Ministry of Truth

I have a mostly-complete entry written about income-based affirmative action (specifically in Raleigh, North Carolina schools), but I'd rather submit that when it's good and finished, rather than half-baked. This, instead, will serve as a half-baked entry. And no, I don't mean I'm stoned as I write this.

One topic I wanted to cover, although it's a few weeks dated now, is the illegal propaganda paid for by the Bush regime. I read the article in the NY Times, but now the story has been archived and you can't read more than the first few words there. Luckily, the internet is all about backups and redundancy, and several sites have their own copies of the story, including this one. From the article:

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The Ministry of Truth is in full effect. IngSoc is a reality. But allow me to elaborate a bit . . .

The NY Times article is only significant because government officials themselves declared the acts of the Bush regime to be illegal "covert propaganda," which was pretty obvious from the get-go. But it is not the first time, by far, that those bastards have used slippery techniques to "massage" the news, and public opinion in general. In writing this entry, I tried to remember the name of the fake reporter in fake news reports that were disguised as actual investigative reporting. However, I found not one but four fake reporters who have been uncovered recently.

One you have almost certainly heard about: Jeff Gannon, the gigolo, White-House-planted reporter, real name "James Guckert." The second fake reporter was new to me: Pam Forrester, was involved with government research (Department of the Interior) into the West Nile virus, or in harvesting methane hydrate from the ocean, or both. There was a third fake reporter mentioned in the context of the Department of the Interior and West Nile virus, named Porter Versfelt.

The fourth fake reporter was the one I'd been trying to find: Karen Ryan, who was involved with promoting Bush's godawful Medicare plan, that makes Bush's buddies bundles, while not really helping the people who need medication. That was the most insidious, in my opinion, because the video news release (often abbreviated VNR, because you know how bureaucrats love acronyms), had no obvious ties with the White House. With professional cocksucker Jeff Gannon / James Guckert (and I can say that without any hyperbole, since it's been verified), Bush hand picked him to ask questions at press events, so it was obvious he was at least an ass kisser, if not a full-fledged GOP sycophant. But Karen Ryan . . . well, there's a choice quote from one of the linked articles:

I find it amusing that the article quoted above comes from the Public Relations Society of America, in a section called Public Relations Tactics. They imply that propagandistic techniques like those used by Karen Ryan are legitimate public relations tools. So from now on, when you hear "public relations" or "PR," translate that as "propaganda." Another quote from the article:

Nice double entendre there. She meant that the mainstream media didn't do any investigation into herself and her reputation as a public relationist (propagandist), but it's certainly true that "there was no reporting done on this story," because fabrications and spoon-fed press releases certainly can't be considered reporting. You may be wondering what, exactly, this woman said that was so terrible. Nothing that she said was terrible in itself, but her actions perpetuated the superficiality of television news reporting today. A transcript of the video news release, from the PR website, follows:

In any critique of a news story, it just as important to focus on what is not said as to focus on the content itself. In the upcoming entry about Raleigh schools, I note that the statistics supplied in the article are incomplete. There is adequate information about the poverty status of white kids, and some information about the black kids, but very little about Hispanics and not a word about Asian students (who are atypical in most affirmative action situations, because they tend to excel academically). Without a complete story, without contrary opinions, it is impossible to make a good judgment about the story's merit.

In the transcript above, there is no mention of how the new Medicare bill might hurt beneficiaries, just the party line about how this bill is so great and wonderful. I do have to admit that the mainstream news media really dropped the ball by broadcasting propaganda as fact, and by not questioning the content they broadcast. Any government news release should be viewed with a critical eye. Most importantly, government press releases should be identified as such, rather than allowed to masquerade as reporting / news / journalism.

Karen Ryan earned a "Falsies" award for her efforts:

The other Falsies awards are also worth reading. Of particular interest to me was #6, Ghostwriters for Bush:

There are really two types of propaganda, which I'll classify as active and passive. Active propaganda would be the examples listed so far, where the government goes out of its way to generate false, or at least biased, information that they attempt to pass off as true. Passive propaganda would be more akin to the modus operandi of the CIA, the FBI, and other secretive organizations that try to prevent the dissemination of information that would be disadvantageous to the Powers That Be. Both types of propaganda are repugnant, and I'd be hard pressed to say that one type is worse than the other. But I would like to point out at least two examples (among many) of passive propaganda perpetrated by the Bush regime. Oh, and I am attempting a little propaganda of my own by referring to those assholes in the White House as a regime rather than an administration. "Regime" implies corruption, or unscrupulously attained power. "Administration" implies they have at least a shred of legitimacy in their reign.

Passive Propaganda Example #1: Quashing Medical Evidence That Contradicts Official Drug Policy

What really amused me was that the anti-marijuana effort started out as an attempt at active propaganda, by the commissioning of a study with the sole purpose of confirming the assertion that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. When the study instead concluded the contrary, that marijuana has potential beneficial uses, anti-drug propagandists immediately sprung into action, denying the validity of the study and trying to keep people ignorant of its conclusions. The Portland branch of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) has an article from the Arizona Republic that tells the story. Here are three paragraphs, to summarize:

Passive Propaganda Example #2: Overriding Non-Prescription Use of the "Morning After" Pill

A panel of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overwhelming approved over-the-counter use of the "Morning After" Pill, which I have seen under the brand name "Plan B." I actually have one of these pills at home--not necessarily for personal use, but for the event that one of my friends might need one. These pills are most effective at preventing pregnancy (here defined as attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall) the sooner the woman takes them after unsafe sex (or a torn condom, for example). Given that Planned Parenthood, the vendor of these pills, is not open on the weekends, I figure it's a good idea to have a pill handy. There is a 72 hour window in which the pill is most effective, but from Friday at 5:00 PM (approximate Planned Parenthood closing time) and Monday at 9:00 AM is a period of about 64 hours. And that's for a person with the foresight to skip work on Monday and head straight to the clinic.

Despite the overwhelming vote by the FDA panel, the Bush-appointed right-wing jackasses in charge of the FDA decided to override their own panel, and delay over-the-counter availability. For the most part, they tried to keep the whole event quiet, because their reason for the delay was assinine. Check it out:

If memory serves me right, as Chairman Kaga would say, there are already several legal drugs that can't be purchased by people under a certain age. Cigarettes or nicotine gum are two examples. Nowadays, Oregonians need prescriptions for pseudoephedrine because of all the meth cooks in the area. Clerks in grocery stores seem perfectly able to card their customers. And as I mentioned, pharmacy clerks already have to card customers who buy certain items. So what exactly is the issue? An article in the Christian Science Monitor, published after the vote but prior to the decision to delay, really emphasizes the ridiculousness of the Bush regime's position:

A huge win, putting science over ideology. Heheh. I guess it's pretty clear ideology will win as long as there are retards running the show.

This entry is getting a little bit long, so I'll try to wrap things up. At this length, do I still consider this a half-baked entry? I do, because the topic is so broad. Government propaganda is worthy of a dissertation, not just a one-off essay on some website. In closing, I'd like to note that I think propaganda can be a useful tool rather than an insidious menace. One of the "Falsies" awards mentioned above went to "guerrilla marketing" campaigns. You might be familiar with the "Andre the Giant" stickers from a few years ago, that turned out to be an obscure marketing campaign for . . . somebody. I don't know what they were selling, but they certainly succeeded at getting some recognition. I don't like being a sucker, being conned, but I do give credit to these "viral marketing" campaigns for being clever. If they used tax dollars, though, I'd call for their heads on stakes. The government is supposed to serve the people, but no one ever obliged corporations to do the same. Viral marketing campaigns are still compatible with free-trade and democracy, but government propaganda is not. Here are the three examples of "guerrilla marketing" from the alternet article:

People are always trying to sell us something. Shampoo, cars, electronics, as well as ideologies and philosophies. It's always a good idea to question the motivations of every person you contact, even if you don't say a word to them about it.

I hope to write more than two entries in October, unlike my pathetic September output. We shall see.

Some Muckraking, Care of Bodrell's Guest Contributor

This is a very special entry, because most of it was not written by me, but by a friend who had some words to contribute regarding the Bush regime (or junta, as he put it). The following quotations are taken from emails, unedited by me. From email #1:

Bodrell here again. It would be wrong to discriminate against someone like Scott McClellan solely because of his sexual orientation, because that's something he can't help. At least, in my opinion. But anyone, straight or gay, who hires a prostitute to be a fake White House reporter is a scumbag. It's even worse for a gay man to be betraying his own cause by working for the homophobic Bush administration, who has come out so vehemently against gay rights in many arenas. As if I need any supporting evidence, here is an article about the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group, writing a letter to Jeb Bush criticizing him for his opposition to gay marriage, adoptions, and even domestic partner benefits. I don't think the government should sanction heterosexual marriages, but I realize I'm a bit radical in holding that belief. Regardless, I do believe in equal treatment under the law for gay and straight people. But moving on to email #2:

Bodrell here again. The last email is about Bush's general incompetence, and his inferior mental abilities. Nothing earth-shattering, but it's pretty amusing. On to email #3:

Bodrell here again. A very special thanks to my guest contributor. Anybody else who has a gripe they'd like to air in public, but without having their name attached to a potentially inflammatory rant, drop me a line. I'd like to close with a positive note, for anyone else out there who longs for Bush to resign in disgrace: an article in today's NY Times noted that "a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center put his approval rating at 38 percent, a new low." At this rate, impeachment hearings are just around the corner! But I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Insurance Will Eat Us Alive

This is not an impartial entry. I am writing about my sworn enemy--the insurance companies. I have told people that if I were ever in a position of power, my first step would be insurance reform. I am no fan of Herr Bush, but he won't be around much longer. But insurance companies? They'll be around forever, if allowed to continue festering. Now that I've aired my personal biases, here's an example of the deplorable behavior that makes me hate the actuarial profession so much. From the Seattle Times:

[Then a bit later in the article, more details:]

Here's their actual words, trying to defend the denial of payment:

Talk about audacity! To extend their logic, a widow would not be able to collect "accidental death or dismemberment" insurance if her husband were murdered, since murder is by definition not accidental. It just doesn't make any sense not to define "accident" from the perspective of the policy holder, unless you're a sleazy insurancer adjuster who wants to make money in whatever disreputable fashion, ethics be damned. The entire point of insurance is to be insured in the case that something bad happens, which we would usually call an "accident." For an ethical insurance agency, acceptance of payment for a policy ought to be a contract that can only be cancelled in the event of fraud. But do ethical insurance companies even exist?

I have many issues with insurance companies, but my top complaints concern auto liability. In most (all?) states, automotive insurance is required to be able to legally drive, but it is private agencies that actually issue the policies. You don't pay a fee to the state, but to Geico, or State Farm, or AIG. That's a tax, in my book, but it certainly isn't deductible. In most parts of the US, it simply isn't feasible to not have a car, unless you depend on someone else's car. Public transportation is an option in only a handful of the largest cities, and almost nowhere else. I wish we had clean, efficient trains to cart us to and fro, but the US is behind the times. That's complaint number one: car insurance is a tax paid to private entities.

There are things even worse than having to pay a tax to the actuaries. One is that not all people are treated equally. Fine, you say, but not all people drive equally; is it fair for a person with a clean driving record to pay the same for insurance as a guy with a lead foot and numerous accidents and speeding tickets? Of course not. But insurance doesn't just discriminate against bad drivers; they engage in what is called "profiling" when the police do it. They don't profile people by race (which would probably be illegal), but they certainly discriminate against ages and genders, regardless of driving history. And since race is off limits, insurers do the next best thing, by discriminating against certain geographic regions. If you live in a high crime area, guess what? You pay more than the rich guy in the gated community, even if he is a bad driver. Because the rich guy has a rich lawyer, and through the good-ole-boy system and a small bribe, the record is wiped clean. If you're rich enough, you're considered self-insured, and don't even have to pay the tax. Talk about anti-progressive. So there's complaint number two: insurers discriminate against groups of people, effectively avoiding due process, assuming guilt without proof.

"Due process" is a term usually used in criminal cases, but as surrogates of the government (remember the government requires car insurance), insurers should offer people equal protection under the law. Protection in this case meaning insurance, and equal under the law meaning based on driving record solely, not age, gender, socioeconomic status, or geographic location. Is that so much to ask? But even if the pricing system were completely fair and nondiscriminatory, there would still be complaint number three: insurers deny coverage far too often, and the poor victim often has no recourse because of financial or other restrictions. Where else but insurance do we pay so much money for someone to not do their job? If we entered a contract to pay a builder $300,000 to construct a new house, and then after receiving the money he tried to balk, would anybody put up with such bullshit? Yet insurance bastards make money hand-over-fist, every year with higher profits. And somehow, they justify raising fees at rates far greater than inflation. The worst of all is that they've convinced so many people that malpractice suits are the reason rates keep climbing.

The real problem behind insurance, in general, is that it isn't a zero-sum game. These companies are in it for the money, for profit. For gigantic, gargantuan profits, in fact. What incentive do they have to pay out, if a simple letter of denial is enough to discourage most deserving claims? Car insurance, at the minimum, should be state-run if it is to be required. Make it a non-profit industry: the amount of money paid must equal the amount received. If exorbitant malpractice judgments came out of a common pool of money, they would reduce the amount available for other victims. And you'd better believe a jury member will be less willing to award excessive damages if it's not just some malevolent insurance company that has to foot the bill, but himself, as a taxpayer.

I guess what I'm imagining is a sort of insurance union, analogus to a credit union, or a grocery co-op. I'm very ambivalent about the idea of putting bureaucrats in charge of any public funds; regardless of how corrupt they may be, private insurers can't afford to throw away money a la the Pentagon or other government institutions. I have to try to balance my disgust between heartless corporate thugs and wasteful government bureaucrats. Damn, that's a tough one.

I will undoubtably write about insurance again, since the industry is, as I mentioned, my sworn enemy. But I wanted to close with news of a victory: the state of Washington recently bitch-slapped Farmers Insurance for not paying Ethel Adams. from the article:

Although they've been caught red-handed, the bastards still try to squirm out of the mess they made for themselves. Now they are saying they never denied Ethel Adams's claim. Additionally, they're trying to blame the police, claiming they've been unable to obtain certain reports (which have been public record since late March, according to the article).

That's all for now, although the actuarial war is not over. I'm still planning on writing an article about Faust, one of these days. See you in November, I suppose.

Oh, and it's good to be back on Standard Time. Woo-hoo! If only it were Standard Time all year long . . . I'll always have my dreams.