How does a bill signed into law by President Obama become a “Bush era tax cut”? That’s the magic of journalism. Journalists seem to believe that wishing to be perceived as profressionally objective makes it so. Unfortunately, magic does not exist so the blatant advocacy is out there for all to see. “Bush era tax cuts”, “War in Iraq”, “Green jobs”, “Green anything”
The law President Bush signed reducing taxes expired in 2010. The war in Iraq ended after the defeat of the Iraqi forces in May, 2003. After the war ended, the country was under occupation. Green jobs are a marketing concept and not a category similar to service, or retail, manufacturing.
Explaining the use of the terms as idioms does not justify their misleading use in ostensibly objective reporting.
Line 40 on the 1040 Form is where one decides whether to take the standard deduction or the itemized deduction. Despite repeatedly claiming that high income people like himself get “unfair” tax breaks, President Obama passes on the standard deduction.
President Obama leads by example.
In all truth, I was expecting the President’s SOTU speech to be much worse. The most irritating aspects were where the President portrayed failures such as job creation that doesn’t keep pace with population growth and reductions in energy demand due to economic decline as successes. The majority of his proposals were only mildly offensive such as his many proposals to create new special agencies to duplicate existing functions.
Of course, the most offensive aspect of the SOTU, is the media’s uninformed coverage.
Today I was watching MSNBC’s Morning Joe and saw Mika Brznevski reading a script about the AP analysis of the BP oil spill plan and I had a few questions.
1. None of the bullet points illustrating glaring errors were material to cleaning up oil. Why was this considered news?
2. Who are the Obama Administration officials that approved this plan?
3. Why was the plan approved if the journalists at AP could find so many glaring errors?
I guess I have a fourth question too. What has happen to journalism these days?
Tonight I had the unfortunate experience of watching Chris Matthews interview David Axelrod about the oil leak in the Gulf. At one point, Mr. Axelrod used the phrase “a dearth of intellectual fire power.” Immediately I recognized the segment had been mis-titled. Any discussion between Mr. Mathews and Mr. Axelrod epitomizes “a dearth of intellectual firepower”.
In the past I would have thought Mr. Axelrod’s repeated references to Steven Chu and his Nobel Prize for physics was intentionally misleading. The assumption being that Mr. Axelrod assumes that most of the audience would have no idea how specialized Mr. Chu’s experience is ,and how specialized is the work in the Gulf. Without disparaging Mr. Chu, he has little to contribute to the solution. I know this, and you, the reader know it, but Mr. Axelrod has absolutely no idea. One man in a white lab coat is the same as another, to hacks like Mr. Axelrod and fat ignorant bigots like Mr Matthews.
Mr. Matthews and Mr. Axelrod are so far out to sea on this issue, they might as well be caught in the current and sailing past the Chinese oil rigs off the coast of Cuba and Florida.
This is a series of posts to catalog the President’s hypocrisy.
An easy one: Pledging to fund his campaign with only public funding then abandoning the pledge as soon as it became less financially lucrative.
On Sunday Vice President Joe Biden made it on to a political talk show to chat for a while. Before his handlers wrangled him back into the home where he attends to the important business of making sure the Stimulus (ARRA) money isn’t wasted (He’s doing a great job with that. As the President says “Nobody messes with Joe”, Uncle Joe spent his time claiming that former Vice President Cheney was doing exactly what he was trying do – rewrite history. When it comes to re-writing history, no one is going to outclass the Obama Adminstration. Uncle Joe will see to that. (And no one messes with Uncle Joe!)
I couldn’t bring myself to actually watch it, or read the transcript, but I’m pretty sure at one point (of oh so many, I’m sure – It’s Uncle Joe, after all.) he was trying to make the case that it was right for the UnderWear Bomber to be read his Miranda Rights so he could be tried in a civil court. Did he Uncle Joe also go ahead and declare him guilty before the trial starts, like he (and most of the Adminstration) has with KSM?