides us with a golden opportunity: this article reveals in great detail exactly how the Pentagon has deliberately lied to the American public for the past 6 years about virtually everything about the Iraq War. After reading this article, I can't imagine any rational person not feeling like they have been lied to and being angry about that.
We need to publicize this article as much as we are able and use it in discussion with the TV networks, newspapers, National Public Radio, and Congressmembers to challenge the "conventional wisdom" about Iraq (and Iran) which is now quite obviously revealed as complete propaganda. I hope we can also get the media to go back and examine the Downing Street memo, Scott Ritter's testimony, and other smoking gun evidence that the media has mostly ignored in the past.
Earlier in the week, we posted video from Lee Camp's wonderful take-down of Fox News while on the network - now, in a piece cross-posted on AlterNet, Lee tells us a little more than the video allows.
As most of you have seen, I ripped into Fox "News" while on a Fox "News" morning show this past Saturday. If you haven't seen it, the clip is immediately below. I didn't say what I said in order to get attention. I figured that my statements would piss off a few hundred Fox viewers (or maybe help them question the "facts" they're getting from their sacred channel) and that I would show the clip to a few friends. As it turned out, within a day the clip had been viewed around 300,000 times on various sites, and I was getting interview requests from national radio shows. Apparently I struck a nerve.
I thought I'd answer a bunch of questions people had about the incident. Many have asked what happened before that moment to make me say those horrible things about such a lovely news network. (Isn't it sad that when someone speaks the truth on TV, we all ask "What caused it???") Well, nothing really happened in the interview - a right-wing comedian and I told some lame Huckabee jokes. The anchor, hard-hitting journalist Clayton Morris, asked the necessary questions while seeming completely unaware that I was a fellow human being, and that was about it. But in a broader sense, what "happened" to make me call Fox "News" a "festival of ignorance" was the past twelve years of knowing this festering pile of propaganda coated with drivel and wrapped in the American flag has been spewing its poisonous eggs into the brains of average Americans. Now THAT's desecration of the flag - watching it flap back and forth behind a Fox "News" program.
What happened after they cut to a commercial? Clayton Morris was visibly furious but didn't say a word. Neither did anyone in the main studio. I got up, took my microphone off, and walked silently back to the greenroom, itching to the get the fuck out of that sixth circle of hell. Back in the greenroom I saw the female co-host, who was wearing her normal business skirt that is only half an inch away from illegal in 23 states. Even though there are three TV's back there showing nothing but Fox "News" (and we act like water boarding is torture?), she apparently had not watched the segment. She looked at me and said, "GREAT JOB!! We need more humor on the show. It's all so serious!" She did not get to the natural conclusion of her thought, "Now excuse me. I have to go interview strippers wearing Star Trek outfits designed for three-year-olds."
I then left the building without speaking to anyone. Following the break, intrepid newshound Clayton Morris pretended on-air as if he had thrown me out of the building. Here's the clip: He says something like, "I had to get rid of that guy!" The other anchor then says something like, "Well, it shows we have both sides of the issues here at Fox News." They then go on to interview the naked Star Trek chicks. So first of all, Fox "News" shows that it feels the solution to someone speaking their opinion is violence, but then they say it shows they have all viewpoints on their network. Within three seconds they stated that they accept all viewpoints and that they physically throw opposing viewpoints of the building. I'm impressed they're able to walk when they're that deeply drenched in hypocrisy.
A number of us, including Digby, have pointed out that the right policy solution for the Rush Limbaugh hate speech is not to condemn his right to speak, but to remove his government subsidized channel to speak to the troops while attacking their right to hold political views different from the Commander-in-Chief.
Wes Clark has made precisely that ask.
We need to start matching our moments of outrage to policy solutions that reinforce our ideological vision for the country. Part of that vision is for a government that no longer subsidizes right-wing hate speech but instead promotes a diversity of views over the media. And that's what this ask is directed to do, in an environment suitable for such an ask.
is not that it's a right-wing platform for war, intolerance, and greed; it isn't that it's spreading propaganda in support of an out-of-control White House that is hoarding unprecedented levels of power; it isn't that they engage in relentless and unfounded attacks on Democrats, progressives, and the rest of the 72% of Americans that Fox portrays as unpatriotic because they disapprove of Mr. Bush and his war; it isn't even that it sits at the center of a politically charged media empire run by Rupert Murdoch, a monopolistic ideologue with no allegiance to country or the common good.
Certainly any one of those things would reasonably explain a sharp increase in chronic anxiety, and the combination could set off an epidemic of cerebral aneurysms. But these are not the problems with Fox News.
Brought to you by... News Corpse, The Internet's Chronicle Of Media Decay.
She is nine years old. She is beautiful, brilliant, strong, confident and fearless. She is the woman her mother wants to become. And her mother is a very powerful woman in a world dominated by powerful men. Her parents -- well aware of what they have wrought -- make sure this angel of light is constantly trained to use her powers only for good, never for evil.
One day, the angel was writing an important letter she wanted to deliver free from prying eyes. She asked her father how much stamps cost. "Who are you mailing the letter to?" he asked. "It's a secret," she replied clutching the letter to her chest. "I don't need to know the contents, just who you are writing to," he said. "Otherwise, I can't help you with postage." She relented and told him. It was for her friend down the street. "Why don't you just call her?" he asked. "Because I want to keep it private," she said. "Use the upstairs phone," he suggested.
She looked at him as if he were a fool. "I'm not worried about you, Daddy. It's the government. They listen to everything." She pointed to the newspaper and sneered, "They admitted it."
Her father gazed into her eyes, horrified to see the handiwork of monsters staring back...
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
