Your Weekly Dose of Austerity Propaganda

The latest presidential side of non-fiery chat: (rough draft rescued from a White House dumpster.)

Hello, everybody. Over the last few weeks, there’s been a lot of bullshit talk about phonydeadlines we’re facing on how to steal from the poor and let my donor class take whatever they want jobs and taxes and investments. But with so much manufactured fear-mongering  noise and so many opinions flying around, it can be easy to fool most of the people some of the time lose sight of what this debate is really about. It’s not about which political party comes out on top, or who wins or loses in Washington. It’s about making sure the top one percent keeps sucking up all the wealth of our great nation smart decisions that will have a real negative impact on your lives and the lives of Americans all across the country.

Right now, middle-class tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year. Time is running out because we are pretending there is a fiscal crisis and not a jobs crisis.  And there are two things that can happen.

First, if Congress does nothing, every family in America will see their income taxes automatically go up on January 1^st. A typical middle-class family of four would get a non-immediate $2,200 tax hike. That would be temporarily inconveniencing bad for families, it would be bad for businesses, and it would drag down our entire economy. Of course, since we could easily and retroactively restore the deductions early next year, it would actually not have an immediate effect at all. It would take at least a year for the economy to slide back into recession. But nobody, especially me, is mentioning that. I need cover to slash the social safety net, and this kabuki debt crisis theatre is giving it to me.

Now, Congress can avoid all this by passing a law that prevents a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. That means 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up by a single dime. Even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. And families everywhere would enjoy some peace of mind. Through this bit of weekly propaganda, I will make sure that your peace of mind is becoming upset, just in case it wasn't already. 

The Senate has already done their part. Now we’re just waiting for Republicans in the House to do the same thing. But so far, they’ve put forward an unbalanced plan that actually lowers rates for the wealthiest Americans. Ironically, if they fail to deal with me, your Medicare and Social Security will be safe for now!  If we want to protect the middle class, the best possible thing would be just to go over the fiscal cliff then the math just doesn’t work.

We can and should actually be representing the people who elected us do more than just extend middle class tax cuts. I stand ready to fuck you over work with Republicans on a plan that rewards multinational corporations spurs economic growth, creates McJobs jobs and reduces our deficit – a plan that gives the rich both sides some of what they want. I’m willing to raise the Medicare age to 67, thus giving even more profits to the private insurance leeches find ways to bring down the cost of health care without letting on that I will be hurting seniors and other Americans who depend on it. And I’m willing to make more earned benefits entitlement spending cuts on top of the $1 trillion dollars in cuts I signed into law last year. That means adjusting the formula by which we figure increases in the cost of living for Social Security recipients. We already don't factor in food and medical care; now we have to find even more cruel ways to make sure middle class refugees share the sacrifice, work longer, and die sooner.

But if we’re seriously beholden to Wall Street about reducing our deficit while still investing in things like privatized, for-profit education and research that are important to enriching the plutocracy growing our economy – and if we’re seriously pretending to care about protecting middle-class families – then we’re also going to have to grovel ask the wealthiest Americans to pay only slightly higher tax rates. That’s one principle I won’t compromise on in order to give credence to my shared sacrifice meme and keep some of the people still stupidly believing that I actually care about them.

After all, this was a central question in the false choice election between two evils. A clear majority of Americans – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – agreed that jobs are the most pressing issue with a balanced approach totally contrived by me that asks ignores the poor and longterm unemployed something from everyone, but a very temporary, paltry, miniscule little more from those who already grabbed more than their fair share can most afford it. I am ignoring the fact that only 15% of those polled said the deficit is their primary concern. It’s the only way to give the richest of the rich who spent a billion dollars to re-elect me their way put our economy on a sustainable path without asking even more from them the middle class. And it’s the only kind of plan I’m willing to sign.

Everyone in the elite financial, media and political class  agrees the rich can never have too much we need to bring down our deficit and strengthen our economy for the long-term. The question is whether we can do it in a an opaque responsible way that allows us to keep fooling you investing in the military industrial complex things that have always made America an imperialistic bully and a banana republic strong. I’m convinced we can keep up our charade. And if both sides of the Money Party are willing to compromise, I believe we can give businesses and families a false sense of security going into the New Year.

Thanks for swallowing this crap, and have a great weekend.

Big Brother Denialism

Both presidential campaigns got a lot of negative press this campaign season for the creepy Orwellian ways they were able to peer deep into the personal lives of millions of potential voters. The nerve centers of campaign HQs were sending volleys of synapses into the Great American Brainpan. I know, because my mind had been getting all jittery over the perpetual political horse race.

 Now, thank goodness, all is temporarily calm and bright in my own little corner of cyberspace. Blissfully gone are those days when I couldn't visit a web-page without the grinning face of Barack or the grimacing face of Mitt haunting my every click. Email spam folders are also blessedly bereft of those uncannily personal and overly-familiar missives from Michelle and Ann, Bo and Tagg, Cutter and Ax.

Now that the Spambot in-Chief of the Obama campaign is apparently out of a job, (or so he implies) he has written an op-ed for The New York Times to bitch about all the bad press his spy outfit has gotten. "I Am Not Big Brother!" shrills Ethan Roeder, who makes sure that we know that his job description is former data director for Obama for America. He comes not to spy upon you but to deny the spying ever happened in the first place -- even though he can't help admitting that yes, he spied. But it was for your own good. He is here to cover his ass set the record straight:

Reading what others muse about my profession is the opposite of my middle-school experience: people with only superficial information about me make a bunch of assumptions to fill in what’s missing and decide that I’m an all-knowing super-genius. (wahhhh.)

Sadly for me, this is a bunch of malarkey. You may chafe at how much the online world knows about you, but campaigns don’t know anything more about your online behavior than any retailer, news outlet or savvy blogger.
 

He doesn't know anything about you that corporate sleazeballs like Macy's or Amazon don't know, so that makes you fair game for political operatives, too. Ethan's middle school memories unfortunately do not include the time his mother chided him about the evils of going along with the crowd: "If everybody else in your class jumped off a cliff, Ethan, would you do it too?"

 Also, I was unaware that "savvy bloggers" were in the habit of hacking into people's private information. And here I thought only Anonymous and the FBI were doing it. Where do I sign up?

And anyway, cyberspying is all so harmless and mundane and kind of boring, as Ethan reassuringly purrs:

The explicit data includes e-mails and comments that users share directly. The implicit data comes from “click tracking,” which tells a campaign what buttons are getting pressed and how often. Combined, these two categories of data allow a campaign to put together an online experience that will resonate with as many people as possible, but also to customize the experience so that you are more likely to encounter content that’s relevant to you.

At times it might seem like sorcery to the recipient of a targeted e-mail, but it’s just a product of two simple factors: remembering who you are and remembering what you like.

I know who you are and I saw what you did. Big Brother follows you for your own good, to find out what you like. He wants to manufacture an online experience for you, whether you want one or not. It may seem like magic, but it's nothing more than technology run amok. As long as we are transparent about our methodology, says Ethan, you should just accept the loss of privacy. It's the new normal. Stop being such whiney purist civil libertarians. The Constitution is so yesterday.

The data the Obama people have gleaned on the lives of citizens is vaster than we ever could have imagined. Ethan soothingly reveals that

 In 2011 and 2012, the Obama campaign, with the help of more than two million volunteers, had more than 24 million conversations with voters. Online tools gave Obama supporters resources to help them play a crucial role in their neighborhoods, and a series of “share your story” pages on the campaign Web site provided a venue for voters to communicate directly with the campaign in long form.

(snip) 

 New technologies and an abundance of data may rattle the senses, but they are also bringing a fresh appreciation of the value of the individual to American politics.

What Ethan does not reveal in his op-ed is that his database is something of a pearl without price, but it may soon be for sale anyway at a very hefty price to the highest political or corporate bidder (s). The Democrats as well as their veal pen offshoots are not being shy about asking for it:

 From the candidates running in 2014 to the state Democratic parties to progressive advocacy groups, there is an intense behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign afoot to pry from Obamaland its groundbreaking voter database. The data is rich with intricate layers of information about individuals’ voting habits, television viewing tastes, propensity to volunteer, car registration, passions, email address, cellphone numbers, and social media contacts. The historical trove enabled Obama to connect with voters on a highly personal level and get them not only to vote but to actively persuade their neighbors to do the same.

(snip)

 Those decisions likely won’t be made until closer to the president’s inauguration next month. Among the prime options being discussed by president’s political hands: setting up an independent, not-for-profit entity, run by Obama aides, to manage and keep the electronic files updated so the contacts could be used to further the president’s agenda. Handing over the names to campaigns is not high on the list right now.
 

That's a relief. Now, when it comes time to slash "entitlements" (a/k/a paid-up retirement and old-age medical insurance policies as well as programs for our most vulnerable citizens) The President will morph into CyberSvengali and we will be mass-hypnotized into participating in our own destruction. Once that is accomplished, he may or may not bequeath his Master List to the next Masters and Mistresses waiting in the wings. Has he ever stopped to think that people forced to share the sacrifice with the plutocracy may no longer be able to even afford a computer or an internet connection, and the whole master list may be for naught?

Despite what Winston Smith thought to himself at the very end, Big Brother most assuredly does not love you. 

 

The Well-Dressed War Machine Wears Green

By Fred Drumlevitch
(cross-posted with permission from FredDrumlevitch.blogspot.com)


With that title, I’m referring not to the color of soldiers’ uniforms or St. Patrick’s Day attire, but rather, to modern attempts by the armaments makers to greenwash their operations, and to the taxpayer greenbacks that pay for American militarism instead of genuine environmental preservation and other beneficial programs.

Of course, “Raytheon Celebrates Earth Day”. From their corporate website:

But for a truly astounding example of such greenwashing (which I still find surreal more than a year after I first saw it), watch the following 2011 video from KVOA television, the Tucson NBC affiliate:

http://www.kvoa.com/news/raytheon-innovates-new-ways-of-going-green/

(The above link provides access to both the video and a slightly-inaccurate transcript).

Though not usually associated with armaments suppliers, greenwashing of corporate activity is nothing new, and I presume that the above local “news” segment was supposed to make viewers feel all warm and fuzzy about the merchants of death at Raytheon. (How, though, is beyond my comprehension, unless the viewers are regarded as complete morons by both Raytheon and KVOA — which may well be the case).

Depending on one’s point of view, the military-industrial complex may or may not be a giant sinkhole swallowing desperately-needed national resources and perverting national priorities, but none of that is even an issue, all’s right with the world, for they recycle their soft-drink cans and office supplies! While high-efficiency lighting or solar panels might be of benefit for logistical reasons within a combat zone, can anyone in their right mind believe that recycling — or even the grandest of environmental initiatives — by a defense contractor stateside makes a laudable difference, in the context of the overall waste of national resources by the military and its suppliers? “Inane” doesn’t even begin to describe this gushing television segment. The presentation by KVOA of this greenwashing tripe as newsworthy, with no reference to broader concerns and not even a trace of irony, must rate as one of the clearest indicators I’ve ever seen of the journalistic bankruptcy of local television “news” reporting.

One needn’t be a pacifist to recognize that the American military-industrial complex now plays a pathological role in the course of contemporary human events. And in fact I am not a pacifist; I understand that in our present world, some military capability is necessary. But the true problems of our nation receive, at best, token attention, while unnecessary and futile wars drag on year after year, taking an incalculable toll. All but the blind can see America's basic military readiness harmed, soldiers demoralized, or worse, made physical or psychological casualties of our insane interminable wars. All but those suffering from terminal American exceptionalism or denial should be able to understand the immorality of foreign civilians injured and killed — and the new enemies thereby created. Technology will not provide a magic solution; our high-tech semi-robotic instruments of war may reduce U.S. casualties, but they cannot mask the destruction and hatred created on the receiving end of our actions. And used or unused, the costs of our war machines, and indeed, of our entire military, are bankrupting the nation, and have a massive “opportunity cost” of better things not done.

Perhaps the most under-appreciated damage involves what has been done to our national ideals and the political process. For decades, both officeholders and candidates have been afraid to take rational positions with regard to our military spending, our worldwide military presence, and our military actions. For politicians, mustn’t be seen as weak or hesitant; for the human cogs of the war machine tasked with keeping the pipeline of cannon fodder full, mustn’t be seen as in any way reducing the flow. Washington, D.C., or Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State, the result is the same. Even the term “Defense Department”, for what used to be called, more honestly, the “Department of War”, hints at the disconnect between our perceptions/actions and reality. Nearly every military action, even an unjustified, massive invasion and occupation of a sovereign foreign country, such as the United States led in Iraq, has been rebranded as “defense” — and since, in the popular mind, one can never have enough defense, an unending string of wars is rationalized. Should our present ones show signs of winding down, well, the chicken-hawks of American politics, the CEOs of our military manufacturers and mercenary armies, and the visiting foreign heads of state, all are highly skilled at an improvisational syncopation that will promote new conflict.

In this time of impending sequestration and other budgetary pressures, the “dog-and-pony” shows of the weapons manufacturers and the armed services have only just begun. They will cycle through multiple themes. Most will revolve around fears that will reference past attacks on the United States — but conveniently ignore that many of the weapons systems being purchased at extravagant cost are of little relevance to defense against any attacks we are likely to face, and that bountiful weapons combined with an American psychology of overreach have played a significant role in creating many of our international problems. Some will pander to concerns about the jobs that will be lost if we reduce military spending. (Attention/Achtung! My fellow 19th century American Southerners/20th century Germans, we must continue slavery/the concentration camps, lest unemployment rise!). The Pentagon and its contractors, having over the course of decades masterfully distributed military bases and manufacturing across so many Congressional districts, are now able to exploit economic-based fears of cutbacks to enlist the support of Congress against necessary military cuts. Together they will also leverage the complex blend of patriotism and justified pride at the historical role of the U.S. in fighting tyranny during WWII, now exploiting such feelings to imply that a never-ending worldwide projection of U.S. force in the service of supposed liberation is desirable — never mind that our actions in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan did not go according to plan, and future ones may not either. Given the diversity of themes used to influence political opinion in favor of irrationally high levels of military spending, perhaps it ultimately is not surprising that they have thrown in a bit of greenwashing too.

For those with an interest in the ecological opportunity costs of U.S. militarism, consider this: In an article published in Science magazine in 2001, Stuart Pimm and colleagues examined the costs of preserving a significant fraction of the world’s biodiversity. They estimated then that the preservation of twenty-five biodiversity “hotspots” plus the acquisition of tropical wilderness preserves could be achieved for a one-time cost of approximately $25 billion for terrestrial ones, and an additional $2.5 billion for marine reserves. While species numbers have significant correlations to area (see here, and here), and therefore preservation would ideally include more land than the Pimm et al. proposal, implementation of their proposal would be a good starting point towards the preservation of biodiversity. Assuming that costs have quadrupled in the intervening years, such preservation could be achieved at a ONE-TIME current cost of $110 billion. Current U.S. “defense” spending, stripped of its creative accounting, is well over six times that figure PER YEAR.

Recommended reading on the topic of military spending and related politics: anything by Andrew Bacevich.

Fred Drumlevitch blogs (irregularly) at www.FredDrumlevitch.blogspot.com
He can be reached at: FredDrumlevitch12345 (at) gmail.com

Text Copyright Fred Drumlevitch