From January 2012
-by Jay Burney
One of the more clever phrases ever created is “Not in my backyard” or NIMBY. This pejorative phrase has been used to quickly characterize someone or some organization that is opposed to a particular project. The phrase is supposed to make you think that the entity so characterized is a selfish unevolved slob that stands in the way of the kind of progress that will benefit humanity. This may be what you think when you hear the term.
This is often not close to the truth.
Campaigns or spokespersons for campaigns that use that slogan are most often financed and carried by a monetized agenda against those that stand up to prevent themselves and others from harm caused by that agenda. The NYMBY is characterized as the obstructionist. Even though that NIMBY may in fact be operating from a knowledge platform that challenges and or DEMOLISHES the point of view that the development or project is harmful and not beneficial.
In my mind, NIMBY carries a heroic connotation rather than an obstructionist one. Standing up against the tyranny of the perceived majority, defending ones own property investments, and defending a community against a predatory wealth extractor that brings harm for generations to the planet are patriots engaged in constitutional freedoms that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.
The crusaders that champion the use of NYMBY characterization against the brave souls that risk everything to stand up to the onslaught are often the apostles of the extreme anti-environmentalists that evangelize an anti-democratic and anti life philosophy in favor of social, ecological, and often economic destruction.
I first heard the phrase back when lumber and paper interests were trying to eliminate those arguing against clear-cutting our native ancient forests. The industry propagandists used the language to marginalize protestors and critical thinkers. This made it easier for the silent majority to accept the violence and publically funded police and military forces used to “clear” the protestors. The emerging nuclear industry adopted the language and strategies against those opposed to power plants and waste repositories that represented profitability for the industry and have harmed human health. The campaigns have continued by corporate agendas in the oil and gas industry and others that have gamed the system to allow for legalized and profitable pollution. Whenever I hear the phrase NYMBY I have come to think that there is a campaign underway to soften up the public for a soon to come clash that may mean violence and oppression.
A new phrase has begun to emerge in recent months, a phrase that is proudly waived as a banner by advocates for a saner and just world including climate change activists, renewable energy activists, habitat activists, and the 99% represented by the occupy movement. That phrase: NOOP. Not on our planet!
Speaking of Occupy-
Publicly funded police and military forces have a long held tradition of defending the oligarch’s interests from the 99%. The violent clearing of occupation sites across the America and the world in recent months should outrage any citizen that has a child that wants a future that works. Privatization of police and military forces funded by taxpayers and bolstered by laws that many think abrogate the Constitution, have eroded accountability and responsibility while increasing suppression and harm to American citizens here and abroad.
One small sampling of how we blind ourselves to truth involves the dangerous and caustic agent- pepper spray. It is advertised as “humane” in the same way that rubber bullets are advocated as “humane.” These are crowd control devices. Compared to National Guardsmen opening up on the kids at Kent State, it may be a more fair comparison, but pepper spray and rubber bullets are part and parcel of the violent and repressive actions that a police state is willing to terrorize peaceful citizens with. And they do cause physical harm and injury. Sometimes it is permanent. The use of these agents against peaceful citizens that are engaged in their constitutional rights is reprehensible and undemocratic. More and more and under the guidance of secret Homland Security initiatives, local police forces are becoming more militarized. This is a deeply disturbing development.
When the UC Davis security forces recently used pepper spray against defenseless students, following weeks of other police forces using the substances on occupy protestors, Fox News aired a snickering yuk yuk story characterizing pepper spray as a harmless “food” substance. By some accounts the report made people think that pepper spray is a nutritional and edible product. It is not. It is designed to stop and disable an adult human.
Rachael Maddow on her MSNBC show came up with a really good analysis of the real impact of commercial pepper spray used by police forces at all levels. She described that the chemical heat that comes from peppers is from a substance called capsasin. She displayed a chart called the Scoville Scale, designed by Wilbur Scoville to compare the powers and strengths of capsasin in various peppers and substances.
Scoville Scale
- A Sweet Bell Pepper 0 Scoville Units (SU)
- Poplano Pepper- 1,000-2,000 SU
- The Hottest Tabasco Sauce 2,500-3,000 SU
- Jalapeño Pepper- 3,500-8,000 SU
- Cayenne Pepper- 30,000-50,000 SU
(put a teaspoon of that in your mouth, or in your hands)
- Habanera Chile- 200,000-350,000 SU
Workers handling this use gloves.
-Bhut Jolokia, or Ghost Pepper, known as the hottest pepper on earth
-1,000,000 SU
- Concentrated Commercial Pepper Spray
-2,000,000 -5,3000,000 SU
- Pure Capsaicin, 15,000,000 SU
Deborah Bloom, author of the book “The Poisoners Handbook” says that commercial pepper spray is off the charts in terms of chemical power. The capsaicin is not only designed to disable a person but when sprayed into eyes causes a caustic reaction including cellular disruption, pain, and immediate shock. Repeated exposure to pepper spray can cause permanent damage to eyes, skin, and the repertory and nervous systems.
Rachael Maddow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#45410896
Showing posts with label Language Counts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Language Counts. Show all posts
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Extreme Environmentalists, Fracking, Spills, Disaster, and the Freemarket
From January 2012
A Call for Radical Accountability
-by Jay Burney
In the years leading up to the Macondo/Deep Water Horizon well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that lead to what is arguably the greatest human caused environmental disaster in history, the world was silent on the environment. For almost a decade the media downplayed environmentalism as an extremely obstructionist strategy preventing economic growth. Climate change deniers grabbed the headlines. The devastations of the energy industry were obscured by the American obsession with war and the latest Hollywood sex scandals. Media abandoned seasoned reporters and for the most part went with industry “talking points” to construct storylines that had no critical basis.
Even after the ongoing disaster all but destroyed the ecosystems and human lifestyles of the Gulf, many still refer to the disaster as a “spill”. This was no spill.
This is a huge disaster that was caused by a deceptive industry intent on cutting corners and squeezing the most profit possible out of dangerous operations. Whenever you hear the phrase “Gulf Oil Spill”, you probably downplay the reality and enormity of this planet changing disaster. Today we are exposed to TV commercials celebrating the resurgence of the gulf, replete with sun drenched images, smiling kids, and playful wildlife. It s like nothing ever happened. In the final second of the commercials the sponsor is revealed BP! Thanks for the support BP!
The New York State Hydrofracking issue has brought an oil and gas industry sponsored hate campaign replete with a barrage of partisan and divisive language crafting. The "phrase engineering" is designed to incite passion against those that urge a cautious approach to hydrofracking.
This includes economic arguments that urge us to believe unconditionally that jobs and economic growth are totally dependent upon the industries ability to extract wealth for private gain from among other places, public properties. And that this has to be done immediately without further delay. The truth is further away.
Some of the principle points made by those that are concerned about the industry’s technology involve a lack of science that substantiates that the process known as hydrofracking is safe. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that both the process and chemicals injected into the earth permanently contaminates water that all life depends upon. This effects humans, animals, and agriculture and food production. There is significant science that clearly links some of the known chemicals used in hydrofracking with human disease including a wide array of cancers. One of the principle issues is that many of the chemicals used are proprietary, which means that they are kept secret by the industry. The industry then disingenuously argues that chemicals that are found in well water and aquifers cannot be traced to the fracking operations and that they therefore cannot be held accountable for health problems and the ultimate health costs which will be borne by a wider society and the taxpayers and individuals effected. These corporate entitlements are outrageous.
As of this writing the USEPA is at least a year away from releasing its science on the safety of hydrofracking although early drafts clearly point out that that contaminated well waters and aquifers are directly linked to fracking operations. This all points to the common sense fact that the economic impact may be far from positive. Individuals that have testified against fracking include doctors, ecologists, scientists, economists, oil and gas extraction specialists, and DEC technical staff whom say that they do not have nearly enough resources to safely oversee fracking.
Most are asking the DEC to both continue is public comment period, and extend its moratorium on issuing permits so that more information and science can be gathered and evaluated.
Environmental activists of all stripes have been and continue to be targets of the campaign to disarm the citizens. Words count. This industry campaign against the well being of humans may be effective as the DEC denies the requests to extend public comment and to extend the moratorium. The economic influence greased by the big companies go all the way to the Governors office, and beyond. Even though there is virtually no health assessment or economic scrutiny of industry claims on the public record. Even though the economic development argument and the jobs promises may prove to be at the very least disingenuous, try telling that to someone that has been marginalized by the oligarchs and needs to feed the family. Very often that’s where the critical thinking ends. Hunger and survival can leave very little room for resistance. This is an effective campaign.
Industry apologists continue the assault. In early December Fred Dicker, the longtime state editor of the NY Post went off on environmentalists on a Fox TV broadcast suggesting that those that oppose fracking are radicals, use hyperbole, are extremists and uninformed.
In a November 16 Buffalo News article about hydrofracking, and in other media venues, environmentalists that oppose fracking have been called “extreme environmentalists” and worse.
Activists that are willing to go against the grain and stand up for ecological integrity, clean water and air, and fight with their words and actions against a monstrous corporate financial and propaganda machine should be considered heros and patriots. Instead some of the mainstream media parrots the industry talking points and portrays activists in as mislead, selfish, obstructionists, socialists, or worse eco-terrorists. That last label puts individuals and organizations that oppose fracking and are willing to say so on a list of potential criminals and the consequences are becoming increasingly dire.
Just because someone is so green that the trees hug them doesn’t mean that they are extremists. Why aren’t the profiteers and their spokespuppets that use disinformation, incomplete half-truths and quick decision-making that masques economic, environmental, and social truths considered the extremists? Who are the criminals here?
A Call for Radical Accountability
Maybe it is time that we adopt a newly emerged from the Occupy Movement concept- "radical accountability". Lets take the promises of the industry and codify them, with financial incentives. For instance, if the state is not going to wait for the science, do the health analysis, or conduct full economic evaluations, make the profiteers accountable by demanding that corporate entitlements be incentivized by:
-A public accountability panel with no members or their families linked to industry hydrofracking profits. The independent panel will that will be funded by the private sector and will include a privately financed fund to evaluate health and economic impacts of hydrofracking in NYS.
-Full public disclosure of chemicals used to include tracers on the chemicals and substances used at each site, so that when they appear in water, they can be sourced.
-Adequate private financed bonding (A minimum $1 million bond for each site) for potential public damages. Let the industry bear the costs, not society. If the costs must be passed on to the consumer, this gives the consumer more opportunities to choose. Let the freemarket decide!
-Publically disclosed job guarantees linked to every individual well and the aggregate that includes penalties for nonperformance, and under performance. Negotiate job creation contracts in public, and be accountable if they turn out not to be true.
Without these actions, the public takes all the risks, there is no freemarket and the corporate entitlements will continue to eviscerate the 99%.
Without these actions we cannot find a way to protect our environment, and not to put too fine a point on it, but without ecosystems there is no economy.
A Call for Radical Accountability
-by Jay Burney
In the years leading up to the Macondo/Deep Water Horizon well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that lead to what is arguably the greatest human caused environmental disaster in history, the world was silent on the environment. For almost a decade the media downplayed environmentalism as an extremely obstructionist strategy preventing economic growth. Climate change deniers grabbed the headlines. The devastations of the energy industry were obscured by the American obsession with war and the latest Hollywood sex scandals. Media abandoned seasoned reporters and for the most part went with industry “talking points” to construct storylines that had no critical basis.
Even after the ongoing disaster all but destroyed the ecosystems and human lifestyles of the Gulf, many still refer to the disaster as a “spill”. This was no spill.
This is a huge disaster that was caused by a deceptive industry intent on cutting corners and squeezing the most profit possible out of dangerous operations. Whenever you hear the phrase “Gulf Oil Spill”, you probably downplay the reality and enormity of this planet changing disaster. Today we are exposed to TV commercials celebrating the resurgence of the gulf, replete with sun drenched images, smiling kids, and playful wildlife. It s like nothing ever happened. In the final second of the commercials the sponsor is revealed BP! Thanks for the support BP!
The New York State Hydrofracking issue has brought an oil and gas industry sponsored hate campaign replete with a barrage of partisan and divisive language crafting. The "phrase engineering" is designed to incite passion against those that urge a cautious approach to hydrofracking.
This includes economic arguments that urge us to believe unconditionally that jobs and economic growth are totally dependent upon the industries ability to extract wealth for private gain from among other places, public properties. And that this has to be done immediately without further delay. The truth is further away.
Some of the principle points made by those that are concerned about the industry’s technology involve a lack of science that substantiates that the process known as hydrofracking is safe. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that both the process and chemicals injected into the earth permanently contaminates water that all life depends upon. This effects humans, animals, and agriculture and food production. There is significant science that clearly links some of the known chemicals used in hydrofracking with human disease including a wide array of cancers. One of the principle issues is that many of the chemicals used are proprietary, which means that they are kept secret by the industry. The industry then disingenuously argues that chemicals that are found in well water and aquifers cannot be traced to the fracking operations and that they therefore cannot be held accountable for health problems and the ultimate health costs which will be borne by a wider society and the taxpayers and individuals effected. These corporate entitlements are outrageous.
As of this writing the USEPA is at least a year away from releasing its science on the safety of hydrofracking although early drafts clearly point out that that contaminated well waters and aquifers are directly linked to fracking operations. This all points to the common sense fact that the economic impact may be far from positive. Individuals that have testified against fracking include doctors, ecologists, scientists, economists, oil and gas extraction specialists, and DEC technical staff whom say that they do not have nearly enough resources to safely oversee fracking.
Most are asking the DEC to both continue is public comment period, and extend its moratorium on issuing permits so that more information and science can be gathered and evaluated.
Environmental activists of all stripes have been and continue to be targets of the campaign to disarm the citizens. Words count. This industry campaign against the well being of humans may be effective as the DEC denies the requests to extend public comment and to extend the moratorium. The economic influence greased by the big companies go all the way to the Governors office, and beyond. Even though there is virtually no health assessment or economic scrutiny of industry claims on the public record. Even though the economic development argument and the jobs promises may prove to be at the very least disingenuous, try telling that to someone that has been marginalized by the oligarchs and needs to feed the family. Very often that’s where the critical thinking ends. Hunger and survival can leave very little room for resistance. This is an effective campaign.
Industry apologists continue the assault. In early December Fred Dicker, the longtime state editor of the NY Post went off on environmentalists on a Fox TV broadcast suggesting that those that oppose fracking are radicals, use hyperbole, are extremists and uninformed.
In a November 16 Buffalo News article about hydrofracking, and in other media venues, environmentalists that oppose fracking have been called “extreme environmentalists” and worse.
Activists that are willing to go against the grain and stand up for ecological integrity, clean water and air, and fight with their words and actions against a monstrous corporate financial and propaganda machine should be considered heros and patriots. Instead some of the mainstream media parrots the industry talking points and portrays activists in as mislead, selfish, obstructionists, socialists, or worse eco-terrorists. That last label puts individuals and organizations that oppose fracking and are willing to say so on a list of potential criminals and the consequences are becoming increasingly dire.
Just because someone is so green that the trees hug them doesn’t mean that they are extremists. Why aren’t the profiteers and their spokespuppets that use disinformation, incomplete half-truths and quick decision-making that masques economic, environmental, and social truths considered the extremists? Who are the criminals here?
A Call for Radical Accountability
Maybe it is time that we adopt a newly emerged from the Occupy Movement concept- "radical accountability". Lets take the promises of the industry and codify them, with financial incentives. For instance, if the state is not going to wait for the science, do the health analysis, or conduct full economic evaluations, make the profiteers accountable by demanding that corporate entitlements be incentivized by:
-A public accountability panel with no members or their families linked to industry hydrofracking profits. The independent panel will that will be funded by the private sector and will include a privately financed fund to evaluate health and economic impacts of hydrofracking in NYS.
-Full public disclosure of chemicals used to include tracers on the chemicals and substances used at each site, so that when they appear in water, they can be sourced.
-Adequate private financed bonding (A minimum $1 million bond for each site) for potential public damages. Let the industry bear the costs, not society. If the costs must be passed on to the consumer, this gives the consumer more opportunities to choose. Let the freemarket decide!
-Publically disclosed job guarantees linked to every individual well and the aggregate that includes penalties for nonperformance, and under performance. Negotiate job creation contracts in public, and be accountable if they turn out not to be true.
Without these actions, the public takes all the risks, there is no freemarket and the corporate entitlements will continue to eviscerate the 99%.
Without these actions we cannot find a way to protect our environment, and not to put too fine a point on it, but without ecosystems there is no economy.
Language Counts, The Job Creators
From January 2012
-by Jay Burney
It seems that the elimination of a sophisticated consumer class is profitable. Today, the worker no longer counts. Wall Street schemes and corporate entitlements that come from fleecing the public by endless wars and secret bailouts are the wealth creators.
It would be nice if we could return to a time when public investments in good job creation were more fundamental to a successful economy. As the world teeters on financial collapse created by speculators and their mouthpieces represented by governments and most elected officials, it would seem that a return to a time when wealth and quality of life for the masses will count. But we will not get there without a fight and that starts with critical thinking. it seems that this is a struggle that the 1% don’t want you to engage in. And up until recently, many of us have not. Instead we acquiesce to the messaging of the 1% streamed constantly into our minds by the wholly owned by the 1% mainstream media. They do not want us to think, or act, or find a sustainable future that works for everyone.
Unfortunately in this era of privatization, public investments in jobs must first pass the test of maximum profitability for the “job creators.” The privatization of government services more often than not includes more costs to the taxpayer, smaller wages and benefits for the jobholder, and a profit margin that distinguishes government and private sector business models.
The big lie that we often fall for is the false equivalency of running government like business. Running a business is not like running a government. Government does not have to profit, it only has to break even to be efficient. Breaking even, without the privatization costs, can also result in tax reductions. When we think of eliminating waste and inefficiency in government why don’t we target the waste of taxpayer dollars that goes toward maximizing profits for the private sector? These entitlements dollars contribute to a decline in job and income opportunities and a decline in the consumer class. We pay more, get less, and dance blindly to the fallacious tune of the value added of privatized services. These privatization and profit strategies have contributed to the increasing costs of military spending, health services, education, and virtually every service that government contributes to protecting society. After more than a decade of these investments, American jobs have declined in numbers, and in the real values of wages, and benefits.
Accountability also takes a huge hit with privatization. Once former government services are privatized it is much more difficult to access financial and other records that were once covered by things like the Freedom of Information Act and the Freedom on Information Law. We are certainly hearing about corporate abuses from lost money in Iraq to the secret and hidden transactions involving the Wall Street and Bank bailouts, but we are not hearing enough. Even Julian Assange and his Wiki leaks are not shining enough light on where trillions of American taxpayer money has disappeared to in the last few years.
When the Bush tax cuts first took effect in 2003, the unemployment rate was 6.2%. Now the unemployment rate is over 9%. Americans lost 8 million jobs in 2008-09 despite the continuation of those tax loopholes for the very rich. Many of the new jobs are minimum wage and lack benefits and protections of, say, uninionized or government workers.
Fading Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry, Governor of Texas touts his job creation statistics in Texas claiming about 1/3 of the jobs created in America since 2008 were in Texas. He espouses a conservative and highly deceptive cut taxes to the wealthy “job creators” political invention to pander to the nattering nabobs.
But according to an article in the US News Weekly, all of the net job creation in Texas were government sector jobs, which have totaled about 115,000 while the private sector had a net loss of 40,000 jobs. In addition immigration to Texas from Mexico has boosted consumerism, which has led to more local jobs. However many of those jobs have been in the health care sector, notoriously low paying jobs and fully 10% of all hourly Texan jobs pay minimum wage or less. This is above the national average. And lets not forget, under Perry Texas has a $27 billion deficit last year.
Perry’s Texas dream is to create an army of minimum wage earners, which will allow wealthy corporations to get more wealthy. Is this really a vision of prosperity or will it lead America to becoming a third world nation?
Perry is the tip of the spear that represents the oligarchy’s attack on the American Dream.
“Job creator” is another phrase cooked up by Frank Luntz, the republican opinion maker. He urges pundits to shy away from fuzzy terms such as “entrepreneurs” and instead go for the soul searing gut-stirring phrase that explodes at the center of our reptilian brain. You know what a job is, and you will be instinctively attracted to supporting the job creator. Even if the creator is a myth.
Almost exclusively “job creator” schemes focus on taxpayer subsidies to developers and companies that demand substantial economic incentives.
The altercations often played out in a compliant and uncritical media can inspire hand wringing passions of all levels of media. The performances and sweaty ministrations are attention getters (audience builders), and often serve the profit takers, which fund the media makers.
Sadly and more often than not, they are misleading, disingenuous, and are served up uncritically on a talking points agenda that avoids any deep thinking or context. Such is the condition of the intellectual integrity of the mainstream and local media today. Most reporters and editors do not have an agenda that involves critical analysis.
Accountability
Lack of accountability takes hits in more than just the privatization schemes. As we downsize our elected representation Lobbyists that pay for government decisions find it easier and more cost effective to buy influence. It is a lot easier to corrupt one elected official than ten. And I bet you think that smaller governments save you money? Lobbyists and corrupted officials simply do not want daylight the jacking of public money.
The devil is always in the details. Scrutiny and critical analysis are the keys to accountability and that is supposed to count when it comes to public spending. Tools like the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) are supposed to help decision makers and the public analyze the real costs and values of public investments and private sector development. And yet in the past decade lawmakers have detoothed SEQRA to the point that it is almost useless for these purposes.
Take, for example, last years Verizon proposal to build what they intimated would be the “world’s largest data center” at Somerset in Niagara County. Cheerleaders for this project including NYS Senator Maziarz, the Niagara County IDA, local politicians, and the local media that yelled loudly that 200 “well-paying” jobs would be created and that the overall economic development impact in our region would be transformational. This kind of language counts. Most of the local media hyperventilated with the story. Critical analysis was beyond the means and intent of the nightly news. A perfect scenario for picking the publics pockets. “Just do it” was the overwhelming cry from editorial pages, letters, pundits and online commenters, often anonymous.
A slightly more sobering and analytical account was presented in an article in November 2010, by the now former News reporter James Heaney. It did not get much attention. He explained that “in return taxpayers would provide Verizon sales and property tax rebates totaling $518 million. Additional discounted power would bring Verizon $96 million over 15 years. Heaney concluded, “The price tag for each job is $3.1 million.” Language counts. That is a lot of money.
Heaney's detailed article provided an analysis of the lasting economic impacts and just how the public money would flow into the private coffers of Verizon, an international conglomerate ranked 16 in the Fortune 500 with annual revenue of $106.6 billion in 2010. Among other things Heaney’s investigation concluded that “data centers are not regarded as significant economic engines” and “are at the lower end of the spectrum” for economic development. Hmmm. Unless you caught Heaney’s article, I bet you never heard that.
What Heaney may not have known, and which was reported by Verizon to the Niagara County IDA as early as September is that the project would only result in 30 jobs by the end of the second year and that no other jobs may be created beyond this pilot phase. This was not the figure that the media or the cheerleaders used. There was not a reduction in the ask for public investment. That means that the cost per job was actually closer to $20 million per job.
Here are a few other things that you might not know.
Senator Masiarz, an aggressive advocate of the project, pushed a fast tracking of a rezoning of the property that Verizon wanted. Without the fast tracking, Verizon threatened publically to abandon the project. The Senator continuously used the 200 jobs chacterization despite his probable knowledge of the 30 jobs reality.
Fast tracking means avoiding public scrutiny of important details through SEQRA. SEQRA mandates that a community, including public decision makers, fully evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a project on certain rezoning requests. SEQRA allows time to develop and analyze information including an analysis of claims made by the party seeking to develop the project. In this case, as is the case often in major developments, the public input process was sped up and a “negative-declaration” was issued. A “neg-dek” states that there is no significant environmental, economic, or social consequence and no further scrutiny is required. This makes it seem like there is no harm possible from the development. Language counts.
However, there were some important public issues to consider. The 160 acres property in question is owned by AES, which also owns the adjacent 675-megawatt coal-fired generating plant as well as 163 other coal facilities worldwide. Did we mention that data centers such as the proposed Verizon center are huge consumers of electricity? Are there renewable energy/carbon footprint considerations to evaluate?
The property was originally zoned as “agricultural”. It was changed to “industrial”. In addition it was state/county certified farmland, which is supposed to give it additional protection against non-agricultural purposes. This is important in a world of vanishing cropland.
Are there additional infrastructure costs such as roadway, sewer, and other services that would have to be borne by the taxpayer? How would the zoning change and the development effect the property prices and use of adjacent land?
Do you think that there is a justifiable reason to scrutinize the carbon footprint and social and economic consequences of this project? Is there any potential harm to the taxpayer or residents? The neg-dek says no.
The project was fast-tracked. Within weeks the Somerset Town Board approved the zoning changes. NYPA approved the gift of power. The next day, Verizon announced that it had decided to phase the development and in for the time being it was going to reduce the size of the project. This would eliminate two of the three gigantic buildings that it had proposed. Verizon said that it would wait years to determine the viability of additional development.
Maziarz as it turns out has a long-term relationship with AES, the owner of the Property that Verizon sought, and Verizon. According to reported election records between March of 2008 and September of 2010, the Committee to Elect Masiarz State Senate received contributions totaling $26,500 from the two personcorporations.
-by Jay Burney
It seems that the elimination of a sophisticated consumer class is profitable. Today, the worker no longer counts. Wall Street schemes and corporate entitlements that come from fleecing the public by endless wars and secret bailouts are the wealth creators.
It would be nice if we could return to a time when public investments in good job creation were more fundamental to a successful economy. As the world teeters on financial collapse created by speculators and their mouthpieces represented by governments and most elected officials, it would seem that a return to a time when wealth and quality of life for the masses will count. But we will not get there without a fight and that starts with critical thinking. it seems that this is a struggle that the 1% don’t want you to engage in. And up until recently, many of us have not. Instead we acquiesce to the messaging of the 1% streamed constantly into our minds by the wholly owned by the 1% mainstream media. They do not want us to think, or act, or find a sustainable future that works for everyone.
Unfortunately in this era of privatization, public investments in jobs must first pass the test of maximum profitability for the “job creators.” The privatization of government services more often than not includes more costs to the taxpayer, smaller wages and benefits for the jobholder, and a profit margin that distinguishes government and private sector business models.
The big lie that we often fall for is the false equivalency of running government like business. Running a business is not like running a government. Government does not have to profit, it only has to break even to be efficient. Breaking even, without the privatization costs, can also result in tax reductions. When we think of eliminating waste and inefficiency in government why don’t we target the waste of taxpayer dollars that goes toward maximizing profits for the private sector? These entitlements dollars contribute to a decline in job and income opportunities and a decline in the consumer class. We pay more, get less, and dance blindly to the fallacious tune of the value added of privatized services. These privatization and profit strategies have contributed to the increasing costs of military spending, health services, education, and virtually every service that government contributes to protecting society. After more than a decade of these investments, American jobs have declined in numbers, and in the real values of wages, and benefits.
Accountability also takes a huge hit with privatization. Once former government services are privatized it is much more difficult to access financial and other records that were once covered by things like the Freedom of Information Act and the Freedom on Information Law. We are certainly hearing about corporate abuses from lost money in Iraq to the secret and hidden transactions involving the Wall Street and Bank bailouts, but we are not hearing enough. Even Julian Assange and his Wiki leaks are not shining enough light on where trillions of American taxpayer money has disappeared to in the last few years.
When the Bush tax cuts first took effect in 2003, the unemployment rate was 6.2%. Now the unemployment rate is over 9%. Americans lost 8 million jobs in 2008-09 despite the continuation of those tax loopholes for the very rich. Many of the new jobs are minimum wage and lack benefits and protections of, say, uninionized or government workers.
Fading Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry, Governor of Texas touts his job creation statistics in Texas claiming about 1/3 of the jobs created in America since 2008 were in Texas. He espouses a conservative and highly deceptive cut taxes to the wealthy “job creators” political invention to pander to the nattering nabobs.
But according to an article in the US News Weekly, all of the net job creation in Texas were government sector jobs, which have totaled about 115,000 while the private sector had a net loss of 40,000 jobs. In addition immigration to Texas from Mexico has boosted consumerism, which has led to more local jobs. However many of those jobs have been in the health care sector, notoriously low paying jobs and fully 10% of all hourly Texan jobs pay minimum wage or less. This is above the national average. And lets not forget, under Perry Texas has a $27 billion deficit last year.
Perry’s Texas dream is to create an army of minimum wage earners, which will allow wealthy corporations to get more wealthy. Is this really a vision of prosperity or will it lead America to becoming a third world nation?
Perry is the tip of the spear that represents the oligarchy’s attack on the American Dream.
“Job creator” is another phrase cooked up by Frank Luntz, the republican opinion maker. He urges pundits to shy away from fuzzy terms such as “entrepreneurs” and instead go for the soul searing gut-stirring phrase that explodes at the center of our reptilian brain. You know what a job is, and you will be instinctively attracted to supporting the job creator. Even if the creator is a myth.
Almost exclusively “job creator” schemes focus on taxpayer subsidies to developers and companies that demand substantial economic incentives.
The altercations often played out in a compliant and uncritical media can inspire hand wringing passions of all levels of media. The performances and sweaty ministrations are attention getters (audience builders), and often serve the profit takers, which fund the media makers.
Sadly and more often than not, they are misleading, disingenuous, and are served up uncritically on a talking points agenda that avoids any deep thinking or context. Such is the condition of the intellectual integrity of the mainstream and local media today. Most reporters and editors do not have an agenda that involves critical analysis.
Accountability
Lack of accountability takes hits in more than just the privatization schemes. As we downsize our elected representation Lobbyists that pay for government decisions find it easier and more cost effective to buy influence. It is a lot easier to corrupt one elected official than ten. And I bet you think that smaller governments save you money? Lobbyists and corrupted officials simply do not want daylight the jacking of public money.
The devil is always in the details. Scrutiny and critical analysis are the keys to accountability and that is supposed to count when it comes to public spending. Tools like the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) are supposed to help decision makers and the public analyze the real costs and values of public investments and private sector development. And yet in the past decade lawmakers have detoothed SEQRA to the point that it is almost useless for these purposes.
Take, for example, last years Verizon proposal to build what they intimated would be the “world’s largest data center” at Somerset in Niagara County. Cheerleaders for this project including NYS Senator Maziarz, the Niagara County IDA, local politicians, and the local media that yelled loudly that 200 “well-paying” jobs would be created and that the overall economic development impact in our region would be transformational. This kind of language counts. Most of the local media hyperventilated with the story. Critical analysis was beyond the means and intent of the nightly news. A perfect scenario for picking the publics pockets. “Just do it” was the overwhelming cry from editorial pages, letters, pundits and online commenters, often anonymous.
A slightly more sobering and analytical account was presented in an article in November 2010, by the now former News reporter James Heaney. It did not get much attention. He explained that “in return taxpayers would provide Verizon sales and property tax rebates totaling $518 million. Additional discounted power would bring Verizon $96 million over 15 years. Heaney concluded, “The price tag for each job is $3.1 million.” Language counts. That is a lot of money.
Heaney's detailed article provided an analysis of the lasting economic impacts and just how the public money would flow into the private coffers of Verizon, an international conglomerate ranked 16 in the Fortune 500 with annual revenue of $106.6 billion in 2010. Among other things Heaney’s investigation concluded that “data centers are not regarded as significant economic engines” and “are at the lower end of the spectrum” for economic development. Hmmm. Unless you caught Heaney’s article, I bet you never heard that.
What Heaney may not have known, and which was reported by Verizon to the Niagara County IDA as early as September is that the project would only result in 30 jobs by the end of the second year and that no other jobs may be created beyond this pilot phase. This was not the figure that the media or the cheerleaders used. There was not a reduction in the ask for public investment. That means that the cost per job was actually closer to $20 million per job.
Here are a few other things that you might not know.
Senator Masiarz, an aggressive advocate of the project, pushed a fast tracking of a rezoning of the property that Verizon wanted. Without the fast tracking, Verizon threatened publically to abandon the project. The Senator continuously used the 200 jobs chacterization despite his probable knowledge of the 30 jobs reality.
Fast tracking means avoiding public scrutiny of important details through SEQRA. SEQRA mandates that a community, including public decision makers, fully evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a project on certain rezoning requests. SEQRA allows time to develop and analyze information including an analysis of claims made by the party seeking to develop the project. In this case, as is the case often in major developments, the public input process was sped up and a “negative-declaration” was issued. A “neg-dek” states that there is no significant environmental, economic, or social consequence and no further scrutiny is required. This makes it seem like there is no harm possible from the development. Language counts.
However, there were some important public issues to consider. The 160 acres property in question is owned by AES, which also owns the adjacent 675-megawatt coal-fired generating plant as well as 163 other coal facilities worldwide. Did we mention that data centers such as the proposed Verizon center are huge consumers of electricity? Are there renewable energy/carbon footprint considerations to evaluate?
The property was originally zoned as “agricultural”. It was changed to “industrial”. In addition it was state/county certified farmland, which is supposed to give it additional protection against non-agricultural purposes. This is important in a world of vanishing cropland.
Are there additional infrastructure costs such as roadway, sewer, and other services that would have to be borne by the taxpayer? How would the zoning change and the development effect the property prices and use of adjacent land?
Do you think that there is a justifiable reason to scrutinize the carbon footprint and social and economic consequences of this project? Is there any potential harm to the taxpayer or residents? The neg-dek says no.
The project was fast-tracked. Within weeks the Somerset Town Board approved the zoning changes. NYPA approved the gift of power. The next day, Verizon announced that it had decided to phase the development and in for the time being it was going to reduce the size of the project. This would eliminate two of the three gigantic buildings that it had proposed. Verizon said that it would wait years to determine the viability of additional development.
Maziarz as it turns out has a long-term relationship with AES, the owner of the Property that Verizon sought, and Verizon. According to reported election records between March of 2008 and September of 2010, the Committee to Elect Masiarz State Senate received contributions totaling $26,500 from the two personcorporations.
Language Counts-Media and the Art of Influence
From January 2012
-by Jay Burney
The art of influence exists everywhere from the front pages and newsy teasers grabbing at us from every niche, to the shadowed recesses of the moments between moments on the video and internets tubes. Influence comes to us in the classroom, the workplace, the local barroom and the convivial kitchen table coffee klatches. We cannot be free of influence.
We experience this influence in all forms of the media. This public marketplace transcends mere advertising, which while on the surface may seem to occupy certain well-defined spaces, it does not.
We are saturated in media and messaging that attempts to inform our every waking and sleeping moment. This highly nuanced agenda setting works.
Fortunately, resistance is not futile. We, each of us, have the ability to think critically. In that fundamental context, language counts. Our critical thinking skills are informed by language. Language inspires learning, thinking, and action. Critical thinking is not a lost art. We can do this. This is fundamentally what humans do.
The Hidden Hands
Frank Luntz is someone that we should all know about. His job is to influence what you think. Luntz is a political pollster cum phraseologist who wrote earlier this year: “Words matter. The most powerful words have helped to launch social movements and cultural revolutions. The most effective words have instigated great change in public policy. The right words at the right time can literally change history.”
Luntz should know. His career as a consultant to Republicans focusing on messaging has been in the forefront of American thinking for over 2 decades. His expertise is in testing words and phrases that help his clients sell idea products and influence public opinion. Lets change that wording. He does not so much “influence” public opinion as he “creates” public opinion. Words count.
Early in Luntz’s career he worked with Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Western New York’s Bill Paxon, Tom Delay, John Boehner, and the conservative Heritage Foundation to help craft the 1994 “Contract With America”. This document, which was often called the “Contract On America” by an outgunned democratic political apparatchik, helped the republicans gain a historic Congressional majority. It catapulted Gingrich to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Now that that Newton is resurgent, Luntz’s work will continues to shape our opinions.
One of the early phrases that Luntz coined was “death tax”. Prior to Luntz’s language engineering it had been called the relatively ambivalent sounding “estate tax”. This allowed the government to collect a fee from property inheritors in order to cover public expenses such as filing and paperwork to insure orderly transitions of property. The wealthy class considered this an unfair burden and launched a campaign to transfer this responsibility to the general public.
The phrase “death tax” evoked a powerful emotional and primordial image that sparked voter resentment.
It worked. According to James L. Martin, chairman of the conservative 60-Plus Association- “Republicans employed the term “death tax” so aggressively that it has entered the popular lexicon”. It changed thinking and the political landscape.
Media makers including reporters and news editors consistently employed the phrase uncritically. This is one of the fundamental successes of Luntz’s social engineering strategies. The designed attitude adjustments created by the language engineering has been used to fortify the somewhat undemocratic “don’t tax the rich” meme that runs deeply through the furrowed channels of contemporary politics.
The anti-tax movement, couched in the vapors of the fragrant greases of accusations that taxing the wealthy is in fact “class warfare” inspired by social justice leaders, is financed by the likes of the fabulously rich Koch Brothers. Their media message money has paid off. Today America remains tightly bound in the gridlock characterized by political blood feuds pitting “no taxes” v. “cut social spending” programs.
Language counts here. Important social programs that uphold quality of life for most Americans have been characterized as “entitlements”. That carefully crafted word has invaded our ability to reason. Now it prejudicially occupies our minds regarding every social program extant, proposed, or considered. It consumes us with the profound implication that people are getting something for nothing. In fact programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that have been paid for over a lifetime of investments by the recipients. Most programs that are designed to improve quality of life including education, health care, and a vast variety of employment and social services are bought and paid for by decades of the blood sweat and tears of the taxpayers. Our society has built these important social systems and this sets us apart from many other societies across the globe. This is the kind of American Exceptionalism that counts. These social systems that provide access to quality of life for all people make societies around the world want to be like us and not hate us. This is the shining light that people will come to, to replicate, to make the world a better place for all of humanity. Implying that ANY programs that improve the quality of life for humanity is “getting something for nothing” is a shameless, disingenuous, and unambiguous strike against the 99%. It is a false equivalency that promulgates class warfare. And it works.
The free market fundamentalists use the entitlements platform to argue oxymoronically that while corporations are people, they should not pay taxes like most people. They assert that the wealthy class should not pay taxes because these kinds of expenses prohibit the profits for the 1% and that those profits will trickle down to the 99%. Will Rogers may have created the “trickle down” phrase, but former WNY Congressman Jack Kemp famously used it to great effect. Kemp may have misunderstood Roger’s intent because whenever I hear it, looking up involves getting some of that nasty trickle splashed on my face. I want a better life for my children.
Reformist voices on the other side of the coin represent that everyone including the wealthy, should “pay their fair share”. Elizabeth Warren, a leading progressive thinker, advocates for economic policies that that assert that no one in America has become wealthy on their own. No one should be excluded from paying a fair share of taxes. Warren makes the point that the 99% are significant tax-paying investors, fought for and died for our freedoms, and took all the risks to create opportunities for money to grow for the 1%.
She points out that taxpayer investments have allowed massive public spending including the building of infrastructure such as roads, sewers, water access, and the power grid.
What about “corporate entitlements”? TARP, and Wall Street and bank bailouts recently revealed to exceed $8 trillion are astonishing expenditures born on the backs of American taxpayers. What did the 99% get in return? Little access to wealth, no jobs, declining education, declining quality of life, decades of war, global depravation, and environmental destruction embodied in such things as catastrophic climate change.
Speaking of war, public spending for the military is one of the greatest creators of private wealth in the history of the world. This kind of closeted socialism of moving public wealth to the private sector are paid for in blood and taxes by the 99%, and create massive profits for the 1%.
The simple yet powerful reduction of complicated economic political theories to “trickle down” and to the next generation of phrases such “job creators” is incredibly deceptive. Deeper critical analysis almost always leads to the conclusion that tax breaks for the wealthy class do not lead to genuine job creation. Real, “on the ground jobs” that are “trickling down” are leading to a brave new world of lower wages, reduced benefits, less education, and the elimination of the middle class. America is beginning to look like the third world country. At the same time the corporate economy is booming and private wealth is skyrocketing. Shouldn’t the equation creating the third world be the other way around? Shouldn’t a rising tide raise all boats? I guess we all need boats. Not that we are entitled to them, but given our generations of investments, maybe we can find a way to have better access to boats that float.
Next time- A Profile of the Job Creators.
-by Jay Burney
The art of influence exists everywhere from the front pages and newsy teasers grabbing at us from every niche, to the shadowed recesses of the moments between moments on the video and internets tubes. Influence comes to us in the classroom, the workplace, the local barroom and the convivial kitchen table coffee klatches. We cannot be free of influence.
We experience this influence in all forms of the media. This public marketplace transcends mere advertising, which while on the surface may seem to occupy certain well-defined spaces, it does not.
We are saturated in media and messaging that attempts to inform our every waking and sleeping moment. This highly nuanced agenda setting works.
Fortunately, resistance is not futile. We, each of us, have the ability to think critically. In that fundamental context, language counts. Our critical thinking skills are informed by language. Language inspires learning, thinking, and action. Critical thinking is not a lost art. We can do this. This is fundamentally what humans do.
The Hidden Hands
Frank Luntz is someone that we should all know about. His job is to influence what you think. Luntz is a political pollster cum phraseologist who wrote earlier this year: “Words matter. The most powerful words have helped to launch social movements and cultural revolutions. The most effective words have instigated great change in public policy. The right words at the right time can literally change history.”
Luntz should know. His career as a consultant to Republicans focusing on messaging has been in the forefront of American thinking for over 2 decades. His expertise is in testing words and phrases that help his clients sell idea products and influence public opinion. Lets change that wording. He does not so much “influence” public opinion as he “creates” public opinion. Words count.
Early in Luntz’s career he worked with Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Western New York’s Bill Paxon, Tom Delay, John Boehner, and the conservative Heritage Foundation to help craft the 1994 “Contract With America”. This document, which was often called the “Contract On America” by an outgunned democratic political apparatchik, helped the republicans gain a historic Congressional majority. It catapulted Gingrich to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Now that that Newton is resurgent, Luntz’s work will continues to shape our opinions.
One of the early phrases that Luntz coined was “death tax”. Prior to Luntz’s language engineering it had been called the relatively ambivalent sounding “estate tax”. This allowed the government to collect a fee from property inheritors in order to cover public expenses such as filing and paperwork to insure orderly transitions of property. The wealthy class considered this an unfair burden and launched a campaign to transfer this responsibility to the general public.
The phrase “death tax” evoked a powerful emotional and primordial image that sparked voter resentment.
It worked. According to James L. Martin, chairman of the conservative 60-Plus Association- “Republicans employed the term “death tax” so aggressively that it has entered the popular lexicon”. It changed thinking and the political landscape.
Media makers including reporters and news editors consistently employed the phrase uncritically. This is one of the fundamental successes of Luntz’s social engineering strategies. The designed attitude adjustments created by the language engineering has been used to fortify the somewhat undemocratic “don’t tax the rich” meme that runs deeply through the furrowed channels of contemporary politics.
The anti-tax movement, couched in the vapors of the fragrant greases of accusations that taxing the wealthy is in fact “class warfare” inspired by social justice leaders, is financed by the likes of the fabulously rich Koch Brothers. Their media message money has paid off. Today America remains tightly bound in the gridlock characterized by political blood feuds pitting “no taxes” v. “cut social spending” programs.
Language counts here. Important social programs that uphold quality of life for most Americans have been characterized as “entitlements”. That carefully crafted word has invaded our ability to reason. Now it prejudicially occupies our minds regarding every social program extant, proposed, or considered. It consumes us with the profound implication that people are getting something for nothing. In fact programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that have been paid for over a lifetime of investments by the recipients. Most programs that are designed to improve quality of life including education, health care, and a vast variety of employment and social services are bought and paid for by decades of the blood sweat and tears of the taxpayers. Our society has built these important social systems and this sets us apart from many other societies across the globe. This is the kind of American Exceptionalism that counts. These social systems that provide access to quality of life for all people make societies around the world want to be like us and not hate us. This is the shining light that people will come to, to replicate, to make the world a better place for all of humanity. Implying that ANY programs that improve the quality of life for humanity is “getting something for nothing” is a shameless, disingenuous, and unambiguous strike against the 99%. It is a false equivalency that promulgates class warfare. And it works.
The free market fundamentalists use the entitlements platform to argue oxymoronically that while corporations are people, they should not pay taxes like most people. They assert that the wealthy class should not pay taxes because these kinds of expenses prohibit the profits for the 1% and that those profits will trickle down to the 99%. Will Rogers may have created the “trickle down” phrase, but former WNY Congressman Jack Kemp famously used it to great effect. Kemp may have misunderstood Roger’s intent because whenever I hear it, looking up involves getting some of that nasty trickle splashed on my face. I want a better life for my children.
Reformist voices on the other side of the coin represent that everyone including the wealthy, should “pay their fair share”. Elizabeth Warren, a leading progressive thinker, advocates for economic policies that that assert that no one in America has become wealthy on their own. No one should be excluded from paying a fair share of taxes. Warren makes the point that the 99% are significant tax-paying investors, fought for and died for our freedoms, and took all the risks to create opportunities for money to grow for the 1%.
She points out that taxpayer investments have allowed massive public spending including the building of infrastructure such as roads, sewers, water access, and the power grid.
What about “corporate entitlements”? TARP, and Wall Street and bank bailouts recently revealed to exceed $8 trillion are astonishing expenditures born on the backs of American taxpayers. What did the 99% get in return? Little access to wealth, no jobs, declining education, declining quality of life, decades of war, global depravation, and environmental destruction embodied in such things as catastrophic climate change.
Speaking of war, public spending for the military is one of the greatest creators of private wealth in the history of the world. This kind of closeted socialism of moving public wealth to the private sector are paid for in blood and taxes by the 99%, and create massive profits for the 1%.
The simple yet powerful reduction of complicated economic political theories to “trickle down” and to the next generation of phrases such “job creators” is incredibly deceptive. Deeper critical analysis almost always leads to the conclusion that tax breaks for the wealthy class do not lead to genuine job creation. Real, “on the ground jobs” that are “trickling down” are leading to a brave new world of lower wages, reduced benefits, less education, and the elimination of the middle class. America is beginning to look like the third world country. At the same time the corporate economy is booming and private wealth is skyrocketing. Shouldn’t the equation creating the third world be the other way around? Shouldn’t a rising tide raise all boats? I guess we all need boats. Not that we are entitled to them, but given our generations of investments, maybe we can find a way to have better access to boats that float.
Next time- A Profile of the Job Creators.
Occupy Language
From December 2011
By Jay Burney
It often seems that humanity is dissolving into a boiling melting pot of greed, hatred, and violence. War has existed unceasingly for decades and generations and has effected every living thing on the planet. War is unsustainable form a social and environmental point of view, and yet it seems to be one of the prime strategies of economic development strategies.
War Profiteering
There is a rigorously defended definition of this term that demands that a war profiteer is any individual or organization including a personcorporation that “improperly” benefits by selling weapons, services or other goods to parties at war.” That begs the question, “what is improper”? Legally that has been defined in a variety of ways. However, in these days of escalating privatization, increasingly virulent mushroom clouds of secrecy, and the rise of declining accountability we are going to go out on a limb here and call it what it is. Is there ever a justification to profit from war making? I say no. If there is profit, it is inappropriate and damned the lawyers, it is profiteering. Let the pejorative fall where it may. I will boldly stake out the position that profits gained from war are unethical. Language counts.
Private profiteering from war is a long established wealth creator. In fact, it is probably the prime wealth creator in the history of the planet. The Rothschild’s, the Fords, the Bush’s are just a few of the family’s whose names and wealth runs through the successful continuation and prosecution of war.
It must not come as news to you that war has economic benefits for certain portions of the private sector. Conservative estimates of the cost of the Iraq war, which began a decade ago, are 3 trillion American taxpayer dollars. Others have estimated that the cost of that war will exceed $6 trillion. A trillion is a lot. One trillion is a thousand billion, or a million million.
Some of our best-known corporations were built on the backs of war profiteering. These include Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrup Gruman, General Dynamics, General Electric, CCAI, Triton, Bechtel, Aegis, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and an open ended no bid contract awarded to Dick Cheney’s Halliburton.
During the past two decades, the growth of private contracting has increased at the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of Homeland Security.
American World War II General George C. Marshall was famously quoted as saying “A democracy cannot fight a Seven Year War.” Has democracy changed?
Since World War II most of the Fortune 500 have engaged in defense contracts or have otherwise benefited from taxpayer funded Defense appropriations. President Eisenhower in his farewell Presidential speech warned us against the growth of the “Military Industrial” establishment. For the first time in our history he said, “we have now created a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions”, and “its influence is felt in every city, every State House, and in every office of the Federal Government”.
To borrow a phrase, some we know, some we do not know, and some we know we don’t know.
Oddly enough the United States does not even have a functioning system to track war costs and expenditures. The GAO, Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, Pentagon Inspector General, and others, have complained loudly that the US lacks even a basic method to account for where the m I am shocked, just shocked.
Some, including the increasingly important and relevant Occupy movements think that much of this social disintegration benefits the 1% at the top of the economic food chain, while discarding the remaining 99%. It is really hard to ignore that argument. The occupy movements around the world, which include among other things the wiki leaks movements, expose on an almost hourly basis the hidden power and manipulation of the plutarchs that sit increasingly less comfortable in that 1%. What are plutarch’s you might be asking. Interesting question.
Plutocracy comes from a greek word: Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos and it means wealth. It implies a ruling class of wealth. A Plutocracy is a government run by the wealthy class.
Another word that we hear a lot more of lately is “Oligarch”. Again a word of Greek Origins. It is a form of power structure in which the power rests with the elite class distinguished by a ruling class of royalty, wealth, family, commercial and or military strength.
Let us then come to know that when we hear the term economic growth it is often thrown together with sustainable development.
This latter term is an oxymoron. Especially as it is coupled with a political economic system that is so fundamentally distorted by wealth gained by war profits. You may think that any growth is better than no growth but lets see how you feel when that war machine sets you and your family in its sites. Because, given the ethics of war and the ethics of profit, it surely will be finding you. Language counts. And so does our ability to think through a seemingly impossible situation. Do it while you still have time.
By Jay Burney
It often seems that humanity is dissolving into a boiling melting pot of greed, hatred, and violence. War has existed unceasingly for decades and generations and has effected every living thing on the planet. War is unsustainable form a social and environmental point of view, and yet it seems to be one of the prime strategies of economic development strategies.
War Profiteering
There is a rigorously defended definition of this term that demands that a war profiteer is any individual or organization including a personcorporation that “improperly” benefits by selling weapons, services or other goods to parties at war.” That begs the question, “what is improper”? Legally that has been defined in a variety of ways. However, in these days of escalating privatization, increasingly virulent mushroom clouds of secrecy, and the rise of declining accountability we are going to go out on a limb here and call it what it is. Is there ever a justification to profit from war making? I say no. If there is profit, it is inappropriate and damned the lawyers, it is profiteering. Let the pejorative fall where it may. I will boldly stake out the position that profits gained from war are unethical. Language counts.
Private profiteering from war is a long established wealth creator. In fact, it is probably the prime wealth creator in the history of the planet. The Rothschild’s, the Fords, the Bush’s are just a few of the family’s whose names and wealth runs through the successful continuation and prosecution of war.
It must not come as news to you that war has economic benefits for certain portions of the private sector. Conservative estimates of the cost of the Iraq war, which began a decade ago, are 3 trillion American taxpayer dollars. Others have estimated that the cost of that war will exceed $6 trillion. A trillion is a lot. One trillion is a thousand billion, or a million million.
Some of our best-known corporations were built on the backs of war profiteering. These include Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrup Gruman, General Dynamics, General Electric, CCAI, Triton, Bechtel, Aegis, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and an open ended no bid contract awarded to Dick Cheney’s Halliburton.
During the past two decades, the growth of private contracting has increased at the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of Homeland Security.
American World War II General George C. Marshall was famously quoted as saying “A democracy cannot fight a Seven Year War.” Has democracy changed?
Since World War II most of the Fortune 500 have engaged in defense contracts or have otherwise benefited from taxpayer funded Defense appropriations. President Eisenhower in his farewell Presidential speech warned us against the growth of the “Military Industrial” establishment. For the first time in our history he said, “we have now created a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions”, and “its influence is felt in every city, every State House, and in every office of the Federal Government”.
To borrow a phrase, some we know, some we do not know, and some we know we don’t know.
Oddly enough the United States does not even have a functioning system to track war costs and expenditures. The GAO, Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, Pentagon Inspector General, and others, have complained loudly that the US lacks even a basic method to account for where the m I am shocked, just shocked.
Some, including the increasingly important and relevant Occupy movements think that much of this social disintegration benefits the 1% at the top of the economic food chain, while discarding the remaining 99%. It is really hard to ignore that argument. The occupy movements around the world, which include among other things the wiki leaks movements, expose on an almost hourly basis the hidden power and manipulation of the plutarchs that sit increasingly less comfortable in that 1%. What are plutarch’s you might be asking. Interesting question.
Plutocracy comes from a greek word: Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos and it means wealth. It implies a ruling class of wealth. A Plutocracy is a government run by the wealthy class.
Another word that we hear a lot more of lately is “Oligarch”. Again a word of Greek Origins. It is a form of power structure in which the power rests with the elite class distinguished by a ruling class of royalty, wealth, family, commercial and or military strength.
Let us then come to know that when we hear the term economic growth it is often thrown together with sustainable development.
This latter term is an oxymoron. Especially as it is coupled with a political economic system that is so fundamentally distorted by wealth gained by war profits. You may think that any growth is better than no growth but lets see how you feel when that war machine sets you and your family in its sites. Because, given the ethics of war and the ethics of profit, it surely will be finding you. Language counts. And so does our ability to think through a seemingly impossible situation. Do it while you still have time.
Language Counts, Introduction
By Jay Burney
From December 2011
This is the first in a series of articles that I will publish occasionally about the topic of language and words. The central focus will be about how language is used to influence ideas and opinions.
Language helps us to know what we know, and to interpret and express how we feel. Language can be creative, playful, loving, flirting, supportive, truthful, seductive, and soothing. It can be controversial, pointed, exasperating, inflammatory, searing, shameless, deceptive, blasphemous, and infuriating. Language helps to nakedly shape our emotions.
Language counts. That’s for sure.
Learning to use and to interpret language is a life long experience. Language is artful and seriously subjective. It is one of our most powerful human tools that we use to present and understand each other. We must learn to Occupy the Language, or it will Occupy Us.
A key concept that we will use in this column will be that of “critical thinking”. We will examine public language campaigns such as those that are constantly in the media. These campaigns are influential and transformational.
Media and the highly trained craftspeople that bring us media use carefully engineered techniques to shape our point of view. These strategies can range from truth telling to pure propaganda. The language of images, music, voices, and the overall messaging counts.
The coming weeks and months will be characterized by an intense political phase on planet earth focused on the upcoming U.S. Presidential Elections. Words will be used to convince us that certain things are so, while other things are not so. We are going to be exposed to an overwhelming carnage of words and images organized into provocative messages that are designed to shape our hearts and minds. It will often be hard to discern fact from fiction and reality from language altered perceptions. We will be told that up is down and that war is peace. Count on it.
Media and The Art of Influence
The art of influence exists everywhere from the front pages and newsy teasers grabbing at us from every niche, to the shadowed recesses of the moments between moments on the video and internets tubes. Influence comes to us in the classroom, the workplace, the local barroom and the convivial kitchen table coffee klatches. We cannot be free of influence.
We experience this influence in all forms of the media. This public marketplace transcends mere advertising, which while on the surface may seem to occupy certain well-defined spaces, it does not.
We are saturated in media and messaging that attempts to inform our every waking and sleeping moment. This highly nuanced agenda setting works.
Fortunately, resistance is not futile. We, each of us, have the ability to think critically. In that fundamental context, language counts. Our critical thinking skills are informed by language. Language inspires learning, thinking, and action. Critical thinking is not a lost art. We can do this. This is fundamentally what humans do.
It’s not what you say, its what they hear! The Hidden Language Hands
Frank Luntz is someone that we should all know about. His job is to influence what you think. His slogan is “It’s not what you say, its what they hear.” Luntz is a political pollster cum phraseologist who wrote earlier this year: “Words matter. The most powerful words have helped to launch social movements and cultural revolutions. The most effective words have instigated great change in public policy. The right words at the right time can literally change history.”
Luntz should know. His career as a consultant to Republicans focusing on messaging has been in the forefront of American thinking for over 2 decades. It continues today as he consults for government leaders and Presidential candidates. His company is called Luntz Global. His expertise is in testing words and phrases that help his clients sell idea products and influence public opinion. Lets change that wording. He does not so much “influence” public opinion as he “creates” public opinion. Words count.
His recent work includes recasting terms like “school vouchers” into “opportunity scholarships.” People and the media now call “drilling for oil”, “exploring for energy” because of Luntz. Early in Luntz’s career he worked with Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Western New York’s Bill Paxon, Tom Delay, John Boehner, and the conservative Heritage Foundation to help craft the 1994 “Contract With America”. This document, which was often called the “Contract On America” by an outgunned democratic political apparatchik, helped the republicans gain a historic Congressional majority. It catapulted Gingrich to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Now that that Newton is resurgent, Luntz’s work will continues to shape our opinions.
One of the early phrases that Luntz coined was “death tax”. Prior to Luntz’s language engineering it had been called the relatively ambivalent sounding “estate tax”. This allowed the government to collect a fee from property inheritors in order to cover public expenses such as filing and paperwork to insure orderly transitions of property. The wealthy class considered this an unfair burden and launched a campaign to transfer this responsibility to the general public.
The phrase “death tax” evoked a powerful emotional and primordial image that sparked voter resentment.
It worked. According to James L. Martin, chairman of the conservative 60-Plus Association- “Republicans employed the term “death tax” so aggressively that it has entered the popular lexicon”. "It changed thinking and changed the political landscape".
Media makers including reporters and news editors consistently employed the phrase uncritically. This is one of the fundamental successes of Luntz’s social engineering strategies. The designed attitude adjustments created by the language engineering has been used to fortify the somewhat undemocratic “don’t tax the rich” meme that runs deeply through the furrowed channels of contemporary politics.
The anti-tax movement, couched in the vapors of the fragrant greases of accusations that taxing the wealthy is in fact “class warfare” inspired by social justice leaders, is financed by the likes of the fabulously rich Koch Brothers. Their media message money has paid off. Today America remains tightly bound in the gridlock characterized by political blood feuds pitting “no taxes” v. “cut social spending” programs.
Language counts here. Important social programs that uphold quality of life for most Americans have been characterized as “entitlements”. That carefully crafted word has invaded our ability to reason. Now it prejudicially occupies our minds regarding every social program extant, proposed, or considered. It consumes us with the profound implication that people are getting something for nothing. In fact programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that have been paid for over a lifetime of investments by the recipients. Most programs that are designed to improve quality of life including education, health care, and a vast variety of employment and social services are bought and paid for by decades of the blood sweat and tears of the taxpayers. Our society has built these important social systems and this sets us apart from many other societies across the globe. This is the kind of American Exceptionalism that counts. These social systems that provide access to quality of life for all people make societies around the world want to be like us and not hate us. This is the shining light that people will come to, to replicate, to make the world a better place for all of humanity. Implying that ANY programs that improve the quality of life for humanity is “getting something for nothing” is a shameless, disingenuous, and unambiguous strike against the 99%. It is a false equivalency that promulgates class warfare. And it works.
The free market fundamentalists use the entitlements platform to argue oxymoronically that while corporations are people, they should not pay taxes like most people. They assert that the wealthy class should not pay taxes because these kinds of expenses prohibit the profits for the 1% and that those profits will trickle down to the 99%. Will Rogers may have created the “trickle down” phrase, but former WNY Congressman Jack Kemp famously used it to great effect. Kemp may have misunderstood Roger’s intent because whenever I hear it, looking up involves getting some of that nasty trickle splashed on my face. I want a better life for my children.
Reformist voices on the other side of the coin represent that everyone including the wealthy, should “pay their fair share”. Elizabeth Warren, a leading progressive thinker, advocates for economic policies that that assert that no one in America has become wealthy on their own. No one should be excluded from paying a fair share of taxes. Warren makes the point that the 99% are significant tax-paying investors, fought for and died for our freedoms, and took all the risks to create opportunities for money to grow for the 1%.
She points out that taxpayer investments have allowed massive public spending including the building of infrastructure such as roads, sewers, water access, and the power grid.
What about “corporate entitlements”? TARP, Wall Street and bank bailouts recently revealed to exceed $8 trillion are astonishing expenditures born on the backs of American taxpayers. What did the 99% get in return? Little access to wealth, no jobs, declining education, declining quality of life, decades of war, global depravation, and environmental destruction embodied in such things as catastrophic climate change.
Speaking of war, public spending for the military is one of the greatest creators of private wealth in the history of the world. This kind of closeted socialism of moving public wealth to the private sector are paid for in blood and taxes by the 99%, and create massive profits for the 1%.
The simple yet powerful reduction of complicated economic political theories to “trickle down” and to the next generation of phrases such “job creators” is incredibly deceptive. Deeper critical analysis almost always leads to the conclusion that tax breaks for the wealthy class do not lead to genuine job creation. Real, “on the ground jobs” that are “trickling down” are leading to a brave new world of lower wages, reduced benefits, less education, and the elimination of the middle class.
Luntz has new strategic language for the coming months. Speaking to Republican clients last December Luntz said For “stop calling it “government spending” and just call it “waste”. And this gem: “Don’t ever say you are willing to compromise. That implies that you are selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' “ replace it with the word 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles." Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, John Bohner, and Eric Cantor are spewing those words on a daily basis. Now you know why. What it really means is that nothing gets done while political spokesmouths dissemble and agitate.
America is beginning to look like the third world country. At the same time the corporate economy is booming and private wealth is skyrocketing. Shouldn’t the equation creating the third world be the other way around? Shouldn’t a rising tide raise all boats? I guess we all need boats. Not that we are entitled to them, but given our generations of investments, maybe we can find a way to have better access to boats that float.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)