Willis Hart Bunks Yet Another Conservative Myth

When conservatives rail in the media of the dangers of "returning to Smoot-Hawley, which created the Great Depression", all they do is reveal their ignorance of economics and history. ... Smoot-Hawley "protectionist" legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America ~ Liberal Talk Radio host Thom Hartmann, 3/12/2994.

Alternate Post Title: On How Smoot-Hawley's Effect on the Great Depression was Negligible.

According to Conservatives, the protectionist legislation signed by president Herbert Hoover contributed greatly to making the Great Depression that much worse. The proprietors of Conservative blogs like Contra O'Reilly author literally dozens of posts claiming that Depression-era protectionist trade legislation negatively impacted the economy. In his latest post on the topic the Conservative blogger said...

Willis Hart: ...after the 1929 stock market crash, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months following that event, peaking at 9 percent, then drifting back downwards until it reached 6.3 percent in June 1930. It wasn't until Smoot-Hawley was passed that the unemployment rate started to skyrocket (12/14/2011 AT 7:13pm).

But according to Thom Hartmann...

The Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which increased taxes on some imported goods by a third to two-thirds to protect American industries, was signed into law on June 17, 1930, well into the Great Depression. In the following two years, international trade dropped from 6 percent of GNP to roughly 2 percent of GNP (between 1930 and 1932), but most of that was the result of the depression going worldwide, not Smoot-Hawley. The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.

In other words, the depression and unemployment did get worse, but it had absolutely nothing to do with Smoot-Hawley, which was, in fact, a good thing. Because it encouraged American job growth. All one has to do is examine the actual data to see what utter baloney blaming Smoot Hawley for the Great Depression is.

As pointed out by a member of the Thom Hartmann message board, the official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis prove that "there is practically NO evidence that Smoot-Hawley hurt our economy".

The negative impact that Smoot-Hawley had on our economy (if any) was negligible, because as the author of "The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale" points out...

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

During the Great Depression GDP declined 46 percent. Of that, the net trade loss (exports less imports) accounted for a total GDP loss of less than 1/2 of 1% ($0.2 billion). Does this sound like an amount that would cause, according to the Conservative blogger Will Hart, the unemployment rate to "skyrocket"? It's actually quite laughable.

The Conservative blogger points out that economists "from across the political spectrum" were against the passage of Smoot-Hawley, so that proves [1] that Smoot-Hawley did make the Depression worse, and [2] Smoot-Hawley making the Depression considerably worse isn't a "Conservative myth". In response I say [1] As the data shows the economists were clearly wrong, and [2] Smoot-Hawley making the depression worse is only a myth NOW - decades later. Of course Smoot-Hawley making the depression worse wasn't a myth BEFORE Herbert Hoover signed it! The amazing thing is that this guy doesn't even realize how dumb his argument is.

So, in conclusion, was Smoot-Hawley bad for the US economy? No, "protectionist" trade legislation is a GOOD thing. Smoot-Hawley may have had a minor negative impact, but that was because it takes time for manufacturers to ramp up production of goods in the US (using US labor). In the long run "protectionist" trade policies grow the US economy by encouraging manufacturers to create good paying jobs for US citizens. We need more of this kind of legislation.

YouTube Video Synopsis: Prominent economist Ha-Joon Chang is tearing a giant hole in the fabric of the free traders' universe by taking on the conventional wisdom that protectionism is detrimental to economies and the belief that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was responsible for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression.

SWTD #101, wDel #10.

William the Moderate Loses His Manhood aka Suri's Revenge

What do you call love, hate, charity, revenge, humanity, magnanimity, forgiveness? Different results of the one master impulse: the necessity of securing one's self-approval -- Mark Twain (11/30/1835 to 4/21/1910).

A nude female sits astride an enormous black panther, but this is no D&D fantasy. The female has the face of a minotaur and a body to match.

"Hey there, handsome stranger", she snarled.

"Who me?" William Hartenbaum replied, a worried look crossing his face.

"Yea, you" she sneerd. William didn't like the way the lady minotaur sneered at him. To him it appeared as though she was leering! William, having no desire to mate with an ugly, smelly half-cow, half-woman, turns and runs for his life. The lady minotaur, still astride the giant panther, easily runs down poor William.

The Dungeon Master rolled his 20-sided die and declared, "You fail your strength check". So it actually WAS a D&D fantasy. "The lady minotaur successfully mates with you".

"Damn you, Slade!" William shouts, throwing down his dice in disgust. "Our child will probably be uglier than Suri Cruise!".

Suri Cruise is the deformed female wizard, the character controlled by Joan Myste. And named after Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' daughter.

"Suri Cruise watches from afar in amusement", Joan Myste declared, snickering.

"Why didn't you cast a spell to save me", William demanded, turning to Joan Myste.

"My character laughs at your pain", Joan Myste responds. "She still harbors deep resentment over the incident during which your carelessness caused her facial disfigurement".

"How was I to know giant panther urine is caustic?" William asks.

"Who stomps on a cache of frozen panther urine?" Joan Myste retorts.

"OK", the DM says, "The lady minotaur has finished mating with you and now prepares to devour your dong, which is the custom with minotaurs. I mean this literally by the way. I'm not talking about a BJ".

Looking quite frustrated, William exclaims, "I remove the dagger I have hidden in my boot and gut the minotaur".

Rolling his dice the DM says, "Sorry William, but you fail your dexterity check. The lady minotaur knocks the dagger from your hand and chomps down on your manhood, severing it completely. She proceeds to wolf it down".

"Owe, that must hurt!" Joan Myste said, laughing. "I cast a mass sleep spell centered on the minotaur".

"So now you act, after I've been emasculated!" William shouted angrily.

Slade rolls his dice and then announces, "the lady minotaur, the giant panther, and William the Moderate all fail their saving throws and fall fast asleep".

"I drag William's body to safety and leave the lady minotaur in peace. Then I sling William's limp body over the back of my horse and ride back to camp".

"Thus the encounter ends, so sayeth Slade the DM. Evening arrives and William the Moderate continues to slumber. The next morning he awakens to a great pain in his groin. A strange man hovers over him. The man informs William that he is the local physician. William looks down and sees his private area (minus his dong) crudely stitched together".

Glaring angrily at Slade, William growled, "I jump to my feet and attack Suri with my broadsword".

"Why would you do that?" the DM inquired. "Your character isn't aware that Suri could have saved you from being raped by the lady minotaur. As far as you know she arrived as quickly as she could".

"That's right" Joan Myste agreed. "That's what I tell William's character. I came to his rescue as quickly as I could. He should be thanking Suri".

 swtd-100. polfi-12. wtm-1.  Previous wtm. Next wtm. Previous polfi. Next polfi.

The Famous Actress & The Scene Featuring Full Frontal Nudity

The initial idea was to make something cheap and marketable. Nudity is definitely marketable -- Jon Gorman, director of the 2007 comedy Bikini Bloodbath.

"I did a small amount of acting many years ago", I said, explaining why the young woman had just asked for my autograph. The puzzled look on Janeane Garner's face remained. I took the DVD and a sharpie from the woman and signed it. She smiled, thanked me, and departed.

"I didn't know you were an actor", Janeane exclaimed.

"Not really", I replied. "I only had a few small non-speaking roles. There was however, one film where I actually had a few lines... but it ended up being shelved and was never released".

Janeane handed me my soda and cheeseburger, which she had just purchased inside the Burger King while I sat at an outside table. My head was spinning and I needed to sit down for a short while to recover. The vertigo was a consequence of a brutal beating I had endured a few months ago.

"Thanks", I said grabbing the soda and cheeseburger. "I take it this is a caffeine free soda?" I asked. "My doctor said that I shouldn't drink anything with caffeine in it".

"Yes, I remember", Janeane sighed. "Anyway, back to this acting thing. If the only film in which you had speaking role was never released, how is it that you have fans?" Janeane asked, obviously very interested.

"It's actually not something I like to talk about", I protested. But I could tell from Janeane's expression that she wasn't going to leave me alone until I spilled the beans. "OK, I'll tell you", I said reluctantly, "but this stays strictly between you and me".

Janeane nodded her head, indicating agreement.

"More than two decades ago I was in a direct-to-video movie. My scene, which involved some nudity, was deemed gratuitous and cut. But the film ended up not being released anyway. The woman who asked for my autograph asked me to sign -- and I don't know how it got out there -- a bootleg copy of the original cut of the movie".

"Wait a minute -- you're not saying that it was YOU who did a nude scene, are you?" Janeane asked incredulously.

"Yes, I was nude in that scene, but so was the female lead, a famous actress you've probably heard of. I played a man she met in a bar and took home for a one-night stand. The director decided to cut the scene to avoid an NC-17 rating. The movie still would have been rated R, however, due to the excessive violence and profanity. From what I've heard, that is why it ended up not being released. Just as the film was being finished, the independent studio was sold to a large corporation, and it was the bigwigs there that decided to shelve it".

"Who was the famous actress?" Janeane naturally inquired.

"It was Geena Davis", someone who was not me answered.

Apparently some jerk had been listening in on our conversation. I turned around and was shocked to see Smurf Jones, a detective with the local police department (although not really).

"Jones, why the hell are you still following me?" I demanded to know.

"I didn't get the Soros funding, so, mission accomplished".

This was the a-hole who, along with his partner, had administered the beating. Although it was the pistol-whipping I received from Tony Hawkins which was the cause of my vertigo.

"I have investigated you thoroughly, Dervish", Smurf Jones responded with a creepy smile on his face. "I own a copy of that bootleg DVD, and I must say I find the scene in question very stimulating, if you get my drift".

"Eeewww. That's sick", Janeane exclaimed.

"That reminds me", Jones continued. "I heard about another movie that Davis appears topless in. It's called There Will be Blood, starring Daniel Day-Lewis. He's the dude, as I understand it, who won an award portraying a crippled spaz who can do artsy-fartsy things with his left foot. While I have no interest in gay Liberal movies, I'm willing to give this one a shot for the nudity alone".

"I was just on my way to rent it when I spotted you sitting here. So, to answer your question, no, I'm not following you, this is just a chance encounter. Today is my day off".

While Jones had been talking I fumbled to find a certain item in my jacket pocket. "First of all", I said "you're a bigot, and secondly, Geena Davis isn't in that movie. I've seen it, and it contains no nudity whatsoever. I know what blog you're talking about, and that guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about". "And lastly", I said, withdrawing the item from my pocket and holding it up for Jones to see, "...this is the Stun Master. At 4.5 million volts, it's one of the most powerful stun guns available. I won't hesitate to use it if you make a move to assault me again".

Jones did not look intimidated. "I'd put that away if I were you", he cautioned. "Threatening a officer of the law is an arrestable offense. I won't warn you again. And, by the way, I was going to swing by your office tomorrow. You still need to pay the court costs associated with your failed lawsuit. If you don't pay up soon I'm going to have to inform the judge. Either he'll order your arrest, or have your wages garnished. I favor doing both".

Jones was referring to the lawsuit I had filed against him, his partner Tony Hawkins, and Tannis Protection (the private security firm the Emergency Financial Manager hired when he privatized the local police department). The judge cited a lack of evidence and dismissed the lawsuit. And then he ordered me to pay all costs associated with the case. Which meant I currently owed Tannis Protection three thousand dollars! This was in addition to my mounting medical bills.

"Screw you, Jones", I sputtered angrily. "Luckily Hawkins' pistol whipping just resulted in post-traumatic vertigo. My doctor said he thinks I'll gradually recover over the next couple of months. But I'm not taking the chance of your next assault killing me. I'll drop you, damn the consequences. I'm not taking any chances with my life. And, regarding your plans to visit my office -- you're banned from the building".

"I'm sorry Dervish, but you're wrong regarding that point, and you know it. Your lawyer brought this up during the trial and the judge told him and you that your employers must grant Tannis Protection access your workplace. Although I don't know how the hell anyone can earn a living working -- if you want to call it that -- at a Liberal think tank. But, you'll probably be out of a job after that clueless community organizer is bounced out of office in 2012. Thanks to your party's running up of the national debt which has held back an economic recovery... the American people will vote overwhelmingly for whoever the Republican nominee is. My bet's on Perry".

 swtd-99. polfi-11.  Previous. Next.

The Moderate Crazies

Moderate strategies in the past had moderate results ~ Marc Johnson, state appeals court judge, Kenner LA.

They turn Liberals into the "far left" and label them "the crazies". They turn themselves into "Liberals", even though they supported the illegal war with Afghanistan, eliminating the corporate income tax*, and call themselves "free traders".

When I first starting blogging five (and change) years ago, I firmly considered myself a Liberal. I was an anti-war, for the middle class, in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy, opposed to unfettered free trade, anti-Fox Nooz Liberal. Now, though, I'd probably have to say that I'm more Liberal.

But I've not really changed all that much. Just shifted a little further to the Left. I think the real question here is, seeing as a certain Independent Moderate Blue Dog Democrat Libertarian (and others) consider me to be on the "far left", instead of simply a normal Progressive, how is is that the Moderate crazies think they can hijack the term "Progressive", move the goalposts, and get away with it? I'm positive it's because that's the MO of the Right and their accomplices in the so-called Middle.

The Right has been so successful at moving the goalposts that they shifted a large portion of the Democratic Party to the Right. That's how we got Bill Clinton and the Third Way Democrats! I actually argued with a Conservative/Libertarian on a blog recently about whether or not Bill Clinton was a Liberal. This Con/Libertarian insisted that Clinton was Leftist/Liberal and that "a large number of Liberals embraced the Third Way"! Un-freaking believable, huh?

Note: This post is a rebuttal to a commentary on the Contra O'Reilly blog. Above I state that the proprietor of this other blog is in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. This is true, but he also wants to increase the top personal income tax rate to be set at 40 percent 39.6 percent 37-38 percent 25 percent and tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income. According to him this will result in more taxes being collected.

I bring this up because I was accused of being a partisan liar for "leaving out" this information. But this post wasn't meant to be a rebuttal of Willis Hart's position on the elimination of the corporate income tax, and I included a link that anyone could read themselves. Perhaps I'm just not that good of a deceiver? Anyway, I've added this note to eliminate any confusion. No "deception" was intended with this post.

SWTD #98, wDel #9.

Republican Hacks Responsible for Manufactured Solyndra Scandal

I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks ~ Darrell Issa (dob 11/1/1953) Representative from California's 49th congressional district and head of the House Oversight Committee, announcing his plans to go on a witch hunt against the Obama Administration ("Darrell Issa plans hundreds of hearings", Politico 11/8/2010).

The following report is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 9/19/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. This report from the "news" segment of the program concerns Republican attempts to use the Solyndra scandal to paint the Obama Administration as incompetent.

Thom Hartmann: Last week the media jumped on the Obama Administration over a loan to solar company Solyndra that went bust, in what was dubbed Solyndra-gate. It was suggested that the loan was granted for political reasons and that the whole deal reeked of crony capitalism. But, as we are getting used to these days, the media dropped the ball.

Not only does Solyndra represent just 1.3 percent of the department of energy's entire loan portfolio and is the only company receiving loans to fail, but former president George W bush has more prints on the Solyndra loan then does President Obama. It was bush who created the program and spent two years urging the department of energy to approve the Solyndra loan, which it finally did only two months into President Obama's term.

Not only that, but regarding the accusation that the Obama Administration granted the loan in return for campaign contributions... one of Solyndra's top investors gets their money from the Walton family, a notorious contributor to the Republican Party... not exactly fans of the Obama presidency.

So here we have another scandal manufactured by Republican hacks for the media, when the media should be looking into the greatest crime of all, which is the destruction of the American Middle Class at the hands of the Republicans and the oligarchs who own them.

My Commentary: A 9/23/2011 New York Times article, titled "The Phony Solyndra Scandal" says, "The company's recent bankruptcy... was largely brought on by a stunning collapse in the price of solar panels over the past year or so". I was actually duped into believing there might be something to this scandal by an Obama-hating Conservative commenter on the blog of Willis Hart. According to the doofus Rusty Shackelford, the Solyndra "scandal" is going to cause BIG problems for Barack Obama, because it's going to prove to people just how incompetent and in over his head "Obie" the community organizer is.

For the record, I thought that the owners of the company may have done something untoward, not the President or his administration. But it turns out I was way wrong. The reason for Solyndra's failure is due to the fact that "the Chinese government is investing in solar production [and that] has led to a burst in production that has boosted supplies and forced down product prices worldwide". Turns out there is absolutely no scandal here what-so-ever, just a failure to accurately predict future market conditions.

Don't tell the Republicans this, however. Expect them to make as much hay as possible over this non-scandal. The corrupt Representative from California, sleazeball Darrell Issa, announced that he's launching an investigation. Regarding the function of the Oversight Committee under Issa, a 11/8/2010 Politico article says Issa enlisted "Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio... to chair some of his subcommittees". Politico refers to these two representatives as "aggressive partisans". I think it's clear what Issa's agenda is.

I'm with Thom Hartmann on this one, the Republican Party is totally owned by the wealthy elites and this bogus scandal is nothing more than a distraction while they continue their destruction of the middle class. And they're also miffed because George bush was SO incredibly incompetent and corrupt... and now they're desperate to get the same labels attached to Obama... but nothing is sticking. Hint: It's because Obama is an extremely intelligent, competent and honest man, not to mention an substantially superior POTUS when compared to the previous doofus who held the office.

SWTD #97, wDel #8.

They Made an Exceedingly Bad Decision, As I'm Sure Everyone Who Isn't an Idiot Agrees

The very first law in advertising is to avoid the concrete promise and cultivate the delightfully vague ~ Stuart Chase (3/8/1888 to 11/16/1985) an American economist (MIT), social theorist and writer.

They made an exceedingly bad decision, as I'm sure anyone with an ounce of common sense will agree. Clearly these chaps didn't take the long-range ramifications into account, because, if they had, they would have made a decision that was the exact opposite of the decision they made. Now I ask you, is it any surprise that a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of the American people are outraged?

For the record, I'm in agreement with the vast majority of Americans who believe repealing the law was a bad idea. Obviously the solution (and I'm positive you'll agree with me) is to change the law back to what it was. Perhaps we should even make the law stricter. One thing is crystal clear though, and that is that this never should have been permitted in the first place!

So, the question I'm posing to you is, are you one of the majority of Americans who think this was not a good idea, or an idiot in the minority who thinks it was just what we needed? Even after the fallout of that bad decision and the subsequent attempt to make things right with new legislation, some people seem to still not get it. They think the new legislation should be repealed! They think it's bad for the economy! They think the reason for the bad things that happened was that the original law went too far!

I say these people are blaming the wrong parties; they blame one group when they should actually be blaming another. Can you believe it? I certainly cannot. Obviously these people have only the interests of the other group in mind when making their absurd accusations. Obviously the citizens should align ourselves with first group. Why? Because this group is us; that is, we are all part of this group. Our objectives are, or should at least, be harmonious. But that has not been the case as of late. Actually, it hasn't been the case for quite some time, but the disharmony became a LOT more pronounced following the last election.

What do we do about it? I don't know. The subgroup of the group of people that should be on our side has been aligning itself with the second group to an increasing extent over the years. Personally, I think only a sub-sub group of the first group is our only hope. If only an individual of this group could get him or herself elected to a particular office. You know which one I mean. Personally I think they all suck, but, more on that in a later post. Stay tuned. In the meantime, why not let me know what you think?

Note: Do you have any idea what the hell I'm talking about? This post was purposefully written using a style (that is decidedly NOT "delighful") employed by a certain Moderate-Libertarian blogger I've mentioned here before. When this guy writes something incredibly vague and you say you don't know what he's talking about... he'll blame YOU for not knowing what the hell he's talking about! The latest charge was that I didn't know what he was referring to because I watch too much of a certain Left-leaning news channel. No, I don't think that was what was at issue. The issue was that his post included too few fricking details!

SWTD #96, wDel #7.

President Obama's Jobs Bill Failure Would be a Success For Republicans

This plan is the plan that dare not speak it's name. It's real name is stimulus, but that word has been banned from politics in Washington ~ Lawrence O'Donnell (b. 11/7/1951) on the 9/8/2011 broadcast of his MSNBC program "The Last Word".

Note: The following discussion is an excerpt from the The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 9/8/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Lawrence asks Representative Barney Frank of MA if the President's proposed American Jobs Act has a chance of passing the House.

Lawrence O'Donnell: What are the prospects in the House of Representatives for this bill?

Rep Barney Frank: I'm afraid they're not very good. As I'm standing here I'm hearing one of the younger Republicans proclaim loudly that government can't do anything. These are people who believe we have no capacity to come together to do anything. I am afraid that the [radical] Right-wing that has the Republican Party by the throat is going to block anything. I think the president did a very good job of making it clear that he was compromising. This isn't everything I would like him to do. It isn't everything he would like to do.

But I think he correctly said, look, I want to get results. And the only chance of getting results is to say to Republicans, I'm giving you some of the things you want. I am afraid that it is not going to be helpful. I credit the president for trying. I don't know what more he could have done. You are dealing with people who... let's be very clear about the Tea Party and their patron Grover Norquist who's made them all sign these pledges... these are people who do not understand that government has an important role. That there are things that we can only do if we come together to do them. To build bridges... to provide for the elderly in their retirement if they aren't otherwise wealthy.

These are people who don't believe in that. Frankly, sadly I have to say, and I've had to conclude this... they don't want the economy to get better. Because if the economy gets better, Barack Obama's chances to win get better. These are people for whom the major goal is to defeat Barack Obama. Secondarily to discredit government. They don't want people to think there are things we can do. They are ideologically committed to the idea that there shouldn't be any government, so they are not trying for success. They don't want Obama to succeed and they don't want us to show that government can work in the public interest.

My Commentary: The Republicans won't agree to another 447 billion dollar stimulus bill regardless of whether or not it is "paid for". President Obama proposes paying for this bill by increasing the cuts the so-called "Super Congress" will be making. Does this mean that if no agreement can be reached and the automatic cuts are triggered... the jobs bill is dead? I agree with Barney Frank, I do not see this legislation going anywhere.

Further Reading
01. Obama Jobs Plan: $447 Billion, More Than Half In Tax Cuts, To Be Paid For By Super Committee by Sam Stein, The Huffington Post 9/8/2011.
02. Text: Obama's Jobs Speech: There are Steps We Can Take Right Now by National Journal staff, The National Journal 9/8/2011.

Video: Obama's 9/8/2011 Jobs Speech To Congress, Full Video (32:58).



 swtd-95 

The News Wasn't Always Reported for Profit

With all the mass media concentrated in a few hands, the ancient faith in the competition of ideas in the free market seems like a hollow echo of a much simpler day ~ Kingman Brewster, Jr. (6/17/1919 to 11/8/1988) an educator, president of Yale University, and American diplomat.

The following monologue is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/11/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom's rant concerns reporting the news for profit, the Fairness Doctrine and Republican attempts to distort what the consequences of it were...

Thom Hartmann: The fact of the matter is, in 1987 when Reagan stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine. The core of the Fairness Doctrine was not, if you put an hour of Rush Limbaugh on you've got to put an hour of Thom Hartmann on. It had nothing to do with that. There were talk shows, in fact Alan Berg's talk show was on the air back in the 70s out of Denver, and he was blowing a signal into 20-some-odd states. He was the most popular talk show host in America. He was a Liberal. He was gunned down by a couple of neo-Nazis. The next big talk radio guy to come along was Rush Limbaugh in 1987.

When Reagan stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine, the core piece of it was that, in order to own a broadcast license... in order to have the right to broadcast over the air (radio or television), you had to be broadcasting in the public interest. That was interpreted by the FCC as meaning you had to actually present news. The news had to be unbiased, and it had to be disconnected from any commercial interests of the station or the advertisers of the station.

Back in the 70s I worked in news for 7 years... and I could have gotten fired for hanging out with the sales people. You just didn't do it. The news divisions were separate. The news divisions of all the networks lost money. The fairness doctrine ceasing to be enforced in 1987 was the first chink in the armor, then in 1997, after Bill Clinton signed the telecommunications act... this really put the nail in the coffin.

I was driving down the street and I heard a news report that said that CBS news, the storied home of Walter Cronkite, had just put their news division under the control of the Vice President of Entertainment at CBS... which meant that the news division was now a profit center... which meant that instead of getting news, you were now going to be getting infotainment.

You were now going to get the stuff that was profitable to the network and the stuff that flattered the advertisers. You wouldn't get the stuff that was hurtful to the advertisers. If they had part ownership in a movie studio, suddenly we're going to see those movie stars on their news programs. If they have part ownership in a publishing company you're going to see those authors being profiled, you know, whatever. And I remember thinking; this is really a sad day for America. Not just for journalism but for America.

My Commentary: On 8/18/2011 a commenter on a Conservative blog I frequent said, "Even news has to be a profit center in today's world". The comment was in response to the Conservative blogger's post about women he finds attractive hosting news programs. Obviously the goal of these news programs is to draw men in to oggle the beauties. It obviously works for the Conservative blogger Willis Hart who watches Fox Nooz programs for this reason. This is an individual I've discussed before. He calls himself a moderate but is really a moderate to liberal Republican.

But the Conservative/Moderate blogger isn't the reason for this post. The reason for this post is because I wanted to respond to what a Conservative commenter said about the news being a profit center in today's world. In response to that comment an individual who calls himself dmarks said, "It's always been that way. Go back to the days of Uncle Walter, and beyond to Benjamin Franklin's original Saturday Evening Post".

I'm not positive what "Uncle Walter" dmarks is referring to, but Wikipedia says Uncle Walter is "a nickname for broadcast journalist Walter Cronkite". During Walter Cronkite's time the news was not reported for profit. The news wasn't reported for profit from 1949 when the Fairness doctrine was introduced until August of 1987, when the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote (38 years).

The above comments by Thom Hartmann reflect the world as it actually was, a reality I thought even a conservative would acknowledge, simply because nobody would believe a rewriting of history so severe. But clearly Conservatives left the reality based community long ago and have never looked back.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of the quoted segment of audio can be found at 31:10 to 33:58 of Hour 3 on Thursday 8/11/2011.

Further Reading
[1] Fairness Doctrine: Secret Republican Agenda Exposed! by Craig Aaron, The Huffington Post 1/8/2009.
[2] The Fairness Doctrine How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back by Steve Rendall, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) 2/12/2005.

Video: Thom Hartmann asks "should the Fairness Doctrine death be taken off the books?"

SWTD #94

Means Testing Is An Insidious Plan to Destroy Social Security & Medicare

The notion that the benefits are an earned right separates Social Security from means-tested income-support programs. ... Means testing is a feature of taxpayer-funded welfare programs designed to help the poor. A means test would inevitably erode the universal and contributory nature of Social Security and some of the popular support that has sustained it for nearly 75 years ~ John Rother; an excerpt from his 1/29/2010 article "Don't Means Test Social Security" from the "political opinion" section of US News & World Report.

The following discussion/rant is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/11/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom answers a caller's question regarding means testing programs like Social Security and Medicare...

Caller: Wouldn't it make sense to put the people in the program that actually need the assistance, and leave the people who don't need to be in the program out of it? Putting everyone under one umbrella is going to be a lot more inefficient and a lot more expensive? Take care of the people who need taking care of and leave the rest of the people out.

Thom Hartmann: You just brought up my favorite Republican talking point. This is probably one of the most sick and twisted Republican talking points that's out there. This is the Republican plan to destroy Social Security and Medicare... through something called means testing. There are 132 thousand people in the United States who make over a million dollars a year. And so they're saying why are those people getting a social security check? Why does Warren Buffett who's 80 years old... why is he eligible for Medicare?

Well, here's why... it's very simple. When you start means testing a program, when you say that anyone who has "means", anyone who is rich shouldn't get that program, only the people who need the program, who don't have means should be in the program... then that programs becomes what's called Welfare. Now, when Bill Clinton came into office... of the people who lived below the poverty line - 57 percent were eligible for Welfare.

After Clinton's Welfare reform, which sold well to the American people, because we were in the middle of the dot-com bubble... everybody, Democrats and Republicans looked and said there aren't that many poor people anymore... so let's cut the Welfare programs. Let's make it harder for people to stay on Welfare for extended periods of time. Now it's down to 27 percent. Only 27 percent of people who are actually in poverty can get Welfare.

Because, in large part, because of the changes that were made during the Clinton administration. Although there were changes made before and after... this isn't a bash Bill Clinton screed. The point here is that when something is only available to poor people... poor people don't make campaign contributions. Poor people do not have lobbyists in Washington DC. And so the first thing that goes on the chopping block are programs only for poor people. If you want to destroy Social Security and Medicare, the first thing you do is get all the rich people out of it by means testing.

That way it's no longer an insurance program that covers everybody. Then, once you get them out of it in terms of it in terms of benefits. Then you can say why are they paying into it, because they're getting nothing out of it? Then you can cut even more money out of it, and now you've got a program that's really in a crisis.

This is the Republican strategy... to sound very reasonable... whether it's in an editorial that they're writing for the newspaper, or it's in a phone call to a radio show... This is one of the slickest, sneakiest, most slimy and disgusting strategy going. Saying we need to means test Social Security and Medicare and turn them into Welfare programs.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 13:02 to 16:54 of Hour 3 on Wednesday August 24 of 2011.

See Also: [Contra O'Reilly, 4/24/2015] On the Fact that Means-Testing Social Security and Medicare Used to Be a Liberal Position (Jimmy Carter, to His Credit, Has Advocated it) but Because that Idiot, Thom Hartmann, Came Up with Some Paranoiac Theory that this Would Lead to the Program's Total Demise, it Isn't Any Longer.

SWTD #93

Reading Sleeping with The Devil Leads To Great Bliss & Complete Knowledge

Pain and foolishness lead to great bliss and complete knowledge, for Eternal Wisdom created nothing under the sun in vain -- Kahlil Gibran (1/6/1883 to 4/10/1931) a Lebanese American artist, poet, and writer chiefly known in the English speaking world for his 1923 book "The Prophet", an early example of inspirational fiction including a series of philosophical essays written in poetic English prose.

The head of the Progressive Ideology Foundation Laura Fawkes smiled and embraced me. "Welcome back Dervish", she said warmly. "We were genuinely worried about you when you disappeared and it appeared to be foul play".

"Actually", I said, "I've been back at work for more than four months now. Although, according to what I've heard, nobody really cared that I'd disappeared or that foul play may have been involved. My research assistant Janeane told me that the tip line our security man Rusty Farber set up received zero calls. And I heard that you alerted the news media, but they declined to cover the story".

"We suspected the two officers from Tannis Protection who have been hanging around here were responsible, but when we called their office they denied it", Laura responded.

"It was Smurf Jones and Tony Hawkins, acting under the direction of Emergency Financial Manager Reginald Kingston who kidnapped me, held me for several days, and then released me".

"Thank goodness they released you", Laura Fawkes interjected.

"Actually, I don't feel that lucky", I replied. "They beat me savagely... and caused me to miss my appointment with the representative of George Soros. An appointment I had hoped would allow me to obtain additional funding for my blog. I tried to set up another appointment, but the representative said all the money that Mr. Soros had set aside to support Liberal bloggers had been allocated for the year".

I saw a look of genuine concern cross Laura's face when I mentioned my failure to secure the funding from George Soros. That had, in fact, been the reason why the Tannis goons had nabbed me. They wanted me to miss the meeting and lose the Soros funding. Also, after I returned from my three days of imprisonment and torture I found that the entirety of my investigative staff - almost a dozen people, had been reassigned to other, more successful bloggers.

Budget cuts at the Foundation were why I sought the funding from Soros to begin with. Laura told me awhile ago that the Liberal think tank (also known as PIF or informally as Liberal Headquarters) could no longer pay for my investigative staff. My Senior Fellow position with PIF was safe, as was Janeane's (since she had been assigned to be my research assistant in my pre-blogging days), but the Foundation would no longer subsidize work on my blog.

As a Senior Fellow I was a success, but as a blogger I was a failure. I considered shuttering the blog, but decided to keep it open and update it only occasionally, on my own time. So, Sleeping with the Devil was not going to become successful like The Daily Kos or The Huffington Post.

My plans were initially that it would, but clearly that was now out of the question. Unless I could obtain funding from another source. But perhaps it was for the best. I probably wouldn't have been approved for the Soros funding even if I had kept that meeting... which made me wonder, why were Jones and Hawkins so keen to keep me from it?

"In any case, I'm glad to hear you've decided to refocus your energies on your research here at the Foundation", Laura Fawkes said, interrupting my train of thought.

"Yes, I won't be wasting any more of my time here at work with that foolishness" I fibbed.

What I did on my own time didn't concern the division chief. Clearly she didn't read my blog anyway, or pay attention to the expense reports I submitted. Janeane wasn't supposed to attend the conference in DC with me back in May, but when I submitted my request for reimbursement for two plane tickets and two rooms at the Capitol Hill Suites, her office approved it.

"Great! That's all I wanted to talk to you about... I just wanted to be sure the blogging issue was settled", Laura said, dismissing me.

I left, shutting the door to her office behind me. Out in the hall I spotted Barry. He was standing there, apparently waiting for me. In his hands he held a small wrapped package topped with a bow.

When he saw me Barry smiled and said, "So, Dervish, I'm guessing Laura lowered the hammer?"

"Barry, I have no idea what you're talking about", I answered. Then I started down the hall at a brisk pace, not wanting to know what Barry was talking about.

"Wait up", Barry said, trotting after me. "This is for you", he said, handing me the package. "It's a parting gift; something to say, sorry to see you go, if you will".

"Barry, I'm not going anywhere, except away from you", I said, swatting the package away.

"What the hell?", Barry exclaimed. "I know you've never liked me Dervish, but I like you. And I'm genuinely sad you got canned".

But Barry didn't look sad; in fact he was still grinning. What Barry didn't know was, being a Senior Fellow, I couldn't be fired except by the board of directors. Laura Fawkes wasn't on the board, and thus had no power to terminate my employment. But I didn't tell Barry that. I grabbed his present and walked away.

Finally I lost Barry when I sprinted up a flight of stairs on my way to my office on the second floor. But shortly after I closed and locked my door I heard Barry knocking. I ignored the thumping and tossed Barry's unopened gift in the trash.

 swtd-92. polfi-10.  Previous. Next.