Phony War Against Christmas a Product of Fox News

Jim Romenesko at Poynter Forums posts an incisive article on how the Fox News Channel has been pushing this phony "War on Christmas" idea as a method of division. The article is apparently by Charlie Reina, a former Fox News Channel producer. A couple key paragraphs:

Fox anchors will tell you that no one in management dictates that they bring up religion. But my experience at FNC is that, once management makes its views known, the anchors have a clear blueprint of what’s expected of them. In this case, the point man is network vice president John Moody. A scholar and biographer of Pope John Paul II, John is a devout Catholic who seldom holds back on matters of the church, or in framing his views in “good guy, bad guy” terms. For example, during the 2001 Senate hearings on John Ashcroft’s appointment as Attorney General, Moody’s daily memos to the staff repeatedly touted Ashcroft as “deeply religious” and the victim of Democrats’ intolerance. One memo suggested a question of the day: “Can a man of deep Christian faith be appointed to a federal job, or will his views be equated with racism, intolerance and mean-spiritedness?” He added: “(K)eep pounding at the question: should Ashcroft’s detractors try to be as tolerant as they would have him be?”

Then there’s Fox management’s view on the separation of church and state, and on those who support it. One not-so-subtle hint came in March, 2004, after a Baghdad bombing gave reporters at a hotel in the Iraqi capital a scare. Moody’s memo that day advised FNC staffers to “offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don’t shine).”

Not mentioned is that the book The War on Christmas is by Fox News "Big Story" host John Gibson, or the multiple fabrications by Fox's Bill O'Reilly. (Update on the latter: Plano schools are getting some press over their response to O'Reilly's fabricated claim that they banned students from wearing Christmas colors.)

David Friedman's blog

Economics and law professor David Friedman, author of The Machinery of Freedom and Law's Order, has started a blog. Initial entries include an interesting defense of the Chronicles of Narnia (and a call for examples of other works that resemble it in a certain respect), a suggestion that the Democrats try to pull libertarian support from the Republican party by endorsing something like marijuana legalization, and a position on gay marriage (get government out of the marriage business).

He's also got a sidebar link to an interesting article that presents a way of justifying (or at least explaining) the notion of rights (and property rights in particular) without appeal to morality or law.

The Bush Medicare Fraud

I've been reading James Bovard's book, The Bush Betrayal, which makes an overwhelmingly strong case that George W. Bush is not only a terrible president by liberal standards, but by conservative or libertarian ones (Bovard falls into the libertarian camp). The book is 278 pages of text followed by 43 pages of end notes (which, unfortunately, are mostly references to secondary sources) documenting Bush impropriety, dishonesty, and bad decisions regarding civil liberties, free trade, education, farm subsidies, Medicare, the war on drugs, and in war.

I just finished reading the chapter titled "Spending as Caring," which has a section on the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs in 2003 (pp. 121-126), which the Bush administration estimated would cost $400 billion in its first decade (and the Congressional Budget Office estimated would cost $2 trillion in its second decade). The initial vote took place at 3 a.m. on November 23, 2003, and lost by two votes. The Republicans violated House rules, which limit votes to 30 minutes, with the longest floor vote in House history. The voting finished at 6 a.m., with two Republicans changing their votes to yes and passing the bill.

Rep. Nick Smith (R-Michigan) was a Republican Congressman who opposed the bill and came under intense pressure to change his vote. Smith, who was in his last term and whose son was running for his seat, was told (according to Robert Novak--not a source I'd ordinarily rely upon) "business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote." He declined, at which time "fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat." Fortunately, Cunningham is now out of office after confessing to taking millions of dollars in bribes.

A month after Bush signed the bill, Josh Bolton, Bush's budget director, raised the estimate of the first decade's cost to $540 billion. As it turned out, the Bush admnistration had known since June 2003 that the cost was higher than $400 billion, from an estimate by Richard S. Foster, the top actuary at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Democratic staffers had contacted Foster asking for an estimate, which he was legally required to provide, but Thomas Scully, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, reportedly threatened to fire Foster if he provided the information. Foster later said that "there was a pattern of withholding information for what I perceived to be political purposes." Why was this information suppressed? Because 13 conservative House members had vowed to vote against any bill costing more than $400 billion--they were deceived by the Bush administration.

Eighteen Democratic Senators requested the General Accounting Office to investigate whether any laws were violated (specifically a law that prohibits paying federal funds for the salary of any official who "prohibits or prevents, or threatens to prohibit or prevent" another employee from communicating with Congress). House Republicans blocked an effort to have Scully and White House aide Doug Badger testify before a congressional committee on this issue.

The Congressional Research Service published a legal analysis which concluded that "such 'gag orders' have been expressly prohibited by federal law since 1912." This position was backed by a 1927 Supreme Court ruling on that law which stated that a "legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information regarding conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change."

But the worst part about all of this deception is that the program itself is mostly a handout to people who don't need it. The Medicare prescription drug benefit helps wealthy elderly, corporations, and insurance companies more than elderly without insurance coverage. This change in the law brought the date of Medicare insolvency from 2026 to 2019, and is projected to cost up to $7 trillion over the next 75 years.

After the bill passed, the Bush administration then spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising to promote the law, including "video news releases" by fake reporters which the GAO determined in March 2004 were illegal "covert propaganda" with "notable omissions and weaknesses" and were "not strictly factual news stories."

The above gives a small sampling of the content of Bovard's book (though not his exact words, I've summarized), which is packed with equally damning criticism of the Bush administration.

BTW, Capitol Hill Blue (an often criticized source, yet which seems to often be quite accurate) claims reports from three witnesses that George W. Bush said, in response to criticisms of the USA PATRIOT reauthorization act, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" (Hat tip to Scott Peterson from the SKEPTIC list.)

Profit: Its Social Motivation and Function

I found this site in a roundabout way via this page over at Liberated Space.

I tooled around a little bit, and aside from an essay making a valid criticism of the turgid and pleonastic prose of Joseph Schumpeter, this essay, described by the author as "a brief treatise on this commonly referenced and highly sought subject of economics," particularly caught my eye, if only because being against profit has always seemed to me to imply that you then must be for losses. Am I making a bit of a logical fallacy, there? Constructing a bit of a strawman? Granted. The point serves, however, to illuminate the narrow way in which the far left always tries to define profit as synonymous with exploitation. This is, in fact, what Punkerslut attempts to do at the outset:

Profit serves primarily as an economic idea. If a merchant were to purchase a single loaf of bread for one dollar and to sell it for two dollars, that would be a single dollar of profit, or what many economists would call a 100% profit return. What does money translate to for the merchant? It translates specifically to privilege: the right to possess and consume products and services, which would otherwise be unreachable, had the merchant sold his labor, instead of selling commodities.

Now, my first complaint of the above quote is that it is simply a string of non-sequiturs. What does each sentence have to do with the previous - outside the broadest sense, that they are all somewhat concerned with the subject of "profit"? You can see, though, the foggy outlines of the basic Marxist notion that profit is exploitation of the "laboring class" (the only "class" that creates value - the Proletariat) by the "merchant class" (the parasitic "class" that produces nothing - Capitalists).

But is the laboring class really the only class that creates value? Why is profit restricted to the Capitalist class? Can't a laborer value his wages more than the labor he has exchanged - thereby "profiting" from the transaction?

Reading Punkerslut's essay just makes me sad.

And some good news: the PATRIOT Act reauthorization has failed

The Senate roll call vote is here. Unless a reauthorization passes, various provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire after three years will expire on December 31, 2005. These provisions include roving wiretaps, the ability to obtain certain kinds of business records without a court order, expansion of wiretap capabilities, certain kinds of sharing between agencies of information obtained via wiretap, etc. The specific details of what was in the Senate bill and the corresponding House bill may be found here (PDF).

Some of the pieces of these bills were beneficial, e.g., placing a sunset provision on the use of National Security Letters, which predated USA PATRIOT and which do not currently have an expiration date. Others extended provisions due to sunset on December 31, 2005 to 2006 or later years. (The ACLU has a lawsuit against the constitutionality of National Security Letters.)

The vote was 52-47; 60 votes were needed to end the filibuster. 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans voted yes, 41 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and one independent voted no.

Arizona: McCain and Kyl both voted yes.

UPDATE (March 25, 2007): The link for the ACLU's lawsuit on National Security Letters is stale, you can now find that information here.

Double Standards

This is possibly the converse of the Cory Maye case: When a cop kills an innocent person by mistake, they usually don't even get charged or go to trial. When they do, they get off. (Hat tip to Radley Balko at the Agitator.)

We've previously covered bad behavior by cops here.

(Added 2:55 p.m.: Balko has another piece on the frequency of botched drug raids here. He estimates them at 46 a month in New York alone, up until 2003 when the Alberta Spruill case led to public attention to such abuses. That was a case where a 57-year-old woman died of a heart attack after a flash grenade was thrown into her apartment in a raid on the wrong apartment.)

Bush administration approved warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens

News is now out that the Bush administration, in 2002, authorized the National Security Agency to conduct eavesdropping (on international email or phone calls) against U.S. citizens without court oversight. The NSA's domestic surveillance is supposed to be limited to foreign embassies and missions, and to require court approval. This is not a power granted to the president by the U.S. Constitution.

This abuse of power has apparently been exercised against as many as 500 people in the U.S. at any given time. The NY Times reports that some NSA officials, to their credit, refused to participate due to their concerns about the legality of the program.

Note that the standards which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court uses to approve wiretaps are already incredibly low (their decision algorithm is pretty close to "say yes to everything"), but apparently that was considered too great a barrier and it had to be bypassed.

Approval of torture, secret CIA prisons in Europe, kidnapping citizens of other countries and taking them to Afghanistan... apparently the Bush administration has no respect for the U.S. Constitution on the principles behind it.

Happy 214th to the Bill of Rights

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was approved. Happy birthday, Bill of Rights! Wishing you were still here in full force...

More fake paranormal photos

Paranormal.about.com had a photo contest for fake paranormal photos. Some of them are pretty good, like the winning photo of a "wasp thing." Most are at least as good as the ones in the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art's exhibition on "The Perfect Medium: Photography and the Occult."

Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica

The December 2005 issue of Communications of the ACM contains an "Inside Risks" column raising concerns about some of the risks of Wikipedia:

relying on Wikipedia presents numerous risks:

* Accuracy: You cannot be sure which information is accurate and which is not. Misinformation has a negative value; even if you get it for free, you've paid too much.

* Motives: You cannot know the motives of the contributors to an article. They may be altruists, political or commercial opportunists, practical jokers, or even vandals (WP: ``Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages'').

* Uncertain Expertise: Some contributors exceed their expertise and supply speculations, rumors, hearsay, or incorrect information. It is difficult to determine how qualified an article's contributors are; the revision histories often identify them by pseudonyms, making it hard to check credentials and sources.

* Volatility: Contributions and corrections may be negated by future contributors. One of the co-authors of this column found it disconcerting that he had the power to independently alter the Wikipedia article about himself and negate the others' opinions. Volatility creates a conundrum for citations: Should you cite the version of the article that you read (meaning that those who follow your link may miss corrections and other improvements), or the latest version (which may differ significantly from the article you saw)?

* Coverage: Voluntary contributions largely represent the interests and knowledge of a self-selected set of contributors. They are not part of a careful plan to organize human knowledge. Topics that interest the young and Internet-savvy are well-covered, while events that happened ``before the Web'' may be covered inadequately or inaccurately, if at all. More is written about current news than about historical knowledge.

* Sources: Many articles do not cite independent sources. Few articles contain citations to works not digitized and stored in the open Internet.

But the authors don't seem to recognize that most of these risks apply to all published sources, not just Wikipedia or online sources. The reliability of sources on the Internet needs to be examined, just as the reliability of conventionally published sources needs to be examined. They also don't mention that volatility can be a benefit, reflecting rapid change as more or better information becomes available.

A comparison by Nature found that the treatment of scientific subjects by Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica is of comparable accuracy. This CNN article, referencing Tom Panelas of Britannica, says "Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered."

I bet Wikipedia will have its errors corrected before the Encyclopedia Britannica will. I encourage writers to continue criticizing Wikipedia for inaccuracies they discover--their criticisms are beneficial, as they spur corrections. For example, if you read former Britannica editor Robert McHenry's critique of the Wikipedia entry on Alexander Hamilton and then read the entry as it stands today, you'll see that all the specific complaints he had have been corrected.