The media is not liberal, they're liars

Maria Bartiromo is interviewing the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the world's largest labor unions. Maria is touting a couple of her favorite themes: class warfare and taxes.



1. The look on Maria's face tells it all as Ms Henry answers the question about class warfare. "No, really? Oh, wow", as if to say, "I can't believe someone would could not see class warfare."  Her disgust is obvious. Bartiromo's implication is in reference to the Occupy Wall Street crowd. My take: Yes there is class warfare in this country and the rich are only side waging it. Why else would we see bailouts for bankers and not homeowners? The average Wall Street salary is $362,950 per year while the average nurse makes $73,000. 

The wealthy have their media outlets carrying water for them, convincing the working class to disarm themselves in the class war. The result is that we see nothing wrong with CEO's making an unprecedented almost 400X the average worker's salary; we see no ill effects with the highest 1% accumulating 30% of the nation's wealth, the most since the gilded age. Maria wants the union president to apologize for negotiating fair wages and working conditions. Please. Nobody in this discussion is begrudging the wealthy and high income earners their fortune, but to beat up a union leader and imply she is waging class warfare is absurd and untrue.

Now we have a leveraged buy-out specialist within a hair's breadth of the presidency. 

2.  Ms Henry notes that "we all pay taxes" and Maria clarified that she meant "income taxes, and not everybody pays income taxes." Under Maria's definition Mitt Romney would be part of the "47% who don't pay taxes" since his taxes were capital gains on the carried interest loophole and not income taxes. 

Every employed worker has 12% of their compensation contributed to payroll taxes and since this money is put directly into the general revenue fund it is treated no differently than income tax. Bartiromo's argument would be valid if payroll taxes were sequestered as a true pension and health care fund, i.e., Al Gore's lockbox that was so damn funny back in 2000. There is no lockbox; our social security and Medicare was spent in Iraq and on TARP. Our pension goes to fund wars and roads and corporate welfare for Exxon just like all other revenue; therefore, Bartiromo is making a false differentiation between payroll tax and income tax. 

Bartiromo knows this and she is using this interview with a union boss to purposely deceive the viewers and spew her venom towards working people. Her disdain is unveiled. This shrill demeanor is not new for CNBC, the home of Rick Santelli's teaparty rants. 

Bill Griffiths sits and watches the trainwreck, wishing like hell he had not come out of retirement.

Taibbi on Breitbart

Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone has written an obituary of his ideological antithesis Andrew Breitbart, which he subtitles "Death of a Douche".   Aside from the gratuitous reference to a feminine hygiene product, I guess I don't really understand Taibbi's beef with his buddy Andy. Taibbi praises his style:

For instance, it would be dishonest not to tip a hat to him for that famous scene when [Breitbart] hijacked Anthony Weiner’s own self-immolating "apology" press conference.

....And Taibbi feels that Breitbart has done some decent investigative work:

But there’s no way to watch the raw footage and not grasp how totally nuts some of this ACORN "counseling" was. We have to give Breitbart that.

And Matt goes on to say that while they disagreed about Taibbi's place within the "media-complex", Breitbart's sense of humor was admirable. Really?

This article by Taibbi reinforces one of my previous impressions that he adores the game, being a player, and Taibbi cares less about what side he happens to be on. Like Breitbart had said, you have to pick a side and go to war, and all these guys have a mutual respect for whomever can wheedle themselves into the media spotlight. Taibbi loves the fact that Breitbart paid attention to him, no matter if that attention was negative, no matter that Breitbart appealed to racism and hatred for personal gain.

The legacy of Andrew Breitbart is not completed, and it will be mixed to be sure, but for Taibbi to give such a glowing appraisal of his tactics, his personal attributes and his "career" is disappointing. Even if I agreed ideologically with everything Breitbart presented, his style and demeanor lower the discourse into the gutter and was designed to create discord: obfuscation without clarity, heat without light. Breitbart's mastery of the dog whistle to appeal to the lizard brain is reminiscent of the great propagandists of the modern age-- Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Dick Morris-- and it is nothing that should be praised. It's akin to praising Jeffrey Dahmer for his dissection skills.

While I enjoyed reading Griftopia, I maintain that Taibbi is not serious about fixing anything or reporting important events as much as he's interested in demonstrating his rhetorical skills for his fans. At least Cesca has the conviction to lay it out truthfully and without pretending that Breitbart was nothing but a self-promoter who would destroy anyone and anything for superficial recognition, even if the fame were infamy.

Cesca:

Andrew Breitbart’s slash-and-burn pursuit of his own career destroyed countless lives and livelihoods. Innocent bystanders in the public debate — noncombatants as I sometimes call them — were crushed by Andrew’s mendacity, his obsessive careerism and his unethical business practices. Workers at ACORN and everyone who that organization sought to help have been crushed. The war against Planned Parenthood was started by Andrew Breitbart and that’s led to its defunding by both Congress and Komen. Who knows how many women will ultimately be hurt by Breitbart’s scams and prank videos. I have nothing positive to say about him.

I Agree.

Breitbart

I prefer to keep quiet rather than speak ill of the dead.  So let's allow Andrew Breitbart's body of work to speak for him.


On the day Ted Kennedy died, Mr. Breitbart had no problem with his Twitter account. From ThinkProgress on August 26, 2009:

Early this morning, news broke that Sen. Ted Kennedy had passed away after serving in the U.S. Senate for nearly 50 years. Soon after, conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart began a sustained assault on Kennedy’s memory, tweeting “Rest in Chappaquiddick.”

Breitbart unapologetically attacked Kennedy, calling him a “villain,” “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.” “I’ll shut my mouth for Carter. That’s just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement,” wrote Breitbart in one tweet.

When Politico’s Michael Calderone highlighted Breitbart’s attacks in an article called, “Not all Kennedy critics hold fire,” a pleased Breitbart tweeted:

Classy guy.  He will be missed.
Not.

Bill O tries to side with liberals, but is wrong again!

O’Reilly is incorrect to compare this issue to McCarthyism. Joe McCarthy was a US Senator who was using the apparatus of the federal govt to spy on and libel private citizens. That is unConstitutional, and since O'Reilly has a degree from Harvard's Kennedy School of Govt, I think he knows that.

If a bunch of wingnut women want to boycott JCPenney and carry on their bigoted rant, it’s their 1st Amendment right to do so. It’s game on, and I bet JCPenney gets even more customers now because of this idiotic boycott.

I get the feeling the Billo is trying to save the “million moms” from their own stupidity. When you need Bill O’Reilly to be the voice of reason, you’re way out there.

Memo To The Media: It’s Not ‘Anti-Capitalist’ To Protest An Industry That Was Saved By Trillions Of Taxpayer Dollars

Offered without comment, because none is necessary.

Erin Burnett enters the media elite

I had high hopes for Erin Burnett, after all she was mentored by my favorite curmudgeon, the late Mark Haines at CNBC.  So when her new show on CNN debuted last night, I had my bowl of popcorn ready for some righteous indignation and some calling bullshit on the Masters of the Universe.  Result: disappointment.

 


Seriously?  No mention of AIG and the massive counter-party risk that was covered by taxpayers that 1) saved the biggest banks at the expense of the smaller ones, and 2) will never be paid back?  Erin knows this argument but chose instead to ignore it while bullying some 20-something with her supposed airtight argument about "who made money on the bailouts".  Burnett also failed to mention that more wealth is now concentrated in fewer banks than before the crash, leaving us more vulnerable than ever.  No mention of the lack of regulation to prevent another disaster.  Burnett gave no voice to the angst of people who lost their homes, their jobs, their pensions while the assholes running Wall Street firms-- the guys who caused the crisis-- are still there.  Only one bank CEO from the major institutions was fired, and he was replaced by his next-in-command.

Do the hipsters have reasons to brood?  Sure.  Does Burnett have a responsibility to understand those reasons?  I suppose not (and feel free, Erin, to giggle; it gives you that much more journalistic credibility.)  Are the hipsters required to have a developed agenda for fixing a completely fucked up system?  No.

I also like her quip at the end of the segment about the protesters wearing Lululemon clothing and using Apple products, implying some evidence of hypocrisy because these companies trade on the NASDAQ.  Since when does Wall Street claim credit for the creativity of Apple, based in Cupertino, CA?

Protesters don't have a valid reason to be angry?  Seriously?  Mark Haines would be ashamed.

Jon Stewart was correct about Fox News

Fox News has spent the past week defending itself against the claims of Jon Stewart who

Get Breitbart Some Help!

It's doubtful that any close friends or family read the Kalamazoo Post, but I am imploring someone to get Breitbart to a crisis center.

Paranoid delusions are often a sign of deep psychological stress, perhaps a thought disorder and an impending crisis. This man is not well and in the adversarial drama of politics sometimes we forget that these are after all humans who deserve our empathy. Breitbart is exhibiting disturbing features that need to be addressed by professionals.

Anatomy of a Breitbart Con

"Breitbart is a con artist, but con artists succeed if consumers don’t know they are being conned – or don’t care."

When "journalists" report, we all need to be skeptical-- especially when they report about the Obama Administration-- lest we be taken in by the canards of a con man. The most recent scam is a textbook con job with all the elements designed to stir up divisiveness based on fear and loathing. It's sad, really.

• The Racism canard: Breitbart is unrepentant.
• The Hatch Act canard: The right-wing keeps puking on itself, regardless of the facts.
• The "Amen" canard: Breitbart is still unrepentant.
• The False Equivalency canard, i.e., "the lefties do it, too." Al Sharpton notwithstanding, in my opinion the left pales in comparison.
• The Fox News is Fair and Balanced canard; they were complicit in promulgating the defamation of Sherrod... and then lied that they didn't call her racist.
• The Mistakes Were Made canard: These are not errors, they are tactical and purposeful, as evidenced by Breitbart's past transgressions, and his buddy O'Keefe's lies.

The opinion piece of the Sherrod/Breitbart scandal that I wish I had written: In place of any screed I could scribble, PZ has penned the perfect post.

Meanwhile, there has been real racism at the USDA, that's the irony... but that's another story.

"Resoundingly" against the public option?

On CNBC this morning, Michael Leavitt, George W. Bush's HHS secretary and now proprietor of his own consulting firm, blatantly lies as the "journalists" at CNBC stare blankly into the monitor. At the 2:30 mark, Mr Leavitt says the we do not need a governemnt option and "that is what the American people have resoundingly said." Oh, really?

Poll after poll has shown that a majority of the American people prefer to have an option available from the federal government. The CBSNews poll from July says 72% want a public option. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (page 21 of this pdf) says that 76% of the American people rate a public option as "very important" or "quite important."

A few screamers in the town halls and-- voila!-- the reality is forgotten.

Despite three-quarters of the American people in favor of a public option, ass-hats can go on a major network and spout the opposite of this reality, completely unchallenged. Cute little Becky blinks into the camera and dry drunk Larry revs up for another anti-government harangue. So much for the fourth estate... our democracy is not in good hands, my friends.

Furthermore, no mention is made of any conflits of interest Mr. Leavitt's "consulting firm", which according to it's website has several "strategic partners" within the health care field, might have. One corporate beast (GE/CNBC-- liberal media? Ha!) washing the balls of other corporate beasts.