Various Direct Links

Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts

18 February 2012

FollowUp 9: Republican Denial of Climate Change

In the seventh follow up of this series, I discussed how the Wall Street Journal had published an error-filled denial of climate change by sixteen scientists, an article that was called "dismal science" by two hundred and fifty-five scientists who are in the field of climate change.  Science Magazine published the truth when the Wall Street Journal, a subsidiary of News Corp., refused to do so.

Yesterday another subsidiary of News Corp., Fox News, published an Opinion piece by Matt Patterson, a commentator for the anti-environment Competitive Enterprise Institute, that relies on the discredited article from the Wall Street Journal.
[R]ecently in the Wall Street Journal 16 prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, came forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing:
“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’”
So why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe? The scientists offer their own view in the Journal: 
“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.”
Fortunately this strange fever is breaking, and voters are becoming ever more suspicious of government-mandated schemes to control their “carbon emissions,” which is just a bureaucrat’s way of curbing productivity, and therefore liberty.
In centuries hence the global warming boogeyman will be seen for exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally ridiculous.
The more times a lie is told, the more it is likely to be believed.  News Corp. keeps telling this lie.  The Republican contenders for President have all picked up the lie and run with it.  The proof is readily available, including from scientists who once doubted whether climate change was real.

1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.

2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.

29 January 2012

FollowUp 7: Republican Denial of Climate Change

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), owned since 2007 by News Corporation (the same company that owns Fox News), is a conservative newspaper.  The WSJ claims to be a source for unbiased news.  When it comes to reporting on climate change, they are not.  On Friday 27 January, the WSJ published an article titled No Need to Panic About Global Warming.  It was filled with errors.  The Union of Concerned Scientists called it Dismal Science.
To take just one example, the authors claim there has been a “lack of warming” for 10 years. Here’s what we know: 2011 was the 35th year in a row in which global temperatures were above the historical average and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record. Over the past decade, record high temperatures outpaced record lows by more than two to one across the continental United States, a marked increase from previous decades.
So where should decision-makers and the public turn to understand what the vast majority of scientists with relevant expertise really think about climate change?
They should start with the US National Academy of Sciences, established by President Lincoln to advise our nation’s leaders on matters of science. In May 2010, a major NAS  report requested by Congress concluded  that  “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems”.
Greg Laden, writing the on Science Magazine blog, held no punches.
The Wall Street Journal has published one of the most offensive, untruthful, twisted reviews of what scientists think of climate change; the WSJ Lies about the facts and twists the story to accommodate the needs of head-in-the-sand industrialists and 1%ers; The most compelling part of their argument, according to them, is that the editorial has been signed by 16 scientists.
The scientists who signed to WSJ editorial are:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Emphasis added to underscore the fact that this is a group of older and often retired weathermen, engineers, or otherwise not-climate-scientists.
Forbes Magazine, hardly a bastion of liberals, includes a link to the Union of Concerned Scientists article and notes that the WSJ rejected a letter from 255 scientists, members of the National Academy of Sciences, that offers a defense of the scientific method used to approach climate change and concludes that climate change is real and affected by human activity.
But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.
Science magazine – perhaps the nation’s most important journal on scientific issues – published the letter from the NAS members after the Journal turned it down.
The letter in Science magazine is about a page in length followed by half a page of the names of scientists who signed it.  No doubt we will hear one or more of the Republican presidential contenders cite the WSJ letter as evidence that there is no climate change occurring.  The WSJ was wrong as will be those who depend upon them for truth.

Thanks to Boing Boing for the heads up.

1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.

15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.

28 January 2012

Repudiation: Shawano Schools Failure to Edit

Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio wrote a commentary about an op-ed that a Wisconsin teenager wrote and the school published before retracting.  In it, he describes Liberty Counsel, an offshoot of the Liberty University Law School that specializes in religious activism, taking the case because of egregious behavior by the Superintendent of Shawano School District.
Mathew Staver, the founder of the Liberty Counsel, sent a letter to Superintendent Todd Carlson demanding an apology for “Its unconstitutional and irrational censorship and humiliation” of Brandon Wegner [, the teen author of the op-ed].
After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.
The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”
“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”
But Staver said what the school system did next was absolutely outrageous. He said the 15-year-old was ordered to the superintendent’s office where he was subjected to hours of meetings and was accused of violating the school’s bullying policy.
Local news has the following:

At this point, I am not sure whether to believe Mr. Staver's allegations. But, if the school district made a mistake, that mistake was made much earlier than any discussion between the Superintendent and the student.

While the op-ed was offensive, included inaccurate information (see my review of the All Children Matter Report), and may have been against the school's policies, why was it printed in the first place?  Schools usually assign a teacher or principal as the managing editor of any student papers for which the school is the publisher.  Once published, the school was right to apologize.  But they were wrong in ever allowing the op-ed.

06 January 2012

Praise: Shari Johnson Accepting Her Daughter

Three days ago Mark Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, had an opinion page on Fox News that condemned sex out of wedlock and condemned wedlock for homosexuals.  This is not new territory for Mr. Driscoll who has previously spoken against girly men and gays.  The piece from three days ago included seven points, two of which rightfully upset Ms. Johnson.
1. God created us male and female in His image and likeness with dignity, equality, value, and worth. Men and women are different and complement one another (Genesis 1:27-28).
2. Love is more like a song than a math equation. It requires a sense of poetry and passion to be any good at it, which is why people who are stuck in their heads struggle and are frustrated by it, and lovers prefer songs to syllogisms (Song of Solomon, all of it).
3. Marriage is for one man and one woman by God’s design. This is the consistent teaching of the Bible from the table of contents to the appendix and the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself (Genesis 2:24-25, Matthew 19:4).
4. God created sex. God made our bodies “very good” with “male and female” parts and pleasures. When our first parents consummated their covenant, God was not shocked or horrified, because He created our bodies for sex. The reason that sex is fun, pleasurable, and wonderful is because it is a reflection of the loving goodness of God who created it as a gift for us to steward and enjoy (Genesis 2:24-25).
5. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Sinful sex includes homosexuality, erotica, bestiality, bisexuality, fornication, friends with benefits, adultery, swinging, prostitution, incest, rape, polygamy, polyandry, sinful lust, pornography, and pedophilia (I Corinthians 6:9-11,18-20, Hebrews 13:4).
6. Sex is to be done in such a way that there is no shame (Genesis 2:25; Proverbs 5:18-23). Many people experience shame in regard to sex. Sometimes shame is a gift from God in response to our sexual sin, sometimes it is the devastating feeling we bear because we have been sexually sinned against, and other times we have not sinned or been sinned against sexually but feel shame because we have wrong thinking and feelings about sex in general, or a sex act in particular.
7. Your standard of beauty is your spouse. God made one man and one woman. He did not ask them if they wanted someone tall or short, light or heavy, pale or dark skinned, with long or short hair. In short, He did not permit them to develop a standard of beauty. Instead, He gave them each a spouse as a standard of beauty (Genesis 2:23, Proverbs 6:20-35).
Numbers one and two make sense to me, as do numbers four and seven.  Number three contradicts the Bible's frequent discussions of polygamy.  Solomon had how many wives again?  Number five does not make sense in terms of biblical laws, as having sex was either adultery (a sin in the Bible) or marriage (creating a new marriage if one did not already exist).  Number six is almost correct, as the only things shameful about sex are coercion and rape.

Shari Johnson describes herself as an evangelical Christian.  She was shocked when she learned that her daughter is a homosexual.  It took a while for Ms. Johnson to come to terms with the reality of her daughter's life and her own relationship with God.  In an opinion page on Fox News today, Ms. Johnson takes on Mr. Driscoll.  In particular, she challenges numbers three and five.
Pastor Driscoll shares “seven sex essentials from the Bible,” and I would like to address “3. Marriage is for one man and one woman by God’s design,” and “5. Sex outside of marriage is a sin.”
When I hear terms like “God’s design” and “Biblical marriage” I have to wonder who decides these things. 
Our cultural adaptation of marriage has certainly evolved through the ages—had God not intervened, Joseph could have had Mary stoned to death for being pregnant with a child that was not his. (An engagement at that time was considered the same as a marriage.) 
That is just one example—so many books could be written on the history of marriage. Yet we keep a death grip on the scriptures that suit us—and the translation of those scriptures becomes more a matter of tradition, opinion and convenience than the Word of God. 
The hypocrisy of a Christian parent who shrugs her shoulders over one child’s “living in sin” and says, “What’s a mother to do,” but goes to pieces when she hears of her daughter’s homosexuality, is appalling. I was that mother.
If one can find anything amusing in all this, it is that those who are upset about sex outside of marriage are the same ones who are opposed to marriage equality. 
The principles for heterosexual marriage are the same for same-sex marriage—love, commitment, faithfulness, loyalty, honor and respect. How can we deny that to anyone? 
My daughter and her partner were married in 2004 and I couldn’t ask for a better spouse for my daughter, or daughter-in-law for me. However, my attitude traveling to the wedding was far different from my attitude on the trip home. God attends gay weddings. Who knew?
Ms. Johnson continues to discuss more about marriage.  I am very happy for her, that she has come to accept her daughter and her daughter-in-law.  Some gays, long away from religion after extended rejection, would be surprised at the line God attends gay weddings.  If there is a God, then of course God must be everywhere.  Of course God attends gay weddings.
If we spent as much time obeying God’s two greatest commandments, which are that we love Him and love our neighbors as ourselves, and less time policing everyone who is different from us, imagine what a world it would be.
If more religious leaders had as clear a view of God's word as Ms. Johnson, the need for equality would be obvious to all and much of the hatred and bigotry in our world would fall by the wayside.  Shari Johnson had a tough path to travel to gain her wisdom.  People like Mr. Driscoll made that path harder for her than it needed to be.  We need more people with the perseverance, wisdom, and eloquence of Ms. Johnson.

03 January 2012

FollowUp 1: Robert Jeffress Mixing Church and State

Fox News yesterday featured an opinion column by Mr. Jeffress.  The title, Now Is Not the Time for Evangelical Voters to Settle, gives us the first hint that Mr. Jeffress has Fox assisting in his mixture of church and state.  He complains that too many participants in the Republican contests in Iowa and New Hampshire are looking first to who can defeat President Obama.
That approach puts voters in the uncomfortable the position of having to choose the least among evils when it comes to the three front runners at this date. And that’s a sorry lot to choose from.
One is a Mormon candidate who has been all over the map in his beliefs about abortion and same-sex marriage. Another is a Southern Baptist-turned-Catholic with three wives, two divorces, and numerous accusations of immorality who has been equally inconsistent when it comes to key issues. And then there’s the Baptist obstetrician with weird ties to neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, not to mention a foreign policy approach which blames the United States for the 9/11 terror attacks.
If one drops the references to specific religions, these would be okay talking points for a Democratic perspective.  With the religions in place Mr. Jeffress continues to misunderstand the way most of us consider politics, by issues and character not by religious labels.  If religion must come first, perhaps one should think of moving to a theocracy.
Although I personally endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry in October, I would never attempt to tell my congregation for whom they should vote. Thoughtful people can make up their own minds.
Still, I do think there are some important points that evangelical voters should keep in mind as we move into the thick of the primary season. The first – and this is good news – is that we are not at the end of the shopping season, but the beginning of a long process designed to produce a palatable candidate at its end. While it seems like the campaign has been going forever, in reality it is just getting started.
So, thoughtful people can make up their own minds ... with a little push from Mr. Jeffress.  A long primary season.  Political pundits will have lots of material, particularly given the periodic revelations and gaffes that the Republican contenders have been displaying.
I would suggest that voters—especially evangelical Christians—follow a more principled approach in choosing the next occupant of the White House. We should be looking for the most competent, consistently conservative Christian with character.
Both President Obama and all Republican candidates meet the competence threshold. But this coming election is about more than just competence --a criterion which is highly subjective. -- It’s also about character and ideology and the future direction our country.
It should surprise no one that I believe the ideal candidate should be a Christian. That is not because I am a pastor, but because ours has traditionally been a Christian nation. Christianity has served America well. Even John Jay, the nation’s first Chief Justice and co-author of "The Federalist Papers," wrote, “It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
The United States is not a Christian nation.  There were undoubtedly several of the Founding Fathers who were in favor of a Christian nation, but they were in a minority.  The evidence for my statement is the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams and ratified by a unanimous Senate in 1797.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I am Jewish and every President that I have voted for, whether or not the candidate won, has been a Christian.  That doesn't bother me.  The call to require that the President be a Christian does bother me.  I do not support Mr. Romney, but not because he is a Mormon ... because he has been saying that he is opposed to equality.

Regarding Chief Justice John Jay, he was opposed to Catholics holding office.  He also believed that Christian presidents would not start wars.  One can argue the merits of our only Catholic president to date, but I don't belief his religion would be a germane topic.  We have seen many of our Christian presidents start wars, notably the 43rd President who chose to go to war with Iraq while already fighting a war in response to an attack on our mainland.

I don't believe that a president of a different religion would be necessarily better or worse.  There are too many who agree with Mr. Jeffress that we should only have Christian presidents for one of any faith to win for a long time to come.  We can certainly use better criteria than the preachings from any religious pulpit.

13 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

22 December 2011

Praise: Keith Ablow on Marriage

I find myself quite surprised to be agreeing on something with Dr. Ablow.  During the 2011 Dancing With The Stars, which included Chaz Bono (possibly the most famous transgender man on Earth) this year, Dr. Ablow made a number of disparaging remarks on Fox News, implying that watching Mr. Bono might change one's inner gender or that transgender might be contagious or something like that.  No surprise that Cher came to her son's defense.  Dr. Ablow was also criticized at Psych Central and in the Atlantic in addition to numerous bloggers writing for and against his take on transgender people.

Moving ahead to the present, Dr. Ablow wrote an opinion column at Fox News yesterday about marriage.  When I read this I expected a lot of misinformation and material that I could use to blast him in a blog post here.  What I read was reasonable and intriguing.  After discussing the decline of marriage in the United States, he offers the following.
The solution is obvious: Get the state entirely out of the marriage business. No more marriage licenses. No more special treatment of married couples by the IRS or any other facet of government. No state ever had a legitimate claim to issue marriage licenses, to begin with, since marriage is a spiritual commitment and quite often, a religious one. And it is, fundamentally, an intensely personal one based in autonomy—until city hall gets involved and messes everything up.
>In the new paradigm I suggest, every couple wishing to get married would state that intention to their house of worship or their community of family and friends. They would take meaningful vows in front of gatherings of loved ones. Then they would—like knowledgeable and competent adults, rather than state-dependent, incompetent children—sign financial documents they generate together (while represented by attorneys or knowledgably waiving that right) which would govern how their assets should be pooled during the term of the contract and how they should be divided in the event they decide to end the contract. The state’s interest would be limited to enforcing laws about fair amounts of child support and fair visitation rights which must be included in such documents when children are born.
That’s it. The state would protect kids financially and emotionally from parents who fail to protect them. Otherwise, they would have no business getting involved in people’s marriages at all. They never had any business getting involved in them, to begin with.
Trust me, if marriage were thus structured as a union of heart and mind between competent adults making reasoned decisions, rather than abdicating their autonomy and infantilizing themselves, it would have a much better chance of surviving in our culture. 
As worded, this allows for same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage.  This even allows for transgender people to wed, despite Dr. Ablow's previous misgivings about them.  This would be a version of true marriage equality.  There is no mandate on any religion and couples who can't find a religion that will accept and marry them can turn to their family and friends.

The flaws in Dr. Ablow's proposal include the loss of special treatment by the IRS for married couples, not something that I have considered in the past and I'm not sure I agree with him on this.  I like the idea of the government using taxes to encourage marriage.  I believe that having more stable couples in society is beneficial to the whole of society. 

I'm surprised that the social conservatives at Fox are not upset in the media yet.  There are a few negative responses.  From Law To Grace denies the premise, failing marriage.  Most of the responses in the blogosphere are from the liberals.  It is an interesting idea.

20 December 2011

Repudiation: Right Wing Panic Over Loss of Holiday Franking

The American Family Association is upset that Representatives are no longer allowed to send Christmas greetings to their constituents at taxpayer expense.
According to a Dec. 12 memo from the House Franking Commission, members of the House are not allowed to wish voters a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy New Year" in mail and e-mails. Taxpayer dollars fund the postage when congressmen use their franking privileges to send mail to voters throughout the year. However, the six-member bipartisan group, officially known as the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, has told legislators that "Merry Christmas" is strictly prohibited.
The Washington Examiner published the text of the memo which said in part
Member’s Congressional Handbook: GREETINGS-
Expenses related to the purchase or distribution of greetings, including holiday celebrations, condolences, and congratulations for personal distinctions (wedding anniversaries, birthdays, etc.), are not reimbursable.”
Franking Manual:
4(a). Example of Nonfrankable Items
-Birthday, anniversary, wedding, birth, retirement or condolence messages and holiday greetings are prohibited.”
You may make reference to the season as a whole using language along the lines of 'Have a safe and happy holiday season.' It may only be incidental to the piece rather than the primary purpose of the communication."
Clearly Christmas has been singled out and is under attack ... or not.  The Hill notes that this rule has been in effect since 1974.  But that won't slow down the ire of the folks at the Free Republic, Bill O'Reilly on Fox, the Republican Party of Milwaukee WI, the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), and many more out on the blogosphere.

The House of Representatives Franking Manual is seventy-two pages long and was last updated thirteen years ago.  The conservatives want to spend tax money on frivolous mail.  Better would be to encourage electronic communications which costs far less to the taxpayers.  Here is a simple example of how that might work.



Merry Christmas!

19 December 2011

Pattern: Fascism?

In 2003, Lawrence W. Britt wrote an article for Free Inquiry magazine that is available at Old American Century, titled Fascism Anyone?  It featured fourteen threads that were common to seven fascist regimes.  In reading this, I can't help notice parallels to what the Republican Party is becoming.  Let's explore them.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
To be completely fair, most of this point could apply equally to Democrats and Republicans.  In fact, I am guilty.  Look at the symbol that I have chosen to represent myself, a stamp of a chalkboard half blocked by an American flag.  I have mentioned previously that I served in the US Navy. 

When it comes to xenophobia, that has been far too prevalent in the Republican Party.  Perhaps the most extreme positions have been the immigration laws of Alabama and Arizona, the latter now headed to the Supreme Court.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
 On 6 December 2011, Secretary Hillary Clinton gave a powerful and eloquent speech on Human Rights.  I praised her speech and the efforts of President Obama.  Governor Rick Perry denounced that speech.  None of the Republican contenders support full equality in the United States.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
Code words for the Republican contenders:  liberal, socialist, terrorist, Kenyan, Muslim, homosexual.  There are many more examples.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
Former Vice President Cheney recently complained that we are leaving Iraq too soon.  This despite the fact that our invasion of Iraq was on false pretenses.  There was no Iraq connection to the 11 September 2001 attack on the United States.  There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Lately the Republican contenders seem to want to go after Iran.  More war!
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
All of the Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  While Michele Bachmann is still running, she has not been seriously considered since shortly after the Iowa Straw Poll.  There are token women in office among the Republicans, far fewer Republican than Democratic women.

Regarding reproductive rights for women, Republicans have gone beyond anti-abortion with the recent emergence of the Personhood Amendments.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
Fox News is a megaphone for the Republican Party.  Misleading news may qualify as controlled.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have led the border fence parade for the Republicans this year.  To be fair, they are not carrying on quite as much as Rudy Giuliani did about 9/11.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
In the Republican debates, Christianity is a key virtue.  Of course, that was mild next to Rick Perry's "Day of Prayer" and what happened at this year's Value Voters Summit.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
Perhaps the best known quip on corporations this year belongs to Mitt Romney:  "Corporations are people, my friend."  It really is far more serious since the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
Republicans have been going after labor unions all year.  The best known example being Wisconsin Governor Walker's curtailing collective bargaining rights.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
Republicans have long sought to limit or eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Department of Education.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
Incarceration has skyrocketed in the United States in recent decades.  This is under both Democratic and Republican administrations.  Still, some recent moves, as in the Wisconsin proposal to make signing a petition twice a felony, makes it a Republican issue.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
On this topic, Governor Perry wins (or loses).
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
I wrote a long piece on 3 October 2011 on the Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters.  As I wrote at the time, preventing people who should be eligible to vote from doing so is unAmerican.

I doubt that the Republicans see themselves as Fascists.  But there is a pattern here.  The pattern is uncomfortably close to Dr. Britt's fourteen common threads.  There are a number of obvious tangents that I was tempted to pursue in writing this, such as the various ways the Republicans are endeavoring to erase the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the attacks on the judiciary.  Too many parallels to Fascism.

26 February 2012:  FollowUp 1.

15 December 2011

Repudiation: Fox News Fake Graph

 

I'm not the first to post this graphic.  You can find it at Boing Boing, at Joe My God, at The Society Pages, at Flowing Data, and probably more places.  The good folks at Flowing Data also prepared a chart that displays the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics correctly.


In the Fox News version, the data points don't align with the y-axis ticks.  Worse, on the right hand side of the graph, 8.6% is the same as 9.0%.  To call this misleading is an understatement.

We all understand that Fox is biased.  That doesn't bother me as much as being biased and claiming to be "fair and balanced".  But this graphic is clearly intended to give Fox viewers the impression that the unemployment rate is not improving when it is.  If they wanted to argue that it isn't improving enough, that would be a valid point for debate.  This graph is a lie.

If a student turned in a graph as part of an assignment that has the mistakes on it that Fox News made, a graph that uses data incorrectly to imply a conclusion that cannot be supported by the data, the student would be marked down.  If I had cause to believe it was done deliberately, then it would be time for a talk with a principal.  I do not tolerate falsification of data by my students.  

No business would accept this graph on an internal document.  The person who put it together would be fired (or at least demoted).  If a client noticed the mistake, the business would be likely to lose that client.  In parts of the blogosphere, Fox News is slurred to Faux News.  I usually avoid such derision.  In this case it may be warranted.