‘Stimulus Math’ – a Presentation by abc News’ Political Punch

Over at abc NEWS, ‘Political Punch’ has been doing some math – STIMULUS math. ‘Political Punch’ came up with this title:

”$160,000 Per Stimulus Job? White House Calls That ‘Calculator Abuse’

America has now been told, by Political Punch,  the math results of the Obama administration’s STIMULUS plan. And those results are SENSATIONAL! But in a negative sort of way.

Perhaps those math numbers makes it easier to understand why the neocons absolutely REFUSED to even acknowledge America’s R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N. Americans were loosing jobs daily – companies were folding and banks were closing but the Bush team did not utter the “R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N” word. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the organization whose job it is to detect recessions was “mum” for about a year. Had that organization been politicized?

But, to a large extent the “TELL AMERICA” press did little telling about the R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N during the rein of the latter-day neocons.

HOW MUCH DID THE RECESSION COST AMERICA?

“Nobody don’t know” the answer to that question. And the question isn’t a frivolous question as we can see from Political Punch’s attempt to assign a cost to “one small step” in the Obama administration’s attempt to right a capsized economy. How would the stimulus cost, mentioned by Political Punch, compare with the recession’s cost NOT mentioned by Political Punch. How would the cost of the recession compare with the cost of trying to get out of the recession.

Certainly, if the dollar damage of the recession  was less-than or equal-to an amount spent trying to “repair” the recession, one might expect an article like the one presented by Political Punch. And the “What, Me Worry” attitude reflected by the latter-day neocons might have been better understood.

So, Political Punch decided to TELL AMERICA about the details of a cost of trying to bail America out of a recession that the latter-day neocons never acknowledged.

Now lets see:

640,329 jobs cost the Obama administration $159 billion dollars. So, 640,000 jobs divided by $159 billion would reveal  the jobs per dollar cost. Political Punch “TOLD AMERICA” that America may have paid $160,000 per stimulus job.

IS THAT NOT SENSATIONAL?

Perhaps its the “czarist” nature of the Obama administration that prompted it to spend that much money in an attempt to fix a problem never even admitted by the latter-day neocons.

A fourth grader would likely balk at shelling out $160,000 for each American job!!! Now lets see how much the neocons SAVED America by firing some 11,000 control tower workers – early during their rein.

Doing the math might produce:

11,000 ‘axed’ control tower jobs times $160,000 per ‘axed’ control tower job might have produce a SAVINGS of: 11,000 control tower workers times $160,000 per-control tower worker  = $1,760,000,000.

Not allowing for inflation produces a number of SENSATIONAL proportions – 1.7 billion dollars. That act against America’s working class might have saved America significant sums of money. The labor class has not fared well under the neocons.

The concept of an American working class might be somewhat scary to the neocons. A class with a large number of members might trigger a neocon’s  “socialism” alert.

If Political Punch does have a skill at ferreting out cost of things in the public domain – perhaps it could apply it skills to ferreting out and TELLING AMERICA how much the recession cost it.

And Political Punch could also tell of  the chance of getting out of the recession FREE.

***

The House Health Care Bill: Read It

THE HUFFINGTON POST

OCTOBER 29, 2009

Ryan Grim

HuffPost Reporting

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) officially unveiled the House health care reform bill that is headed to the House floor. The ceremony, held on the West steps of the Capitol, marks the greatest progress toward the Democratic Party’s top domestic priority goal in more than half a century.

The bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act — H.R. 3962 — includes a public health insurance option that would be required to negotiate with providers — the top choice of centrist and conservative Democrats.

Coming in at just under $900 billion over ten years, the plan would cover 36 million uninsured Americans.

House Democrats have posted the bill online. A summary can be read here and the full version is here.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus had pushed hard for a “robust” public option that would have reimbursed providers using Medicare rates. Blue Dog Democrats beat back that effort, costing taxpayers $85 billion over ten years — money that will go to hospitals, doctors and drug makers, increasing the cost of health care.

The bill also prevents insurers from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, caps the financial responsibility that insured individuals will face when medical emergencies strike, bans insurers for dropping folks because they get sick, and proposes a host of other insurance industry reforms. …

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/history-in-the-making-rea_n_338438.html

Republicans have made quite a name for themselves for protecting the fetus but have resisted for some 65 years the idea of providing health care for America’s children. It now appears that the US House Republicans have given children some concern.

And that is good.

But what does the below mean?

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are hoping that the historic push will give them an advantage in the 2010 midterm elections. “The lasting image coming out of today’s press conference is one of dozens of House Democrats standing proudly behind an incredibly unpopular Nancy Pelosi as she prepares to lead them off a political cliff,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Giving America’s children health care makes way more sense than victimizing America with  “VOODOO ECONOMICS”. America can’t afford another round of “VOODOO ECONOMICS” coming on the heels of the 2007  “VOODOO ECONOMICS” trashing of America’s economy.

It appears that the Republicans have already extracted way more “leeway” from America than they deserve. The neocons held an American Democratic President to significantly HIGHER STANDARDS than they held for themselves. Republicans should not even be seeking escape from rule-of-law accountability for their actions.

***

US economy is growing once again

The US economy grew at an annual pace of 3.5% between July and September, its first expansion in more than a year.

BBC News

Business

October 29, 2009

US GDP

% change in real GDP, annualised

The growth was helped by a substantial government spending plan, including a scrappage scheme to boost car sales.

The official figures indicate recession has ended, but some economists think there could be further setbacks.

The White House said it was “a welcome milestone”, but stressed it would be some time before the economy made a full recovery.

Compared with the previous three months, the US economy grew by 0.9%. In the same period, and on the same measure, the UK economy unexpectedly stayed in recession after it shrank by 0.4%. …

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8331497.stm

DAMN, DAMN, DAMN [III]

This kind of news is likely “worse” than the news of Obama being cited for his efforts toward peace with the world’s governments.

I had already seen what abc News website had as its headline since I visited  the A’s of abc News before I visited the B’s of the BBC News but I ventured back to abc news site to see if their news headline had changed.

And indeed it had. It had moved the story about Bill Clinton’s  impact on Hillary Clinton’s Vice President possibility down a notch and placed the good economic news on top.

Next I made a rare venture over to the “fair and balanced” news reporting of FOX News. Actually, FOX News was one of the earliest news sites that I emailed. That was done in late 2004 and I don’t do that no “mo”.

But at the FOX news site, I once again saw its  “fair and balanced” news reporting. All the “fair and balanced” political “news” I saw at FOX was  bad news for the Democrats. It is amazing how a “fair and balanced” news sorting process can come up with what appears to be a heavy bias for the Republican party. And even that is ok – but it boggles the mind that someone would call that “fair and balanced” news. They can call it whatever they want to call it but it is stupid to believe that the world is persuaded that FOX News should be trumpeting “fair and balanced” as its news motto.

The neocons and their supporters are striving mightily to keep bad neocon performance hidden while loudly attacking the current administration.

How do you HIDE a recession?

First you don’t ever say the word “R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N”. You could call it a slow-down or you could call it a downturn but you couldn’t call it a recession.

While the Bush team was saying “slow-down” the Bush team’s Treasury Department was planning a program to address the “slow-down”. Someone observed that the attempt to address the “slow-down” looked remarkably like what was used to address the Great Depression of the 30’s.

America is still attempting to recover from the worse economic disaster since the 30’s. And the neocons, who couldn’t recognize a recession if it “hit them in the face”, now try to pass their “wisdom” off as quite capable. But when in power:

Bush: Troubled financial system basically sound

WASHINGTON — President Bush said Tuesday the nation’s troubled financial system is “basically sound” and urged lawmakers to quickly enact legislation to prop up mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also called on the Democratic-run Congress to follow his example and lift a ban on offshore drilling to help increase domestic oil production.

Business Cycle Dating Committee, National bureau of Economic Research:

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators. A recession begins when the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends when the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion.

Because a recession is a broad contraction of the economy, not confined to one sector, the committee emphasizes economy-wide measures of economic activity. The committee believes that domestic production and employment are the primary conceptual measures of economic activity.

The committee views the payroll employment measure, which is based on a large survey of employers, as the most reliable comprehensive estimate of employment. This series reached a peak in December 2007 and has declined every month since then. …

It is certainly GOOD news that the economy is growing again. The Democrats could address the real problem because the Democrats are not constrained from helping all Americans.

If the federal government played  a decisive role in crippling the economy, then the federal government has a duty to try and correct its mistakes rather than playing its  “socialism”card.

Some fared well under the economy-wrecking neocons. A full accounting of Iraqi war expenditures will likely never happen. But politicians in high places are said to have done well. Politically connected companies were said to have done quite well.

And of course, the personal fortunes of some in the financial industry likely improved just prior to the recession. The recession did COST America. But how much is not on the “things to find out” list of the ones who caused the recession.

The Obama administration has done well against the natural  problems of a “tanked” economy and the problems cause by the neocons trying to protect their train-wreck leadership performance.

***

The Filibuster – ‘Talking the Talk’

The filibuster’s death seemed nigh during the rein of the  neocons

The neocons, prior to their dethroning by America’s ombudsmen(the American voters), did not tolerate, in a diplomatic way, opposition to their Supreme Court nominees.

Traditionally, if a senator had a mind to – he/she could use the filibuster to slow, stop or perhaps kill a senate bill. The Democrats suggested they might filibuster the hurried seating of Justice Samuel Alito to America’s Supreme Court. The neocons were incensed. And in response, the neocons threatened to KILL THE FILIBUSTER. They would have KILL THE FILIBUSTER – DEAD! But the Democrats, sensing the serious tone of the neocons, toned down their filibuster talk.

The Washington Post’s Helen Dewar and  Mike Allen captured the majority party’s mood this way:

GOP May Target Use of Filibuster

Senate Democrats Want To Retain the Right to Block Judicial Nominees

By Helen Dewar and Mike Allen

Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 13, 2004; Page A01

As speculation mounts that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will step down from the Supreme Court soon because of thyroid cancer, Senate Republican leaders are preparing for a showdown to keep Democrats from blocking President Bush’s judicial nominations, including a replacement for Rehnquist.

Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president’s 229 judicial nominees in his first term — although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the “nuclear option,” to thwart such filibusters. …

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59877-2004Dec12.html

If one is a politician, working from a foundation of political ideology, one can  be flexible about most everything beyond that political foundation of  political ideology.

Traditions, rules, laws and the like – not woven into political ideology, could be considered “non-binding” on the political ideology driven political party. Political parties steeped in ideology could provide the base for producing “pure” OPPORTUNISTS – opportunity not bound by tradition, rule, law or the like.

If selling cocaine in minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California presented itself – that “opportunity” could be taken advantage of if the rule of law was ignored. And any political party that would do such a thing would earn the respect/fear of those who opposed that political party.

The Democrats would naturally take serious any “kill the filibuster  threats” from an in-power  political party that would sell an illegal recreational drug to its own people.

But selling illegal “kill you slowly” recreational drugs to one’s own people, still falls short of what Saddam Hussein did to his own people.

It is still difficult to fathom where the neocons draw the line on behavior. The flip/flop on the existence of the filibuster is a case in point.

One author pointed out two groups of people with strong concerns about the filibuster. One group was strongly for the filibuster and the other group was strongly against the filibuster. But the neocons are a group that can GO EITHER WAY on the life of the filibuster. It just depends on where the opportunities lie.

***

Who is Matthew Hoh?

I just read that Matthew Hoh resigned his State Department Job

Matthew Hoh has just decided to go public with his personal job preference. He no longer prefers to serve in Afghanistan. And the TELL AMERICA press is telling America that someone who America likely did not know wants to quit his job. People change jobs all the time. What’s so special about this time?

Who is Matthew Hoh?

I went searching. I searched via the Google search engine – then via iZito. I had trouble finding information about Matthew Hoh.

General Douglas MacArthur disagreed with President Harry S. Truman on what constraints the YALU river should have on the Korean war. America was told of this disagreement – but there was no need to TELL AMERICA who General Douglas MacArthur was. America knew.

But yet, who is Matthew Hoh?

If one is to decide on political questions, one should at least get some background on the politics of those involved. But as of now, I have not found the background that I searched for. It is almost a requirement that one search for  background information since much of America’s government was politicized by the latter-day neocons. Even Sesame Street came under the neocon’s gaze.

The U.S. State Department did not escape the politicizing of the neocons. The U.S. State Department, under the neocons, reminded one of the old “U.S. WAR DEPARTMENT”.

A Pakistani leader said his country was threatened with being BLOWN BACK INTO THE STONE AGE by a State Department official. And the “TELL AMERICA” press did not make nearly so much fuss about that. And many of us were aware of the name of that State Department official who was said by Pakistan to have made the threat.

I decided to ask Wikipedia for a “Matthew Hoh” biography. And Wikipedia asked me, “Did you mean matthew hood biography”? My answer was no.

There was a time, in America’s history, when you could accept news stories at face value. But in today’s world, it may be unwise to receive political information with a “no questions asked” frame-of-mind. And a recent PEW poll told how Americans, today, don’t place as much trust in the press as it once did.

Why didn’t the “TELL AMERICA” press, especially in today’s political environment,  tell a little more background of this person who is changing jobs.  It is likely asking too much to give the reader the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY AND HOW of that “sensational” news story.

At this time, news readers(humans), to some extent, are sadly lacking in everything but the SENSATIONALISM of a news story. And this news story  about somebody in government leaving their job is something that may negatively impact President Barack Obama.

What a sensation!

***

George H.W. Bush And America

I just read this post on George H.W. Bush:

The Bush Legacy: The Business is Personal

U.S. News & world report

by Jamie Stiehm, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Colleague Mary Kate Cary sent a black and white bouquet of words George Herbert Walker Bush’s way this week, praising President Obama for speaking at the former president’s library to honor his charitable initiative, A Thousand Points of Light, and salute his public service. She said she had worked for the elder Bush and loved him very much.

The personal element is what caught my eye, as that lies at the heart of the Bush way of doing business. Everything is personal if your name is George Bush, father or son. The loyalty gene runs deep in this American dynasty, which has cost our country dearly.

Sure, there are millions of Americans who love or like the 41st president very much. The Connecticut Yankee was born and bred to be genial, to write thank you notes, to join the secret elite club at Yale, to captain the baseball team, to get the girl from Greenwich, and to become a true war hero. All that was prelude.

As the elder Bush, nicknamed Poppy, made a fortune in Texas, he also put a foot in the political ring and won election to Congress. He never did get elected to the Senate, his father Prescott’s former province.

But that turned out not to matter much, as Bush hopskotched from one appointment to another to build a brilliant political resume: ambassador to China, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and more. Tapped on the shoulder time after time, he rose high in party politics without having his upper-crust ways vetted by voters. But he amassed more than a thousand points of light in personal friends and supporters. …

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/Jamie-Stiehm/2009/10/23/the-bush-legacy-the-business-is-personal.html

George H.W. Bush helped America. During his Administration, America did not show a need to take to the streets in an attempt to help him manage the Gulf War. He did just fine, thank you.

But as a kid, he had a problem. His problem was:

BROCCOLI:

…I do not like broccoli. I haven’t liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. I’m president of the United States, and I’m not going to eat any more broccoli….

— George H.W. Bush in 1990

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/apr/27/1c27food20114/

Of course, those whose business was broccoli knew instantly what the problem was. The President needed to sample some of their broccoli. So, they sent him some – and they sent him some more – and they …

Before long, President Bush had enough broccoli to re-evaluate his childhood decision. And recently there was a published article that said broccoli was an excellent food – especially for males. Mom was right all along.

VOODOO ECONOMICS:

• …It just isn’t going to work, and it’s very interesting that the man who invested this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy…

• • Speech at Carnegie Mellon University (10 April 1980), allegedly referring to Ronald Reagan…

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

The Gulf War:

…Bush also organized an unprecedented global alliance against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War of 1991…

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571000/george_h_w_bush.html

The Internet Bloggers Affair:

During the administration of George W. Bush, America, to a significant extent,  lost faith in the domestic and international guidance of the George W. Bush administration. And though America has been said to both walk and speak softly while carrying a BIG STICK – America did not walk nor speak softly during President George W. Bush’s plan for Iraq. That plan appeared to betray all that America stood for – in the international arena.

America publically displayed its concern for the direction America was headed in. And for their efforts, they were called “fascist sympathizers” by a member of President Bush’s cabinet.

A war was being “forced” upon America for a reason known only to a few. And bloggers blogged. And Mr. George H. W. Bush, perhaps, saw the intensity of blogger’s concern somewhat disturbing. Mr. George H.W. Bush commented on the bloggers:

BLOGGERS:

11/14/2006

Think Progress

Former President Bush Blames ‘Bloggers’ for ‘Ugly’ Political Climate

Last night on Fox News, former President George H.W. Bush said the current political climate has “gotten so adversarial that it’s ugly.” Asked to offer an explanation for why there is this “incivility,” Bush pinned the blame on bloggers. “It’s probably a little worse now given electronic media and the bloggers and all these kinds of things,” he said. …

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/14/hwbloggers/

Perhaps George H.W. Bush, America’s elder statesman, was trying to explain why his son was having such a difficult problem. If that was the case, then America could likely understand the concern of a father for his son. That’s how fathers are.

***

Fair and Balanced News?

It must be quite a task for a news organization to be “fair and balanced” when the top-tier of the news organization is so publically vocal in their political party preference.

One might reasonably wonder about the strength of character needed  by a news organization to distance itself from a political party of its politically active owners. A motto won’t likely do it.

The “motto” tool, by itself, may not be sufficient in persuading people to a  certain mind set. A motto talks the talk.

And some sports figures have reminded the world that – “talking the talk” is quite different from “walking the walk”.

A “talk” versus “walk” detector(common sense) is a “tool” in the hands of almost everybody. In many cases a motto(talk) is “suspect” from the “git-go”. People judge more on what you do, than what you say. Actions do speak louder than words.

So, has FOX NEWS actions enhanced or betrayed its “fair and balanced” news motto? The answer to that question is a NO-BRAINER.

***

Networks respond to false Fox ad

CNN Politics.com

Political ticker…

September 18, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Fox News is under fire for a newspaper ad they purchased Friday that inaccurately accused its competitors, including CNN, of failing to cover last weekend’s Tea Party protests in Washington.

“How did, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?” Fox’s newspaper ad asks.

The answer: They didn’t.

CNN provided live coverage of the rally in Washington on Saturday, dispatching more than a dozen personnel, including multiple camera crews and the CNN Express Bus, to cover the event. Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser was live at Freedom Plaza; Correspondent Kate Bolduan reported live from the Capitol and throughout the crowd; All Platform Journalist Jim Spellman provided live hits all day after traveling for weeks on the Tea Party Express Bus; and CNN Correspondent Lisa Desjardins was live for CNN and CNN Radio from the National Mall.

CNN’s Rick Sanchez weighs in on Fox’s ad

CNN’s coverage also included numerous live reports and interviews with protesters and newsmakers, including rally day speaker Sen. Jim DeMint and activist Art Gerhart, who was on the set with anchor Don Lemon to discuss the event.

In addition, CNN.com provided a live stream of the rally throughout the day.

ABC referred Friday to a statement by Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks – the group that organized the event – characterizing the network’s coverage that day as “fair and honest.” The rally story was featured on the network’s morning shows, nightly news broadcast, in extensive radio reporting and online.

MSNBC also pointed to its own reporting. “Just like every other network mentioned in the ad, MSNBC covered last Saturday’s protest,” the network said in a statement.

CBS detailed its coverage of the event in a statement issued Friday afternoon.

“CBS News had multiple crews on site with our Congressional Correspondent Nancy Cordes reporting,” the network said in a statement. “It was the lead story on the CBS EVENING NEWS; CBS Radio News provided hourly reports during the day and CBSNews.com had the story in its rotating lead all day. They also processed the Nancy Cordes video and linked it throughout the site.”

And CNN criticized Fox for its inaccurate statement. “Fox News’ ad released today is blatantly false regarding CNN’s coverage of the 9/12 rally,” CNN said in a statement. …

Watch some of CNN’s Tea Party coverage here, and read some of our in-depth reporting.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/18/networks-respond-to-false-fox-ad/

THE HUFFINGTON POST

October 24, 2009

Jason Linkins | HuffPost Reporting

Fox News Newspaper Ad Makes False Claims About Tea Party Coverage [UPDATED]

In this morning’s Washington Post, on page A9, the Fox News Channel took out a full-page ad, chest-thumping about its coverage of this past weekend’s Tea Party protests in Washington, DC (which were heavily promoted by Fox News). “How did, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?” the text reads. It makes one wonder: Did Fox’s marketing department bother to check on its competitors’ coverage before they made these claims?

The facts are these: It took me all of 30 seconds to open up TVEyes and search CNN and MSNBC for Tea Party coverage on Saturday, September 12. Here are the facts. By my rough count, on September 12, CNN ran no less than 14 reports on the Tea Party rally, beginning at approximately 7:00 a.m. During the same time period, MSNBC offered viewers four reports on the Tea Parties. This is substantially less coverage than that of Fox News, obviously, but they did provide one of the event’s most iconic images:

In the local DC market, the Tea Parties also received coverage. CBS reported on the story during the six-o’clock and eleven-o’clock news broadcasts, NBC did the same during its six-o’clock and seven-o’clock broadcasts and ABC covered the Tea Parties in all three evening broadcasts. No one missed the story.

It’s especially galling to see an advertisement claiming that ABC News “missed the story” — and not just because ABC News Radio referenced the rallies in 69 separate broadcasts. As anyone who paid attention to the rally knows, one of the more interesting and important aspects of the larger Tea Party story was how ABC News got caught up in all the confusing crosstalk over the crowd size:

Conservative activists, who organized a march on the U.S. Capitol today in protest of the Obama administration’s health care agenda and government spending, erroneously attributed reports on the size of the crowds to ABC News.

Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally Saturday that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.

At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C. fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as “tens of thousands.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-newspaper-ad-mak_n_291494.html

Although other networks may TOTALLY DISAGREE with the accuracy of FOX NEWS’ news – abc news and the Los Angeles Times appear to want to protect FOX NEWS’ right to air whatever you call FOX NEWS’ coverage of the Tea Party.

It sure looks like FOX NEWS had more than a reporters interest in the outcome of that far-right-wing(neocon) political event. Perhaps FOX actually believes its “news” is fair and balanced and is encouraging all news sources to “be like them”.

***

President Obama’s Feud with FOX News

After Months of Taking Heat from FOX News Stars, the White House is Firing Back

CBS News

By Jeff Greenfield

Oct. 23, 2009

(CBS) After months of taking incoming fire from the prime-time stars of Fox News, the Obama White House is firing back, charging that FOX News is different from all other news.

“FOX News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director.

“If media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing, and if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another,” Mr. Obama said.

And the White House has gone beyond words, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield. Last Sept. 20, the president went on every Sunday news show – except Chris Wallace’s show on FOX. And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press.

“All the networks said, that’s it, you’ve crossed the line,” said CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.

Tension between presidents and the press is as old as the Republic. FDR was so incensed by the war reporting of one New York Daily News correspondent he tried to present him with an Iron Cross from Nazi Germany. John Kennedy tried to get New York Timesman David Halberstam pulled out of Vietnam; and Vice-President Spiro Agnew’s assaults on the network press is legendary.

“We have more than our share of nattering nabobs of negativism,” Agnew said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/eveningnews/main5415921.shtml

CBS may not agree with what FOX NEWS says – but it may protect with all its reserve of GOOD BUSINESS and TELL AMERICA’s expertise, FOX NEWS’ right to say it? And in so doing, CBS brought up a political name America has tried to forget – “Spiro Agnew”.

Is CBS supporting a “news” source’s right to serve as a catalyst or a “cheerleader” in Republican party events and classify the results as news? America is accustomed to “news” being news reported by a news organization – not news created/designed by a “news organization”. Where “news” is heavily OPINIONATED, some news sources say “OPINION”.

And actually you can visit the Los Angeles Times and read a column by Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg’s column is like reading something from Ann Coulter’s website but the Los Angeles times prominently displays the word “OPINION” near its columnists.

Perhaps “opinion” can be passed off as news if the critical read “latch” of the reader is turned off.

News organizations can make news – as FOX NEWS has just done – but the AIM of news organizations is to report rather than make news. Cheer-leading a “news” event is NOT just reporting the news. It is helping to influence or make the news.

At the individual’s level – bias is expected. We have our bias/choices and we do express them. We certainly would not call ourselves a NEWS PAPER. We lack the non-biased perspective that NEWS ORGANIZATIONS are supposed to possess. The professionals of journalism are expected to answer to a code of ethics that individuals are not subjected to. And that makes sense. Professionals can show bias in stating their opinions but the professional act of getting and reporting NEWS is expected to be devoid of opinion.

Everything that is anything has a definition. Journalism has a definition. Reporter has a definition. Columnist has a definition. Opinion has a definition. You can find those definitions written in the English language so Americans – all – can read and understand those definitions. And yes, also, ethics is defined within the news reporting domain:

Ethics and standards in practice

See main articles: journalism scandals, media bias, media ethics, and yellow journalism

As with other ethical codes, there is a perennial concern that the standards of journalism are being ignored. One of the most controversial issues in modern reporting is media bias, especially on political issues, but also with regard to cultural and other issues. Sensationalism is also a common complaint. Minor factual errors are also extremely common, as almost anyone who is familiar with the subject of a particular report will quickly realize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

The above excerpt from wikipedia.org talks about MEDIA BIAS. It mentions, in particular, political media bias.

Imagine cornering the market in news sources so that one can get rid of political media bias. Imagine buying up all the newspapers so as to make sure that your political point of view does not dominate those news sources. Just imagine.

Imagine, if you can,  FOX NEWS not being a source of political media bias.

While individuals are expected to have political bias – the same is not true for professional news sources. And the American public has sensed that something is “BAD” wrong with America’s news sources. PEW Research Center for the People & the Press, just recently, said it this way:

Poll: News Media’s Credibility Plunges

It is time for FOX NEWS to reassess its definition of news. Perhaps FOX should step back from its current fare of political cheer-leading and back to the time when newspapers – editorially supported their candidates just prior to an election. That was a more acceptable way for news sources to participate in America’s political process.

And for other news sources, remember the single rotten apple in a barrel “hypothesis”. The PEW poll spoke of the news media.

***

Automating the Neocons’ Afghanistan War

Mr. Cheney is now suggesting the Obama administration should increase troop strength in Afghanistan? That is directly opposite to what his administration did.

The idea of shifting strategy from the neocon’s drones to an increased Obama troop level has already gotten an expression of dissatisfaction  by America. And that is suspiciously like what the neocons might want from the the “I hope he fails” neocon opposition.

But who, in his right mind, would seek military logistics advice from ANY member of the Bush team? Perhaps that is why Mr. Cheney is giving his Afghanistan advice freely? Mr. Cheney and his Bush team have already left America and Afghanistan enough to remember them by.

The neocons, perhaps showing their superior war-fighting wisdom, or their need to shift war-fighting resources elsewhere mechanized the Afghanistan war. Drones played a significant role in the Afghanistan war fighting.

Drones expanded the range of the terrorist search. The range expanded beyond the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Drones could seek out terrorists anywhere – where they worked, played or fought. But drones are not too “picky” about their targets. Generally the targets were live targets.

It looked like whenever a large group of people congregated in an area where there might be a terrorist, the drones came. And when the drones left, there was damage – either pointed or collateral. More often than not villagers indicated “collateral”. And the Bush team left it  this way to engage in their own war – the Iraqi war.

——————————————————————————————————–

One can easily remember that America, in 2003, asked the Bush team if its Iraqi-war troop level proposal was adequate. The answer was YES. That answer proved to be a profound mistake – a mistake of monumental proportions.

The allies air strikes promised  “shock and awe”, to Saddam Hussein’s military. And the allies delivered as promised -  but the after-effects of those air strikes also seemed to have left the Bush team’s ground plan in “shock and awe”.

The Bush team’s ground plan for protecting Iraq’s non-combatants was either in disarray or non-existent.  After the “shock and awe” of allied air power, came the “litmus” test for the Bush team’s 2003 assertion of adequate troop levels for their Iraq war.

How did the Bush team do? Lets hear a description of what the Iraqi non-combatants had to live through with the Bush team’s ground forces.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, of Great Britain,  was in Iraq in 2003. He was to assist in managing Iraq’s transition to the allies law and order. Here, in part, is what he said:

“In the days following the victory of 9 April [2003], no one, it seems to me, was instructed to put the security of Iraq first. To put law and order on the streets first. There was no police force. There was no constituted army except the victorious invaders. And there was no American general that I could … establish who was given the accountable responsibility to make sure that the first duty of any government — and we were the government — was to keep law and order on the streets. There was a vacuum from the beginning, in which looters, saboteurs, the criminals, the insurgents moved very quickly.”…

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/top-british-envoy-says-blair-took-his-eye-off/49066/

Since there was no real transition to law and order, terrorists found that inviting. It started to look like the Bush team was not really doing a good job of fighting terrorists.

It was said that terrorists prefer areas where there is little or no government. After the allies “captured” Baghdad, Baghdad fit the description of “little or no government”.

Before the Bush team “captured” Baghdad, terrorists did not really seem to want to tangle with Saddam Hussein. Perhaps Saddam’s reputation was well known in the neighborhood. But  there was no such caution after the allies dethroned Saddam Hussein. And the Iraqi people spent the next five years ducking bombs and bullets. Some were successful, many were not.

It was during this time that the Bush team discovered that their Iraq prize was not the end of the terrorist trail. While being mired down in Iraq with new terrorists and terrorist trainees streaming in daily the Bush team made a profound announcement. The Bush team announced to the world that “terrorism is a world-wide problem”.

Perhaps the Bush team saw all the new recruits, from many parts of the world, descending upon Bagdad which was then without much of a government.

It boggles the mind how anyone responsible for the Iraq war debacle could, in good conscious, present themselves as a source of wisdom in troop requirements – even for local parades.

***