Cenk Uygur’s Daffy Advice To CNN On "Real Reporting"

Liberal talk show host Ceyk Uygur had some advice for the former “Worldwide Leader in News” in a column he wrote last week about the network’s plummeting ratings. Here’s Cenk:

CNN just had their lowest ratings in a decade. They are in disastrous shape. When I was on MSNBC, we would beat them with a stick. Even after "pro-CNN" stories like revolutions in Egypt and Libya, Japanese nuclear meltdowns and the killing of Osama bin Laden (CNN does much better when major news or international stories break out), we still beat them. Now they're doing so poorly I might even catch them on Current.

We started at almost nothing on Current, but we have been steadily improving our numbers. Why are we getting traction? Because people want an alternative -- the real news. So, I should just stay quiet and let CNN drive off that cliff. By the way, when I catch Erin Burnett -- which is not that far off because I'm beginning to see her in the distance in the demos -- everyone will know it. Who knows, that might be the event that precipitates CNN re-thinking their entire model. Imagine if a network that started at nearly nothing catches CNN within a year.

But I am not going to wait until then to give them some friendly advice. I know they won't perceive it that way, but I am actually trying to help them. So here it is -- for the love of God, stop doing "he said, she said" crap that doesn't actually deliver the news to anyone. Democrats said this and Republicans said that -- who cares? What is the reality?! Your job is supposed to be to bring us facts, not what official spokespeople told you in their press releases and talking points.

The problem is that CNN doesn't have the courage to do this. They're afraid it might offend some folks if you tell the American people reality. I want to be clear; I'm not saying they should give us opinion. There's plenty of that in other parts of cable, including my show. They're never going to out-opinion me. But if Mitt Romney says his proposal balances the budget, well, why don't you crunch the numbers and tell us whether that's true or not? Of course the reality is that it creates trillions of dollars in deficits just so that the rich can have more tax cuts. But CNN would consider reporting those facts as being biased.

If the Giants play the Cowboys and beat them silly, it is not biased to report that they won. You don't have a pro-Giants bias if you report the score. I'm a progressive but I have no interest in CNN skewing issues in favor of Democrats. By all means, call them out just as aggressively. The Democratic Party takes huge amounts of cash from corporations and unions to vote a certain way. My God, CNN doesn't even cover the role of money in politics. They take politicians at their word. Are you kidding? It seems like the people who work at CNN are the last people in the country who actually trust our politicians. Congressional approval ratings were recently at 11 percent. How well do you think you're going to do on television if you're sucking up to those guys?

By the way, following along with artificially created Fox News scandals doesn't give you balance. It makes you sad and pathetic. There are plenty of real Democratic scandals without falling into the rubbish Fox talks about. How much money does Chuck Schumer take from Wall Street? What favors does he give them in return? Why do Democratic leaders keep writing legislation rigged against the Internet -- could it have something to do with the tremendous amount of cash they take from Hollywood companies? Why does President Obama get a free pass on following George Bush's civil liberties abuses like warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detentions?

In other words, do your job -- report the news. The real news, not dueling talking points and manufactured controversies. My God, where is your investigative team? What's the last story you broke? Of course, the reality is that you don't want to break stories about Washington because that might offend some people. What kind of a so-called news operation is this afraid of their own shadow? "Oh my God, what if we offended someone in power. They might not come on our shows anymore and they might call us biased." Or they might call you journalists.

There are a couple of important points to make here that Uygur completely misses in his article. First of all, what is the real reason CNN’s brass is so afraid that the network “might offend some people?” Does a global news operation, as Unger supposes, really have anything to fear by ruffling the feathers of some Senator or Congressman, or even the President? Is it the power of the politicians they are afraid of, or as is more likely, do they dread the possibility of angering their corporate bosses, who after all ultimately work for the billionaires whose contributions put the political puppets into office? Don’t piss off the boss is one of the very first rules that people learn when they join the American workforce.

Some might object and say that news organizations have ALWAYS been owned by corporations, and yet there actually was a time when despite that fact they often aggressively pursued stories that that made government officials or even corporate bigwigs look bad beyond just the latest titillating sex scandal. So what has changed?

Quite simply, it is the expectations of the viewer that have changed. Thirty years ago, when CNN was an upstart network first entering the television news landscape, the only other available outlets in America were CBS, NBC and ABC. Those were the days of titans of the medium, like Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley and John Chancellor—when Americans across the political spectrum shared a common perception of what was going on in their country and internationally as viewed through the lens of national news organizations that, while far from perfect, were at least outwardly dedicated to objectivity.

Since the arrival of CNN on the scene, to be joined later later Fox News and other cable outlets, to say nothing of the Internet, the American media landscape has been forever splintering into mutually exclusive audiences. These days, if you’re a Republican and a conservative you faithfully watch Fox News and get all of your information delivered with a Republican/conservative spin. If you are a liberal or a progressive, you watch MSNBC and/or the Comedy Central shows and get, if not a total lock step Democratic spin certainly a liberal/progressive one. It is easy for people caught in this dynamic to look at those on the other side as if they have two heads, because they literally perceive the world in ways that are diametrically opposed to one another.

The problem with advising CNN to start reporting “real news” as a way of boosting its ratings is that this dynamic has been going for long enough now that doing so would cause the network to be rejected by BOTH sides. The sad fact is that most people DO NOT WANT to hear objective truth anymore. They want information presented to them in such a way that panders to their preexisting prejudices and beliefs, and liberals and progressives are every bit as guilty of this phenomenon as are conservatives. Additionally, this dynamic not even include the many millions of people who only care about American Idol, the NFL season and the latest antics of the Kardashian sisters and won’t watch CNN at all unless it covers the never ending antics of vacuous celebrities. That’s your American media landscape these days—a third of the population devoted to one end of the political spectrum, a third just as devoted at the other end and a remaining third that doesn’t care in the slightest.

If you don’t believe me, just imagine for a moment what would happen if CNN were to do a completely accurate expose on the subject of Peak Oil. In order to do so, it would have to tell some truths unpalatable to conservatives—that oil, coal and gas are finite resources, that worldwide production of those resources is peaking and already choking off the possibility of long term economic growth, and that no amount of “drill, baby, drill” is going to change that fact. It would have to follow that with some truths unpalatable to most liberals and progressives, namely that “green energy” is a cruel pipe dream and that “alternative” fuels are not going to allow us to maintain our suburbanized, automobile centric economy. Imagine the reaction of both sides when the show wraps up by saying that our only hope to survive with our civilization intact is for everyone to immediately begin powering down and accepting a dramatic reduction in their standard of living. The days of carefree trips to the mall, motoring vacations every summer and having your own big backyard are over, and they’re never coming back.

Does anyone really think a show like that would be a big shot in the arm to CNN’s ratings? Sounds to me more like a recipe for the network falling into oblivion once the deluge of angry emails and text messages from viewers all across the political spectrum finally started to die down.

The small minority of us who live in what I call the “reality-based community” accept that the resources vital to maintaining and growing an advanced, globalized industrial civilization are rapidly depleting. “Real reporting” on just about any issue—from budgets and “austerity,” to unemployment, to the housing market, to our crumbling infrastructure, to creeping authoritarianism, to the Middle East uprisings, to the breakdown of our political system—has to be built upon that understanding in order to even hope to present our many problems in such a way that allows genuine solutions to be considered.

Because so few people have accepted that reality, “real reporting” will be rejected out of hand by the vast majority. Ultimately, CNN is a dinosaur that’s heading toward extinction thanks to a change in the media climate that it did so much to help initiate. But Cenk Uygur shouldn’t get too cocky. For when the glorious façade created by the Hologram does finally start to crumble, it won’t spare him or his Current TV viewers either.


Bonus: Here's Bill's take on CNN from 20 years ago

49% Of Americans Aren't Saving For Retirement

From the No Shit, Sherlock Network CNN, here comes a report that shows just how dire our collective long term economic predicament really is:

America has a serious problem saving for retirement.

About 49% of Americans say they aren't contributing to any retirement plan, according to a new survey conducted by LIMRA, a trade association for the financial services industry.

"The findings from this survey were disturbing, given that people will increasingly need to rely on their personal savings to make ends meet in retirement," said Matthew Drinkwater, associate managing director at LIMRA's retirement research division.

People ages 18 to 34 are the least likely to be saving, with 56% reporting that they are not currently contributing to a retirement plan like an IRA or a 401(k).

"In order to have the adequate savings necessary to meet their financial needs in retirement -- which could last 20 or more years -- it is critical that these individuals begin saving systematically early in their working years," Drinkwater said.

So what is the reason that so many people are being so neglectful in preparing for their future?

Nearly half of consumers said they aren't planning to contribute to an IRA because they can't afford to, and only a quarter of Americans have worked with a financial professional to plan for retirement, the survey found.

In order to "work with a financial professional to plan for retirement" you gotta have something to plan WITH. If you don't have jack shit, you can't very well make a plan with it. What's maddening is just how much difficulty the mainstream media seems to have in grasping this basic concept.

The Washington Post's Latest Idea To Boost Revenues--More Slideshows

As a newspaper, the Washington Post has been coasting on its reputation for many years. The Post is now declining even faster than many other papers, and this report from Adweek shows that the paper's "leadership" doesn't have a clue as to what to do about it:

Washington Post staffers are buzzing about a secret meeting between some 10 big-name Post journalists including Dana Priest, David Finkel and Carol Leonnig, and Steve Hills, the president and gm of the newspaper. The April 17 meeting was highly unusual for two reasons—the executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, wasn’t present, and the participants agreed not to talk about it. They approached Bradley Graham, a former Post reporter (no relation to Post Co. chairman Don Graham) and Hills friend, who agreed to host the get-together at his Bethesda, MD, mansion. Graham said the journalists were “just interested in knowing him better. Steve isn’t as known to them as Marcus or other folks in the newsroom.”

Over sandwiches around the dining room table, the journalists expressed concern about the loss of newsroom resources. Accounts of the evening that are making the rounds suggest it was hardly comforting to their journalistic souls. Hills was said to have shocked with remarks that awards “don’t matter,” urged more traffic-driving slideshows over original Post photos, and compared the Post to Ohio’s Dayton Daily News, a paper with one-fifth the circulation of the 508,000-circ Post.

Hills, by email, wouldn’t get into specifics but downplayed the dinner’s import. “I was having a wide-ranging informal conversation at a dinner party with my colleagues, who happen to be some of the best reporters and editors in the business, about the challenges that we face,” he wrote. Graham, however, said that the Dayton comment came up in the context of a discussion about the Post’s future. Hills “made a number of comparisons to other markets with the idea of keeping in mind what a market the size of Washington might realistically support," Graham said of his friend. "That’s where the tension comes from. We’re not New York; we’re not Cincinnati.”

News of the meeting comes at a jittery time. According to the parent Washington Post Co.'s just-released earnings report, the newspaper lost $22.6 million in the first quarter of 2012, with print advertising down 17 percent. The paper's average daily circulation fell nearly 8 percent in the six months ended March 31, more of any of the top 25 U.S. dailies. With circulation and revenue falling, no less than investigative reporting is being scrutinized. The Post, where the legendary duo Woodward and Bernstein made their mark, is defined by its investigations; it was Bob Woodward who in 1982 set up the paper’s permanent investigative unit, now under the highly regarded Jeff Leen. Its members have been known to while away years in the unit, apart from the rest of the newsroom.

But the paper has lost top talent lately, including James Grimaldi, who took a buyout and is heading to The Wall Street Journal. With his departure, the Post will have lost all three reporters who won its 2006 Pulitzer for their coverage of the Jack Abramoff scandal. The paper also shut out of the 2012 Pulitzers and weathered a blogger embarrassment that revealed its BlogPost operation to be a mini sweatshop. As the Post looks to cut costs, there’s been debate over whether the paper should spend more time on shorter projects that bear fruit faster and even speculation that the unit might be disbanded altogether. “There’s been talk in the newsroom that there’s been pressure to report more quickly,” said Patrick Pexton, the newspaper’s ombudsman.

Personally, I cancelled my subscription to the Post years ago after becoming disgusted with the dominance of Iraq War-drumbeating neoconservatives on its op-ed pages. I would say that the paper cutting back on "real reporting" is exactly the opposite of what it should be doing to retain readership, but that likely isn't true. The sad fact is that the vast majority of Americans are not interested in hearing the truth about anything anymore. If the Post really wants to increase its web traffic, it probably ought to just give itself over completely to being a tabloid rag like Britain's Daily Mail and be done with it already.


Bonus: "Your lives are in danger"

Pretty Hate Machine

For today's long post, I am proud to announce that I was asked by Kathleen Peine to be one of the inaugural guest writers at her new writer's website, Painted Fire. In the interest of introducing Kathleen's new site to the world, I beg your forgiveness and ask you to make one more click through to read it here: Pretty Hate Machine.

I imagine that I will also be contributing to Kathleen's site in the future.


Bonus:

Head like a hole
Black as your soul
I'd rather die than give you control
Bow down before the one you serve
You're going to get what you deserve

Slate Magazine Discovers Idiocracy But Misses The Point Completely

I've said before that I always find it amusing whenever someone residing deep inside the Hologram wakes up momentarily, looks around, and is horrified at just how grotesque our popular culture has become. Just this past week, writer Simon Doonan of Slate Magazine had such an epiphany, but managed to completely misconstrue the meaning of it all. Here's Simon:

My face bears an expression of extreme gravitas. I would appear to have the weight of the world on my shoulders. Want to get inside my head? Want to hear a snippet of my internal dialogue?

Here goes: Blah. Blah. Blah. How long will it take Jessica Simpson to lose the baby weight? Blah. Blah. Is Brangelina tying the knot just to upstage Jen and Justin? Will Kim drag Kanye down the aisle? Blah. Blah. Blah.

Yes, my head is filled with pathetically stupid thoughts about inconsequential people, and so, quite frankly, is yours. We are all in the same boat. And why on earth do we privilege the most superficial idiocies of popular culture over more substantial fare? The answer is simple: We have lost our fascination with accomplishment.

Whoa...I have to stop you right there, Simon, and chastise you for presuming to know what is inside my head. Maybe YOU spend your time obsessing over such garbage, but that doesn't mean everyone else out there does. In fact, the only reason I pay attention to our mindless pop culture at all is to use it as a measuring stick for just how far into the shitter our civilization has descended. That's what you would do as well if you were half as smart as you seem to think you are.

But please continue:

Superficial vamps and tramps and bimbos are nothing new, but, back in the day, they were forced to share the spotlight with more talented folks, exceptional folks. Marilyn Monroe married Arthur Miller, remember! Successful individuals from all walks of life were feted and garlanded and propelled into the spotlight. We were interested in their accomplishments. During the last century, consummate skill was HOT! Accomplishment was a veritable aphrodisiac. Now it would appear to have become a giant turnoff.

A younger person reading this might well roll his or her eyes and assume that some old gay codger is merely having a menopausal things-ain’t-what-they-used-to-be moment. But let me ask you this: When was the last time you saw a nuclear physicist or a world-class geologist on the red carpet? There was a time when it was not such a preposterous notion. In the past, accomplished people from a wide variety of disciplines were central to the culture. This is an objective truth.

I'll concede Simon's point here, and skip over his given examples in the interest of brevity. So why, Simon, do we find ourselves in this current state of affairs?

And what exactly do we celebrate today?

Today we celebrate all the crap I mentioned at the beginning of this article, which basically means that we celebrate audacious women with impressive racks. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not hating on audacious women with impressive racks. I am a big Russ Meyer fan and have, in fact, something of a soft spot for audacious women with impressive racks. They are just great. However, audacious women with impressive racks are like cupcakes, and man cannot live on cupcakes alone. Sometimes you crave the crusty whole meal of an accomplished person. But today, alas, we are on a cupcakes-only diet.

The question is, why? Why have we shoved all today’s accomplished people onto the back burner? Yes, we have Adele, but I am looking beyond the popular-music realm to the broad areas of accomplishment alluded to above and asking where, fer chrissakes, are the glamorous neurophysicists? Where are the charismatic, overachieving innovators and inventors? Steve Jobs? A unicorn! A lone example. You are going to have to do better than that if you wish to upend my hypothesis.

After extensive conversations with my inner Bertrand Russell, I have, of course, come up with a theory about the origins of this dire situation. Et voilà!:
We are living in an everyone-is-special-and-there-are-no-losers society. As a result, we are fearful of accomplished people because they can do stuff that we cannot do, and giving them the spotlight would un-level the playing field. We are, as a result, much more comfortable with the famous-for-nothing paradigm, because then, we, the great unexceptional masses, still have shot at celebrity.

What a load of GAR-bage. Simon seems to have not noticed that this trend he has documented so well in his article has occurred during a time when most of the American media has become consolidated among a handful of big corporations. The corporate media relentlessly pushes lowest common denominator entertainment as a distraction for the masses so that they won't pay attention the very real evils being perpetrated by their corporate masters nearly every single day...like the (ahem) multibillionaire who put up the dough to found Slate magazine.

The billionaire elite who run this country are not stupid. During the Vietnam War and Watergate eras they saw quite clearly how dangerous to the centers of power television in particular can be when the medium is at least partly in the hands of real journalists and other people who care about objective truth. Abby Hoffman knew it, which is why he once said, "A modern revolutionary group heads for the television station, not the factory. It concentrates its energy on infiltrating and changing the image system." That's what this relentless glorification of vacuous celebrities is all about. Corporate America cannot risk the media focusing on serious issues like our hollowed out economy, our rapidly changing climate, the degradation of the environment and wars being fought in the name of profits, so it gives the masses glitz and spectacle to keep their minds occupied instead.

All of this is the very essence of the Hologram. It wasn't created overnight, and it actually took the media moguls several decades to perfect it to the point where it now effectively stifles all opposition or even serious protest. These days, you can pretty much assume that anything you see on television is at a minimum being placed there as distraction. The truth is still allowed to be disseminated on the Internet and occasionally in print because those of us who actually read and are capable of critical thinking are such a tiny, atomized minority of the population. The truth of the matter is that the Hologram has grown so powerful that it can now, as Simon Doonan himself admits at the beginning of his article, overwhelm the critical faculties of anyone who has not completely removed him or herself from its influence. Yes, Simon, the truth is out here, but you've got to shut off the goddamned television once in awhile if you really want to see it.


Bonus: From my new You Tube music channel, you've got to stop before you lose it all

Professional Trolling: Meet The 20-Somethings Who Dumb Down American Politics

Ever wonder why there seems to be such a steady stream of fresh bullshit pumped into our ever coarsening national political conversation? Well, thanks to two recent media exposes, the awful truth has been revealed. The Atlantic Wire has the sordid details:

They're as young as they are ruthless and they're the warriors who wage Washington's political battles. Opposition researchers have been around since the dawn of politics but today they're younger, more tech savvy and arguably more bloodthirsty. Today, ABC News and Roll Call each gained exclusive access to the Republican and Democratic war rooms, respectively. What they found was a sweatshop of 20-somethings spending all day looking for the next gaffe, non-gaffe, indiscretion, or closeted skeleton. Welcome to the dirty world of politics.

Who they are In Jake Tapper's tour inside the Republican National Committee's war room, you can see the fresh-faced youths in their 20s, trying to carve out a space for themselves in this competitive field. In Roll Call's tour of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's war room, you find the same age demographic of "mostly 20-somethings."

What they're looking for RNC chairman Reince Priebus says sifting through President Obama's speeches and looking for empty promises is step number one. "We've got a lot of speeches and a lot of material on him and we have to hold him accountable to the promises he made to the American people," Priebus tells Tapper. In terms of gaffe-watching, they'd like to find another Hilary Rosen moment to use against Democrats. For the Democrats' operation, Roll Call gets a lot of research details. "Do the candidates own any small businesses that accepted federal funds they voted against?" asks reporter Shira Toeplitz. "Start digging through the secretary of state’s archives. Do they have more than a few mortgages on their underwater home? A case for fiscal irresponsibility with the right documentation. Runs a construction business? Often there are lawsuits to be found." In one case, a researcher named Diana Asti found a diamond in the rough: A secret marriage. “My head just went in all different directions, like maybe they’ve divorced and he hasn’t paid alimony, or maybe he has a child and he hasn’t paid child support,” said the 23-year-old Democrat. "It was a very exciting moment.”

Weapons of choice While the Internet is key, old school shoe-leather work is still indispensable. The DCC uses a mix of "scouring news clips and YouTube videos and traveling across the country to comb through public records, all in hopes of finding a good hit," reports Roll Call. "Discoveries go into hundred-page research books on their targets that are used as bait to recruit candidates, leaked to reporters or cited in campaign advertisements and mail pieces." For the GOP, Prieubus stressed technology tools. "We - 24/7 - monitor print news, online news, TV, radio, Twitter, Facebook," said Spicer. We try to capture everything that's going on in real time so that we know what's happening ... and we're able to respond within seconds."

Work hours At the DCCC, hit squads search for eight weeks at a time and then break. The team of 20-somethings at the RNC, meanwhile are running a 24/hour operation. According to officials speaking to Tapper, they used to allow the researchers a break at 3 a.m. but now they don't stop scanning videos and news clips for anything. "Oh my God it looks like North Korea in here," Tapper remarked.

What is particularly notable about this story is that none of "reporters" involved seem at all perturbed that the national news media spends countless hours every week obsessing over the slime that these soulless cretins exhaust themselves digging up. Right here, a rock has been overturned and the little maggots who are doing so much to drive us towards our collective doom are being exposed for all the world to see. Of course, the dumbass spin to these stories is that it is all a legitimate part of the political process rather than a hideous abomination helping to ensure that it will be impossible to ever build a consensus to address the many dire issues we face as a nation.

What is truly sad is that these brainwashed kids of both political parties really believe that they are doing a service for their cause and helping to vanquish their opponents. They have absolutely no inkling that they are really just cogs in a gigantic machine owned and operated by the elites designed to distract addle-brained Americans and provide them with the illusion that they still have a real choice when they go into the voting booth. These 20-something twits provide the hateful grist so beloved by the preening freaks and charlatans who occupy the Hologram. If you were looking for a truly Americanized version of the banality of evil, you need look no further than this.

I particularly like clueless hack Jake Tapper's line at the end of the article about how the operation he is visiting "looks like North Korea." Given that America has already essentially become a one party state in which both Republicans and Democrats first and foremost serve the interests of the tiny billionaire elite over over a mass of citizens who are being gradually impoverished in order to maintain a corrupt, undemocratic status quo, he is far more correct in that assertion than he realizes.


Bonus: "In these days of evil presidentes...Working for the clampdown...But lately one or two has fully paid their due...For working for the clampdown"

Storm Chasing 'Morons' Hinder Rescues

The headline above is not mine, but the one that actually appeared above this article from the Maine Sunday Telegram:

Given life-threatening wind, hail, lightning and flying debris, chasing tornadoes would seem harrowing enough.

Now add to that what many agree is a new and growing danger on the edge of the violent vortexes: people -- hundreds and hundreds of regular people.

People risking their lives, gawkers clogging roadways, some with kids in the backseats of their cars or in the beds of their pickups. They sit poised with cellphone cameras, stop dead in the middle of lanes beneath roadway bridges, travel at breakneck speeds for the chance to get up close and personal with one of nature's most awesome and awful displays.

Kansas' Chancy Smith, the director of emergency medical services for Dickinson County -- raked by a series of tornadoes April 14 -- caused a minor storm of his own when, after the tornadoes, he publicly called the throng of chasers who flooded his county "morons" for risking their lives and possibly the lives of others by impeding emergency services.

Raked by quick rebuke, Smith has since said he did not mean to malign legitimate storm spotters and chasers or scientists who do much to help the National Weather Service predict and track major storms.

Experienced, longtime storm chasers have expressed similar worries.

They're talking about the others, the hundreds of rubberneckers, gawkers and severe-storm shutterbugs who clogged the exit off Interstate 70 as the tornado swept past Solomon, Kan., parked as if they were at a drive-in movie.

Meanwhile, he said, his firefighters clocked others tearing 60 mph and more through the tiny town in pursuit of the twister like they were kids after a lost balloon. He said some drove, rumbling past fire trucks and over downed, live power lines where a damaged natural gas facility was spewing the explosive gas.

"There were morons out there. There were plenty," Smith reiterated to The Kansas City Star on Wednesday. "I was a police officer for 17 years and a director of emergency services for seven, and I have never, ever seen that many people converge on a storm. There were hundreds and hundreds ...

"My cohorts in other communities are saying, 'Don't apologize for what you said. We have all had this problem.' "

It has certainly hit a nerve among emergency services people and longtime storm chasers who concede that, in recent years, it seems that witnessing tornadoes up close has turned from a risky endeavor attempted by adrenalin addicts to a family spectator sport. Local high school students looking for tornadoes using apps and websites on their smartphones have become common.

"I really couldn't tell you why it's occurring," said S. Joe Koch II, the emergency management director in Saline County, Kan. "It is becoming more common for people to go out and see these tornadoes."

So common, in fact, that when the National Weather Service issued its early warning for last weekend, alerting the public that scores of tornadoes were likely to sweep through Tornado Alley -- the area between the Appalachian Mountains and the Rocky Mountains where tornadoes are most frequent – Koch sent out an alert of his own to emergency personnel: Expect an influx of people.

Meteorologists and others said the reason is clear: technology, TV news and entertainment.

It is no doubt just a matter of time before one of these idiots causes a fatal accident or gets killed getting too close to one of these storms. Because that's what natural disasters have become in this addle-minded, entertainment obsessed culture of ours--just another spectacle to be treated as if it were on a teevee screen and not a very real tragedy for those whose lives are torn apart right in front of the morons who are chasing the storms. This almost makes me root for higher gasoline prices to help put an end to such stupidity.


Bonus: "And as it came towards me, I swear, it sounded like a train"

When "Fifteen Minutes" Becomes "Fifteen Seconds"

The late Andy Warhol once famously proclaimed that, "In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes."  The phrase, "15 minutes," then became an overused cliche to describe the television-age phenomenon of people rising to celebrity status overnight despite having no discernable talent, or to fads and trends that have appeared out of nowhere to suddenly become culturally omnipotent before quickly becoming passe.

The rise of the Internet has actually been speeding up this cycle to the point the point of near absurdity.  One example from early this year was the overnight sensation of NBA basketball player Jeremy Lin, who in a just few short weeks this past February went from the basketball equivalent of a minor leaguer to an international superstar--only to then hurt his knee and disappear from view almost as rapidly.

Lin's astonishing rise to fame was almost perfectly matched in its timing with the appearance of the Kony 2012 video...and sure enough, that Internet phenomenon is crashing back to earth almost as quickly as the aforementioned Asian-American basketball player.  The Sydney Morning Herald has the details:

In early March, Invisible Children put a 29-minute documentary on YouTube about the plight of child soldiers in Uganda, calling for action against warlord Joseph Kony.
The group hoped for half a million views for the video. It managed almost 200 times that number in the first week alone, and switched-on under-25s deluged newsrooms and politicians with calls for action.

Higher-profile charities marvelled at the success and wondered how to replicate it. George Clooney, Justin Bieber, Barack Obama and Angelina Jolie voiced their support.

But within days a big backlash questioned the outdated facts, credentials and finances of Invisible Children. Then the star of the film, charity co-founder and Christian evangelist Jason Russell, was hospitalised for "exhaustion, dehydration and malnutrition" after being detained by San Diego police during a public breakdown in the street.

In a final ignominy, the whole event was satirised in a South Park episode last week.

It was the death knell for Kony 2012's hipster credibility, leaving only the idealistic teenage core still excited for the poster campaign.

Putting aside for a moment the questionable motives behind Invisible Children and the Kony 2012 video, what strikes me the most about this story is how consternation about the use of child soldiers in Africa to commit war atrocities became just another fad, seemingly of no more real importance to the people who suddenly became passionate about it than Jeremy Lin's momentary success on the basketball court. People were "outraged" by Kony 2012 not so much for what the video depicted but just because being outraged by it was the hip and "in" thing to do.

What is even more astonishing is just how quickly the fad itself caught on, became a worldwide sensation and then diminished into being yesterday's news.  In retrospect, the fears of those who were concerned that Kony 2012 would end up driving public pressure for the U.S. to intervene militarily in Uganda turned out to be way overblown.

More serious are the implications for anyone who hopes to raise awareness in his or her fellow citizens as to the dire and all too real issues we face in the areas of energy, the environment and overpopulation. As the article states about higher profile charities marveling at Kony 2012's success and wondering how to replicate it, in light of how quickly it is fading into memory can you really call it a success? If your motive is to actually get people to change their behavior and do something rather than just raise a few bucks, I would argue most definitely not.

Kony 2012 became an overnight sensation because it created an intense emotional reaction in its viewers, and like an emotional reaction it had no staying power.  The phenomena didn't even last long enough for it to be properly said to have had its metaphorical "15 minutes." And if "15 seconds" is the new standard for calling attention to a problem, assuming one is even able to strike that sweet spot of an emotional chord, good luck ever getting the masses to focus on the truly important issues facing our industrialized civilization as it teeters on the brink of collapse.


Bonus: Tom Lehrer reminds us that the idea of "changing the world" through mass entertainment is hardly new



Extra Credit Video: My man Charlie Brooker takes down Kony 2012

Saturday Night Video: Charlie Brooker Eviscerates The Daily Mail

Charlie Brooker is an extremely funny and talented television personality in Great Britain, who among his other accomplishments is the host of Newswipe and was the creator of the miniseries, Dead Set, which for my money is the best zombie movie ever made.

This video features Brooker's devastatingly funny takedown of the British tabloid, The Daily Mail, and its fetishistic obsession with the physical appearance of women in the media and entertainment industries.

Enjoy!

Friday Rant: Craven Miami Marlins Suspend Ozzie Guillen Over Fidel Castro Remarks

I’ll admit that I have a soft spot for controversial Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen. I grew up a fan of the hapless Chicago White Sox, and for my first four decades of life on this planet despaired that I would ever get to see my team appear in a World Series, let alone win it. Then in 2005 Ozzie was the manager who achieved what so many previous White Sox managers, including the legendary Tony LaRussa, failed to do: he led the Pale Hose to a baseball world championship.

Moreover, Guillen is not one of those purposely colorless athletic figures who give bland, unenlightening statements to the press in every interview hoping never to offend anybody. He is instead refreshingly brash and unafraid to speak his mind, even if he can at times be combative and quite often doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. As a fan, part of the attraction of having Ozzie manage your team is that you are never really quite sure what he is going to say or do next.

Unfortunately for Ozzie, he switched locales this past offseason from the chilly shores of Lake Michigan to the balmy climes of South Florida. And whereas jaded Chicagoans were much more inclined to just write off his more outrageous pronouncements as “Ozzie being Ozzie” especially as long as he kept winning, clearly Miamians, especially those of Cuban descent, have much less of a sense of humor.

So it was that Ozzie found himself in considerable hot water this past week for these remarks he made in an interview with Time magazine:

“I love Fidel Castro… I respect Fidel Castro, you know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that motherf****r is still here.”

The funny thing about this whole stupid media manufactured controversy is that what Guillen said is really not all that different from another comment he made back in 2008 in an interview with Men’s Journal:

"Fidel Castro," he said. "He's a bull---- dictator and everybody's against him, and he still survives, has power. Still has a country behind him. Everywhere he goes they roll out the red carpet. I don't admire his philosophy. I admire him."

Clearly, these are not so much political statements as expressions of admiration for a man who has been a survivor on the world scene for decades despite having many powerful enemies. And really, how can you NOT admire Castro at least for that? Was Castro a dictator who came to power through violent means? Absolutely. But he was not much different in that regard than the man he replaced, Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar. What’s more, by 20th century standards Castro was hardly the most brutal dictator out there, and in fact he was no worse than many other dictators that the United States has actually supported during that time.

So now, Guillen has been suspended by his team for five games and forced to apologize just for expressing a candid opinion while right-wingers cackle with glee. The same right-wingers, I might add, who would no doubt be outraged had Guillen been suspended for making some intemperate remarks about Obama—because it is only kosher for those assholes to complain against “political correctness” when it is being wielded as a weapon in their direction.

I initially tried to avoid writing about this story because it depresses me immensely, but it just kept mushrooming until I felt compelled to say something about it. First off, Ozzie Guillen is a baseball manager. He has absolutely no influence over American foreign policy, and his opinions count in the grand scheme of things for exactly the same amount as mine do…in other words they don’t count for jack shit. The idiots who were out there protesting his remarks need to get a fucking grip already. Or better yet, if they are so damned concerned about what is going on Cuba maybe they ought to just pick up and go back there.

Secondly, regarding the craven ownership of the Miami Marlins, it would be one thing to put out an official statement affirming that the opinions expressed were the personal opinions of Ozzie Guillen and not the Miami Marlins baseball club. But by suspending Guillen they have set a very bad precedent in which any fringe group with a chip on its shoulder will demand a suspension for anyone in their organization who says something they perceive as offensive. Considering that the team employs a large group of rich young male athletes—a demographic not exactly known for its sensitivity, particularly towards women—they really should have thought this action through a little better.

But lastly and most importantly, this incident has once again aimed the direct spotlight at America’s absolutely asinine foreign policy towards Cuba. The last time that tiny island nation posed any legitimate threat to the United States was when President Kennedy stared down Nikita Khrushchev and forced him to withdraw the Soviet nuclear missiles that were being installed there. Since the end of the Cold War and the loss of its Soviet patron, Cuba has essentially lost the ability to project its power or even much influence beyond its own borders.

The country today, where the aged and infirm Castro is no longer even the president any more, has little significance on the world stage. And as for the regime still being technically “communist,” like in China and Vietnam that term no longer has much if any remaining relevance. Cuba is certainly not a democratic society, but given just how tightly the billionaire oligarchs control American politics and how most U.S. government policies involving support for big business, war and empire change little if at all no matter which party is in power, one could reasonably make the same exact argument about this country.

It is long past time or America to get over its petulance about its failure to dislodge Castro after he thumbed his nose at us after the revolution. His side won and the side of the Cuban exiles in Miami lost. In that they are no different than the losers of any war throughout world history, and in fact are living much better lives than do most unfortunates who have ever found themselves in that situation. They can continue to whine and moan about the downfall of the corrupt, gangster-ridden regime Castro replaced, but the rest of the world has rightly moved on. As for Ozzie Guillen, if because of this stupid flap he stops running his yap he'll become just another supremely uninteresting sports personality.


Bonus: A sweet little tune from the criminally underrated Florida indie rock band, The Silos, off of their classic 1987 album, "Cuba"

Peak Cable Television?

Bad enough that idiot box has become little more that a corporate propaganda machine aimed at idiots...but the idiots now have to pay more than ever before for the privilege of being brainwashed. Here is MSNBC with the details:

If you're one of those people who complain that there’s nothing to watch on TV today even though you have a gazillion channels, you’re not going to be happy with this news – turns out, you’re paying more for cable.

The monthly rate for pay TV has been rising at an average of 6 percent annually and hit $86 a month last year for basic pay and premium-channel TV, according to a reported released Tuesday by market research firm The NPD Group. The uptick in licensing fees - which are the fees cable and satellite providers pay for programs - is driving much of the increase, at a time when consumer household income has hardly budged.

At this rate, NDP estimates consumers will be paying an average of $123 a month in 2015 and $200 a month by 2020.

The study was based on a quarterly electronic survey of 1,000 U.S. households.

Not surprisingly, the rising costs are making many consumers pull the plug on premium television. Today, there are five million fewer U.S. households viewing pay-TV services due to the mortgage crisis, the NDP research found, adding that those who did cancel service were prompted to do so because of economic reasons. But overall, the number of pay-TV subscribers has not declined substantially because of “bulk-service pay-TV contracts with apartment complexes and homeowners’ associations that have allowed pay-TV operators to retain subscriptions in vacant homes,” the study said.

Among the pay-TV cord cutters, most are still viewing their favorite shows via free Internet TV, traditional free broadcasting, and video-on-demand services such as Netflix, NDP reported.
The growth of lower-cost options, as well as cash-strapped consumers, is the reason the total number of subscribers of paid TV dropped to 100.9 million in the second quarter of last year, compared to 101.4 million in the first quarter, according to a IHS Screen Digest report released in September.

“As pay-TV costs rise and consumers’ spending power stays flat, the traditional affiliate-fee business model for pay-TV companies appears to be unsustainable in the long term,” said Keith Nissen, research director for NDP. “Much needed structural changes to the pay-TV industry will not happen quickly or easily; however, the emerging competition between S-VOD (subscription video-on-demand) and premium-TV suppliers might be the spark that ignites the necessary business-model transformation of the pay-TV industry.”

Indeed, something’s got to give: $200 a month for cable may end up getting some consumers pulling out their dusty old rabbit ears; that is, if they still work with digital TV.

I linked to a story just the other day which explained that one of the big reasons for the increased fees is that billionaire-owned professional sports teams are charging more and more money for the rights to broadcast their games so they can afford to pay their multimillionaire athletes. It looks like the greedy assholes who run the media and entertainment industry won't be happy until they have squeezed the last dime out of the idiots and the whole industry collapses.


Bonus: Released a half-century ago, this song is still as relevant now as it was then despite the dated references

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn't Understand Basic Economics

Sometimes, it is actually kind of amusing to observe well known figures who are completely immersed in the business-as-usual mindset as they flail about, trying to comprehend why things just don't seem to be working like they expect them to anymore. Take Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was interviewed on MSNBC the other day and just can't fathom why America's space program is quickly disintegrating into irrelevancy. The Raw Story has the details:

Popular astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson on Monday lamented that American culture no longer had a culture of innovation that prized scientific and technological discoveries.

Tyson noted on MSNBC that space exploration no longer captured American’s attention like it previously had. He blamed the lack of public interest on the lack of advances in the space frontier.

“You don’t have to be the scientist or engineer,” he explained. “You could be a journalist, an artist, but you start doing more stories about the frontier and all of a sudden everybody participates in inventing a tomorrow.”

“It’s the invention of tomorrow that is absent in today’s modern American culture,” Tyson continued.

“Tomorrow was everywhere in the 1960s, wasn’t it? The World’s Fair was all about tomorrow. And who enables that tomorrow? It is the scientific and technological literacy of a nation that does it. It is those innovations that are the engines of the 21st century economy.”

He added that private companies could not lead the space frontier, because of unknown risks and other factors that were detrimental to business.

“That is why governments are the ones that do the big first steps.”

I guess the fact that America has rung up over $5 trillion in new federal debt just in the past four years in a desperate attempt to to keep its economy afloat, to say nothing of the long term demographic trends which spell disaster for our major entitlement programs, must have escaped Mr. deGrasse Tyson's attention. The money to continue advancing the space program is not there...nor will it ever be there again. This serves as yet another example of how no matter how smart or accomplished a person my be in one field, it does not mean they have any clue about how things work outside that field.

Tomorrow is being invented by today's modern American culture, all right, just not in the way that Mr. deGrasse Tyson or very many others are anticipating. Our steadfast unwillingness to face our dire energy predicament virtually guarantees that we will be facing total economic collapse, likely within the next 20 years. The "innovations of the 21st century" are going to be among those who are successfully able to figure out how to adjust their lifestyles to enable them to survive in a world that will be rapidly powering down.


Bonus: "Space City is one hour up the road from me...one hour away is about as close to the moon as anyone down here is ever gonna be"

Senior Citizens Have $36 Billion In Outstanding Student Loans

This is a good companion piece to the post I made yesterday about CNN being in denial that there may be a crisis in the student loan industry. It's bad enough that many young adults are carry huge education-related debt burdens, but now it also appears that student loans are going to follow some people right into the grave. Here is Yahoo News with the story:

New research from the New York Fed shows Americans 60 years and older owe a collective $36.5 billion in outstanding student loans. More than 10 percent of these indebted seniors are delinquent on their loans, which means they may field calls from persistent debt collectors and be forced to offer up parts of their Social Security checks to satisfy their decades-old debts, the Washington Post reports.

Most people with student loans are under 40, but because this type of loan cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, the debt can follow a person around for life. The average amount due from all student loan borrowers is $23,300, according to the New York Fed's data, while the median amount is $12,800. On average, college graduates make significantly more over their lifetimes than high school graduates and face a lower unemployment rate. But college costs have skyrocketed over the past 30 years, and the potential payoff of a college education varies widely, depending on which subject a person majors in and the value and reputation of the college.

Notice how that last bit almost perfectly mirrors the propaganda put forth in the CNN story? It almost like the media collaborates in the lies it tells the public. Who would have ever thought?


Bonus: "Old man, look at my life...I'm a lot like you were (or maybe are now)"

Media Denial Porn: CNN Says "There Is No Student Loan Crisis"

Great news, America! Just because the total value of student loans recently topped (cue Dr. Evil) One TREEEEELION Dollars, and the rate of student loan defaults has been skyrocketing, there is no student loan "crisis." So says CNN, the so-called, "Worldwide Leader in News," which back around 2005 or so was, like the rest of the mainstream media, just as confident that there was no so-called "housing bubble." Here is the story in all of its denialist glory:

Total student loan debt has topped $1 trillion ... but there's no need to panic.

Most borrowers have a reasonable amount of debt, and the total balance is not likely to cause major damage to the economy like the mortgage crisis did, experts say.

Wow, I am so relieved that the "experts" have chimed in. Because the "experts" the mainstream media consults about the issues it chooses to report are ALWAYS right. It is perfectly evident by just how fantastic the economy has been preforming in recent years, how cheap energy prices have remained and also how swimmingly that whole Iraq War thing they were cheerleading for turned out. Damn, I might as well just end this article right here.

"I don't think it's a bubble," said Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of Finaid.org, a financial aid website. "Most students who graduate college are able to repay their loans."

So exactly which orifice did you pull THAT factoid from, Mr. Kantrowitz? Yes, it is technically true that the vast majority of student loans are not in default. But it is also true that the majority of student loans were issued to those who completed their educations before the financial crisis hit and got into the job market before the doors slammed shut. In fact, your idiotic statement is directly contradicted by the very next paragraph in the article:

This is not to say that there aren't problems with student loans, which now exceed the amount of credit card debt and auto loans. Students are taking on more debt, on average, and more than a quarter of borrowers are behind on their payments. And a hefty debt load could delay recent graduates' purchase of a home or starting a business.

Given how few high paying jobs are now being created during the "recovery," that sure sounds like a building crisis to me. Kind of like the housing bubble circa 2006 when the first signs of distress started to appear.

But all the talk of a crisis or bubble in the student loan industry is exaggerated, experts say.

Damn, there they are again. Those nebulous "experts." Gotta love those guys.

Nevertheless:

What's raising red flags is that the default rates on federal loans are climbing. They hit 8.8% in 2009, nearly double the rate five years earlier, according to the most recent Department of Education figures.

This jump is being fueled in particular by for-profit colleges, which have default rates of 15%, prompting federal officials to put in new rules. Now, schools with excessive default rates can lose their eligibility for the federal loan program.

Still, heavy debt loads can make it tough for young adults to establish themselves, especially these days. The Great Recession has made it tougher for young adults to find a job.

The unemployment rate for those age 16 to 24 with bachelor's degrees stood at 8.1% in February, up from 4.6% four years earlier. Many others find themselves underemployed.

"Having a lot of student debt can make a person's life very difficult," said Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt.

It is really hard not to get the feeling that CNN decided what the editorial slant on this article was going to be before they even conducted any interviews. So ultimately, what is the reasoning for claiming that that there is not student loan crisis?

But workers with bachelor's degrees earn about $650,000 more over their lifetime than their peers who only have high school diplomas, a recent Pew Research Center analysis found.

"It's an economic investment," said Sarah Turner, professor of economic and education at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. "It's not going to work for everyone, but on average, it has a high return."

Kantrowitz expects defaults to climb for another year, before starting to decline. That's because the economy is slowly strengthening and unemployment rates are coming down.

"The defaults are not unexpected, considering the aftermath of the downturn," he said.

Ah-ha! There it is! The tired old "business-as-usual" argument that says things will get better just because they have always gotten better before, spewed forth by a university professor who has every economic incentive in the world to deny that there is a student loan crisis. There is also no consideration given to the fact that the era of cheap oil-fueled economic growth is over and that we have entered a new paradigm of permanent economic contraction.

It's incredible how CNN allows blind faith to override all of the various facts presented right in in their own article. Since this is what passes for "journalism" in America these days, no wonder so few people out there truly understand our real predicament.


Bonus: "Everybody knows these are rock hard times...I gotta make it through...these are rock hard times"

U.S. ‘Pink Slime’ Factories Shut Down Amid Outcry

I'm posting this story for anyone who thinks that all I do is wallow in negativity on this blog. If you'll recall, back on March 7th I posted about the use of so-called "pink slime," a horrifically nasty beef based food product, in U.S. school lunches. Well, proving yet again that you can get away with pretty much anything until you involve the kiddies, the resulting public outcry from that story has effectively killed the industry. Here is the Raw Story with the details:

Three factories that made so-called “pink slime” beef filler have shut down since public outcry about the ammonia-treated substance began last month, The Associated Press reported Monday.

Beef Products Inc. spokesman Craig Letch told AP that only one factory in the country, located in Dakota Dunes, South Dakota, is still producing the stuff. Three others, in Texas, Iowa and Kansas, have reportedly been shut down.

The product, known as “lean, finely textured beef” to industry insiders, is comprised of connective tissue and other less-than-edible pieces of cows, which are mashed into a slimy, pink substance and treated with ammonia gas to kill off bacteria.

It is then added to ground beef as filler, to increase the product’s weight and, thereby, it’s price.

The goo was nicknamed “pink slime” by a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) scientists who blew the whistle once regulators in the Bush Sr. administration began allowing it in the human food supply. It was previously only considered suitable for products like dog food.

A public outcry over its use began after the U.S. government was revealed to have purchased tons of the stuff for use in school lunches. Soon thereafter, USDA whistleblowers alleged that “pink slime” had become so prevalent that it existed in up to 70 percent of ground beef sold in the U.S.

Since the outcry began, several major fast food chains have said they would no longer use the meat filler in their food products, and the USDA has lifted rules that required schools to use it.

See, I can be positive on those rare occasions when good news happens. You're welcome.


Bonus: Speaking of Pink, "One of these days I'm going to cut you up into little pieces"

AccuWeather's Excuse For A Horribly Blown Seasonal Forecast: The Tsunami Did It

If Rick Santorum were to get his way, private company AccuWeather would no doubt replace the "socialist" National Weather Service as the nation's primary forecaster of weather. So what is the problem with a corporation doing on a for profit basis what the government already does for "free?" Just that you know damn well that a private company won't give predictions that its clients don't want to hear, such as telling an oil company that yes, Virginia, climate change is both real and manmade.

But the other problem is that corporations are always motivated to provide a service at the lowest possible cost, which mean the products they produce often suck balls. And AccuWeather just recently proved how badly it can actually suck balls. Here is the Chicago Tribune with the story:

A meteorologist for AccuWeather — the forecasting company that predicted a winter so bad, "people in Chicago are going to want to move" — has a theory for the recent Midwest heat wave: Japanese tsunami debris.

AccuWeather.com made headlines last fall, you may recall, with breathlessly apocalyptic predictions for the season ahead.

Five months later, winter 2011-12 is in the books as the ninth warmest on record, punctuated by a stretch of historically high temperatures over the last week, and the Chicago area remains remarkably populous.

"We're wrong sometimes; we can admit it," meteorologist and AccuWeather.com news director Henry Margusity said. "It was not exactly the best forecast."

Specifically, AccuWeather said we were in for a fifth consecutive winter with more than 50 inches of snow. In reality, just 19.8 inches of the white stuff has fallen, according to WGN chief meteorologist Tom Skilling, not only well below AccuWeather's prediction, but also 14.3 inches below the yearly average.

And of course, the company's excuse for blowing the forecast so badly is a real doozy:

Margusity was a good sport about AccuWeather's swing and miss, even offering up a retroactive long-shot theory for the warm winter and recent heat wave — the drifting debris field from last year's devastating Japanese tsunami seems to be sending warm air aloft above the Pacific Ocean, which could be contributing to warmer temperatures here, Margusity said.

"If you match up where that debris field is right now with where the warmer-than-normal water temperatures are, they match up perfectly," he said, also citing what proved to be a weakening La Nina pattern last fall and the lack of expected so-called Greenland blocking.

Oh sure, that makes perfect sense. Nope, it couldn't possibly have been the result of a rapidly changing climate...you know, the same factor that likely greatly contributed to Chicago experiencing nearly two full weeks of 80 degree temperatures this March. The same city which averages only one 80 degree March day EVERY 14 YEARS. Perish the thought. The tsunami did it. Must have been all of the radioactivity from the Fukushima accident that got dumped into the ocean that somehow warmed up the air or something.

Oh, and not to be a contrarian or anything, but you AccuWeather guys do know that the tsunami happened six months BEFORE you made that ridiculous forecast, right? So how come you didn't think of the "tsunami effect" at the time? Bit of an oversight, I'd say.

The good news is that the aforementioned Santorum, who in the past has received campaign contributions from AccuWeather's president, is seeing his presidential campaign slowly sinking beneath the waves (ha! a tsunami pun!). The bad news is, as I posted on March 16th, that the National Weather Service is already experiencing budget cuts that will no doubt hamper its effectiveness going forward. But hey, take comfort. AccuWeather is now predicting a "warmer than normal" summer, so maybe given the company's track record it won't be as bad as everybody is expecting after the unprecedented March heat wave.


Bonus: "Well, there's gonna be a snowstorm...and the teevee is going wild. They got nothing else to think of...and they're letting me go home"

Friday Rant: Liberal Media Whore Michael Kinsley Defends Goldman Sachs

The other day I took Atlantic Wire scribe Jen Doll to task for writing an op-ed piece defending the Morgan Stanley banker who stabbed a cab driver over a disputed fare. I called out the ridiculously named Ms. Doll for using her media platform to defend a rich scumbag who certainly didn't need any help from her supposedly liberal publication. But I now feel I must offer Ms. Doll an apology, for she really is far too low in the media food chain for me to be picking on the way I did. Nobody really cares about the opinions of a glorified blogger who apparently spends a lot of her time when not kissing Wall Street ass writing about mindless pop culture.

Instead, I'd rather readjust my aim and go for some really big game. That means it's your turn, Michael Kinsley, formerly the house liberal on CNN's long departed but unlamented political debate show, Crossfire. Kinsley left CNN to become a founding editor for Slate, yet another in a long line corporate propaganda outlets masquerading as part of the supposedly "liberal media." Working for billionaire Bill Gates (and being married to another Gates flunky) must really agree with Kinsley, because he recently took a new job as a mouthpiece for billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an editor of his eponymous business publication.

First, let's set the stage. Everyone knows by now that former Goldman Sachs employee Greg Smith made quite a splash last week when he wrote a damning op-ed piece for the New York Times called "Why I'm Leaving Goldman Sachs." Almost immediately after the article appeared, Michael Bloomberg was, not surprisingly, condemning it and heaping praise upon the "vampire squid." Meanwhile, Bloomberg the magazine published an unsigned editorial blasting Smith:

It must have been a terrible shock when Smith concluded that Goldman actually was primarily about making money. He spares us the sordid details, but apparently it took more than a decade for the scales to finally fall from his eyes. ...

...[W]hat an employee! He worked at Goldman as an intern in college and worked there continuously until today. “I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world.” Then there was being “a Rhodes Scholar national finalist” and “winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics.”

We have some advice for Smith, as well as the thousands of college students who apply to work at Goldman Sachs each year: If you want to dedicate your life to serving humanity, do not go to work for Goldman Sachs. That’s not its function, and it never will be. Go to work for Goldman Sachs if you wish to work hard and get paid more than you deserve even so. (Or if you want to make your living selling derivatives but don’t know what a derivative is, as Smith concedes in passing that he didn’t at first.)

Wow, pretty harsh, eh? Probably written by someone who worked in the business and is taking umbrage at his old buddies being attacked, right?

Wrong. The author of the hit job on Greg Smith was none other than Mr. Resident Liberal on Crossifire himself, Michael Kinsley. Here is Politico with the details:

Michael Kinsley, the former editor of the New Republic and former columnist at the Washington Post, is the author of the recent Bloomberg View editorial that chastised former disgruntled Goldman Sachs employee Greg Smith, he confirmed by phone today.

"I just proposed, and the editor-in-chief David Shipley liked it, so I did it," Kinsley, now an editor at Bloomberg View, told me.

The editorial is attributed to "The Editors," which led to some speculation that Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- owner of the Bloomberg media empire -- had been behind the editorial, given his own public defense of Goldman Sachs last week. But Kinsley said Bloomberg (the man) had nothing to do with it.

"Any thought that this was Bloomberg protecting his friend [Goldman CEO] Lloyd Blankfein is ludicrous," he said.

Yeah, that's Michael Kinsley, a real man of the people all right. This is what happens when you've been whoring yourself out to billionaires for so long that you don't even recognize it as whoring anymore. Kinsley didn't even need his new boss to tell him to write a blistering editorial defending the biggest enemy of working and middle class people in America, he just instinctively KNEW that it would please Mayor .0000001 Percenter. Note the sly way he chides Smith by saying, "If you want to dedicate your life to serving humanity, do not go to work for Goldman Sachs," as if Smith was a naif who had no idea what he was getting into when he went to work for the firm. In this way, Kinsley can plausibly claim that he wasn't actually defending Goldman Sachs, but merely blasting Smith for having an unrealistically idealist world view.

But here is the quote from Kinsley that is particularly galling:

"I didn't know it would be such a big deal when I wrote the piece," he added. "I just read Smith's piece and thought it was funny."

Yep--it was pretty damn funny, Micahel, you fake liberal fuck. Just like it was pretty damn funny when those derivatives Goldman Sachs was pedaling to its clients KNOWING that they were dodgy helped crash the whole fucking economy back in 2008 and cost millions of working and middle class Americans their jobs. The same working and middle class Americans that liberals like you profess to actually give a shit about. And it was even funnier when those same working and middle class Americans were asked to fork over $700 billion of their tax money to save the very same financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, from their own bad acts. And goddam if isn't just hysterical that NO ONE from Goldman Sachs has been prosecuted for all of this rampant fraud and that they continued to receive millions of dollars in bonuses even after the taxpayer bailouts. I'm sure the 46 million people on food stamps, the numerous college graduates with six-figure student loan debts who can't find a decent job, the retirees whose pensions are being gutted, the underwater homeowners and the increasingly desperate wage earners whose 401K accounts have been bouncing up and down like a yo-yo are laughing their asses off right along with you.

It would be one thing if this drivel had been written by a conservative cretin like your fellow Crossfire alum, the late Robert Novak. You expect a life long toady to power like him to carry the water of billionaire assholes. But when it comes from someone with a reputation as a respected liberal commentator, it is far more insidious. With the likes of you inside the tent, the liberal and progressive movement can truly make use of the Walt Kelly saying from the old comic strip, Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."


Bonus: At least when The Who sold out, they still fucking ROCKED

Public Opinion Poll on Energy Issues Shows How Clueless The Public Really Is

It really is true, as comedian Doug Stanhope has asserted, that a majority of Americans will express their opinion about an issue even when they have no basis of knowledge for which to even form an opinion. That point was driven home in a recent article from UPI entitled, “Poll: Alternative Energy Loses Support.” Why the pollsters even bother polling on an issue so technically complex that no more than a small percentage of the population is well informed enough to provide meaningful answers is a whole separate topic. Instead, I thought I would go through and pick the results of this particular poll apart point by point.

Let’s get started, shall we?

Support for development of fuel sources such as wind and solar power has diminished in the United States during the past year, a survey found.

The March 7-11 poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press, found 52 percent of those responding indicated support for alternative fuel was more important than increasing oil, coal and natural gas production, while 39 percent indicated expanding exploration of coal, oil and gas was the more important of the two choices.

Although a majority went for alternative fuels, support for solar, wind and hydrogen power was not as popular as it had been in March 2011, when 63 percent indicated that was their favorite choice, while 29 percent chose coal, oil and gas exploration.

Respondents who identified themselves as Republicans were more apt to have changed their preferences -- with 33 percent indicated support for alternative energy sources, down from 47 percent in 2011.

Do I really need to waste the pixels pointing out that asking people whether they “support” development of alternative energy versus whether they “support” increased oil, coal and natural gas production is laughably meaningless? The question makes it sound as if all forms of energy are interchangeable and unlimited, and how we power our lives is merely a matter of the choices we collectively make.

On the one hand, you can “support” solar and wind power all you want, but that doesn’t mean either form of energy will ever be a viable replacement for fossil fuels and enable you and your descendents to live your suburbanized, consumerist lifestyle in perpetuity. The fact is that while both do have their uses and COULD be a part of voluntarily powered down future if America was willing to be sensible about its energy predicament, neither is going to allow us to continue on with business as usual once fossil fuels deplete to the point where they are too expensive to keep supporting our modern industrialized civilization.

On the flip side, you can “support” increasing the production of oil, coal and natural gas; and while you are at it you might as well try holding your breath until Santa Claus brings you a new Lexus for Christmas. The world supply of all three is FINITE. That means there is only so much of it that can EVER be produced. What’s more, most of the easy and cheap to extract stuff is already gone and what’s left is going to be ever more costly and difficult to produce. Child-like wishing for more isn’t going to change geology.

Let's move on:

The survey found "as in the past ... there continues to be broad public support for an array of policies aimed at addressing the nation's energy supply."

Nearly 80 percent overall indicated support for improving fuel efficiency in cars, while nearly 70 percent indicated support for federal research for alternative energy sources. Sixty-five percent indicated support for improved rail, bus and subway systems.

Sure, no doubt there is “broad public support” for all of that stuff. You know why? Because it doesn’t cost the respondents anything to answer the questions in a public opinion survey.

Once you start moving beyond feel good concepts and into how all of those policies are going to be PAID FOR it becomes a different equation altogether. Try asking, “Would you be willing to pay an annual $1,000 carbon tax to support the federal research for alternative energy sources and for improved rail, bus and subway systems?” or “Should federal government funds be used for public transportation INSTEAD OF building more roads and highways?” and I’ll guarantee you the poll results would be drastically different.

Once again, the choices are presented in a vacuum, as if each one does not carry considerable costs and consequences. This is exactly the kind of thinking that created Spoiled Rotten Nation, and a citizenry that just cannot understand how the government can’t seem to do everything they want it to do without raising their taxes and/or running massive budget deficits. We want alternative energy research, AND public transportation, AND more roads and highways to reduce traffic congestion, BUT we don’t want to pay for any of it.

But they saved the very best part for last:

Concerning the controversial method of mining called fracking, 37 percent indicated they have only heard a little about it and 37 percent, indicated they have never heard of it. Only 25 percent indicated they had heard a lot about it.

A majority -- 52 percent -- indicated support for fracking, a figure held up mostly by Republicans, 73 percent of whom indicated they supported fracking, compared to 33 percent of Democrats.

You gotta love the willingness of so many to support something they know very little or nothing about. Despite the fact that only a quarter of the population has by its own admission any real idea what fracking is, more than half claim to support it. And that 25% constituting the at least reasonably well informed doesn’t include people like me who know a lot about fracking but are opposed to it because we know what the dangers are. The more appropriate question to ask here would be, “Would you support fracking even if it meant there was a good chance that your drinking water might be poisoned or that a resulting earthquake might damage your home?” That at least might get a few of the respondents thinking, yet another resource which is in very short supply these days.


Bonus: I've posted this video before, but it is too funny not to repeat

Atlantic Wire: Don't Hate Bankers Because They're Rich--Or When They Stab Cab Drivers

It's no wonder that America is in the mess its in when you consider that lapdog-to-power publication like The Atlantic is what passes for a "liberal media," these days. I realize that is not exactly breaking news to anyone in the reality based community, but the horrid rag, or at least its Atlantic Wire online news feed, demonstrated yet again where it really stands in an article about the Morgan Stanley banker who allegedly stabbed a cab driver in a dispute over a fare. In "Why We Love to Hate Masters of the Universe," Senior Writer Wall Street Sycophant Jen Doll, who actually used to write for the Village Voice no less, admonishes her readers not to hate the little rich bastard just because he is rich:

In the annals of crime, there is a place reserved for the banker—a special sort of banker, mind you, not just the guy who offers you free checking with your savings account, presuming you keep a certain balance, at Chase. You probably never see this esteemed creature, unless he deigns to be seen, or unless you frequent his gilded circles (in fact, he may look a lot like everyone else, but don't let that terrify you; he smells your fear). He is the one who lives in a million-dollar abode on Park Avenue, or in "the wealthy enclave of Darien." He may be the owner of a "sweeping curved staircase, perfectly plumped chintz pillows, backyard swimming pool, and a Ferrari in the garage." He has so much when some have so little, so much in material goods but also in the currency of power, that when he crosses the rules by which we expect him to conduct himself—after all, he is civilized, or must be, with so much in liquid assets—we recoil back in horror only briefly before we jump in to censure, releasing a sigh that demonstrates our resignation that of course this person could not have had all that and been a decent human being, too. Of course. And there is some joy in that resignation, because we are struggling, because of the economy, because of the haves and have-nots, because of the 99 percent, just because.

Take the case of William Bryan Jennings, a man who could not have been more unfortunately named and now faces an unfortunate reality. Not that there's anything unfortunate about being the head of fixed income for North America at Morgan Stanley, or owning a $2.7 million mansion in Darien, Conn., or being able to send your children to a prestigious private school or afford a $204 cab ride home from Manhattan when you've had too much to drink at your holiday party and can't locate the town car that's been ordered for you. What is unfortunate is fighting with your cab driver over the fare once you're home, refusing to pay that cab fare, shouting racial slurs, and then, in failing to get your way, stabbing that cab driver, who, in perfectly cinematic contrast, lives in a ground-floor apartment in Astoria near the railroad tracks "in the shadow of the Triborough Bridge."

These are things that Jennings has allegedly done. He pleaded not guilty to the charges on March 9; he has denied using racial slurs and claims, according to his lawyer, who says Jennings thought he was being abducted. If convicted he could face 11 years in prison. As a direct consequence of his actions that night in December, he's been placed on leave, and according to rumors he may never get his job back. The next court date, a pre-trial hearing, is scheduled for April 12. But whether he's proven guilty or not, Jennings is now a member of the bad banker club.

He follows in footsteps like those of Rajat Rajaratnum, billionaire and in 2009 the 236th richest American, the Galleon Group's former hedge fund manager and founder—who was found guilty of allegations of insider trading and sentenced to 11 years in prison in October 2011. Or those of Rajat Gupta, formerly of Goldman Sachs and McKinsey & Company, whose trial over "passing along corporate secrets to Rajaratnam" will soon begin (Gupta is a man who in his own estimation still wasn't rich enough). Going further back, there's Martha Stewart, not a banker herself but certainly a member of a certain coterie of power players, convicted of insider trading and sent to jail back in 2004. Fictionally, we have Wall Street top bond salesman Sherman McCoy, done in by his own greed and selfishness (with the help of the media) in The Bonfire of the Vanities, or the case of Wall Street's Gordon Gekko, who believes above all else that greed is good.

There is a sense that these figures, the "masters of the universe," dubbed so without our explicit agreement (even as we are complicit in their successes) are somehow more evil than your garden variety criminal, someone without wealth and power and private schools and sisal rugs at his fingertips. This is good for us, because we can hate them more, without any sort of liberal guilt associated. The bigger and badder the persona, the better. Which is why, when the news came out about Jennings, we slapped our foreheads and thought, "Shoulda known, not another one!" in an almost gleeful (though rueful) fashion while feeling just terrible for his alleged victim.

Interestingly, however, Jennings doesn't quite fit our stereotype. As Conlin and Francescani write, "In the world capital of ego-driven alphas, Jennings didn't come off as one. He was polite and well-liked, according to Morgan Stanley colleagues. He also was a 'Morgan monk,' utterly devoted to the firm and his job, with little personal life outside work." If Jennings hadn't been a banker and instead was, maybe, an inebriated mid-level ad exec on his way home from a Christmas party who got into a tiff with a cab driver, would we react the same way? Maybe...but probably not. With great power comes greater responsibility, so we expect our masters of the universe to behave appropriately. But if we're being honest, we don't really want them to behave properly, not only because it makes for interesting news, but because, well, schadenfreude. We want them to be bad so we feel better about ourselves.

So when Greg Smith, the hero-or-anti-hero or in any case now famous writer of the "Why I'm Leaving Goldman Sachs" op-ed in the New York Times, tells us how bad his coworkers are, calling their clients "muppets," taking advantage of the poorer or weaker or stupider, generally reveling in their toxic environment -- we eat that up and ask for more. We want to hate those corporate bigwigs making all the money and crushing the little people and complaining about how poor they are on Urban Baby. When it turns out they're human...good or decent people who've worked hard but messed up...that becomes less easy, or certainly less pleasant, to swallow along with the lump of jealousy that burns in our throat.

But back to the case of Jennings. There is dispute over what actually happened in the cab that night, and we may never know exactly what occurred. We do know things escalated to the degree in which a pen knife was taken from a briefcase, and a cab driver was left bleeding and in need of six stitches. We know that later Jennings went on vacation with his family, to Florida, but that at the end of February, he turned himself in to cops. And all that is probably enough for him to go down in the banker hall of villainy, regardless of the outcome of the trial. It's easy to hate bankers, because not only are they rich, and richer than we are, but also, most of us don't actually understand what they do. What we do understand, and what people have understood since the beginning of time, is that watching the mighty fall is far more amusing than watching those further down in the rungs of power remain exactly where they are.

First of all, I love how Jen Doll (speaking of unfortunately named) condescendingly presumes to know what all of her readers were feeling when they heard about Banker William Bryan Jennings's run in with the cab driver. Apparently, she and her editors at The Atlantic who green lighted this tripe assume that we are all a bunch of easily enraged troglodytes, ready to form a lynch mob and string poor, put upon Banker Jennings up from the nearest tree. The really neat trick here is the attempt to make you feel guilty about not feeling liberal guilt about hating him.

Sorry, but I do hate the fucker and I don't apologize for it. I'm supposed to take this asshole's banker buddies at their word about what a great guy he supposedly is? Or be at all concerned that this incident might cost him his high flying job, which is after all to rape and pillage the planet's resources and fuck over people who actually work for a living? Excuse me, but I'd rather extend my empathy to the cab driver who got stabbed, thank you very much, because he is, you know, the actual victim here.

But beyond just looking down her nose at the unwashed, stupid masses who read The Atlantic Wire and let their lack of liberal guilt run amok (and who are obviously too dumb to know when they've been insulted), I really must ask why Ms. Doll felt compelled to write an article sticking up for Banker Jennings in the first place. The defendant has by all appearances plenty of fucking money and can afford to buy a conga line's worth of the absolute best defense attorneys available. He hardly has to worry about being railroaded by the American justice system, the way, oh, say the cab driver might have been had the roles in this case been reversed.

I guess what makes me so angry about this craptastic turd of an article is that I grew up reading the columns of the late, great Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko. For the better part of four decades, Royko used his daily column, when he wasn't busy shining the spotlight on the Windy City's bountiful municipal corruption, to stick up for the little guy against whatever forces, be they bureaucratic, corporate or even gangster, that might be attempting to stomp on him. Royko brilliantly used the power of press to right many wrongs in that very cold-hearted and unfeeling city, and working class Chicagoans in particular loved him for it. The idea that a writer with a media platform would use that platform to defend one of our overlords after he viciously assaulted one of the little people must surely have Royko spinning in his grave. Banker Jennings will get his fair trial, a much fairer trial than you or I would ever be able to afford were we in his shoes. He doesn't need some hack writer kissing his ass on top of it.

It would be one thing if this tired old "don't hate the rich just because they are rich" mantra that is used to justify all sorts of bad acts perpetrated by the corporate and Wall Street elites was being spewed forth by a conservative propaganda sheet like the American Spectator. It's something else again when it comes from a publication dutifully read by good little liberals everywhere. I guess Ms. Doll has to the have the evil of Wall Street bankers rubbed right in her face so she might understand a little better why they are so justifiably hated even when they aren't outwardly Gordon Gekko caricatures and why they don't need the likes of her sticking up for them.

Here's hoping that some right wing billionaire soon makes a hostile takeover bid of The Atlantic, and when he seizes control he immediately fires the entire staff. Sitting on the unemployment line still might not enlighten the dimwitted likes of Jen Doll, but I would love nothing better than to see her feeling bad so that I can feel better about myself.


Bonus: A song from a guy who gets who the enemy is