The Albuquerque Journal Monitor

We Pay taxes. Big Corporate Skates.

2011-03-31T07:11:00.000-07:00

You did not find this information in the Journal. It was in most responsible national papers on Friday and 60 Minutes on Sunday. The NYT broke the story and is running a series on how few taxes Big Corporate actually pay, but no series is in our Journal. The Journal does, however, try to keep us up on Charlie Sheen.

While huge corporations continue to scream about high U.S. Taxes, 60% of big U.S. corporations paid NO (none) taxes to the U.S. in 2005 (the last year we have this kind of data), and, according to 60 minutes and the network news, the number is growing rapidly.

I don't know about you, but this is a major untold story. My federal taxes are always in the 10%-20% range, and you can bet that local Albuquerque businesses are getting stuck for 20% to 35% while Big Corporate skates.

A fascinating NYT story is below:

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI Published: March 24, 2011

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None! (Same with Exxon) In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

The rest of the story is here.

Who's Afraid of Reforming Wall Street? The Journal!

2011-03-19T10:26:00.000-07:00

You will not find an article like this in the Albuquerque Journal. From this week's TIME:

By Joe Klein Thursday, Mar. 03, 2011

"Three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail," said Charles Ferguson, accepting a well-deserved Oscar for Inside Job, his documentary about the great Wall Street heist. "And that's wrong." Of course it is — but that shouldn't be a surprise. To put bad guys in jail, you need police and prosecutors. The financial police we have, agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), have been laughably inept in the era of financial deregulation. The SEC wasn't even able to spot the broad-daylight highway robbery committed by Bernard Madoff. And so, in 2010, the Obama Administration nudged through Congress the Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill, which was designed to put real cops, with real regulatory heft, on the financial beat. And now, in 2011, the Republican House seems intent on quietly gutting the bill under the sordid camouflage of budget cutting. "They're defunding the police after we had the biggest bout of looting in history," an Administration official told me. "That's just crazy."

Let's review the outrage: the heart of the financial collapse was a fraudulent effort to sell home mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. Some of these mortgages were truly mind-boggling — no money down (but a hefty interest rate hidden in the thicket of contractual codicils), no documentation (like proof of job and salary). The mortgages were then thrown together into giant, opaque bond packages and sold again as solid investments. (The ratings agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, were essentially unindicted co-conspirators in the scam.) And those packages were then sliced up, resold and transformed into exotic derivatives, which were bet on by bond traders and investors. (See "The Demise of Bernie Madoff.")

Confused? Well, that was the point. According to Michael Lewis, whose book The Big Short is a riveting encyclopedia of the disaster, even the SEC was confused by the actual contents of the most far-fetched packages, called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Wall Street spewed terms like collateralized debt obligation in order to mislead: a more accurate abbreviation might have been RCLs —repackaged crappy loans. When the crappy loans couldn't be repaid, the housing market, Wall Street and the American economy imploded. The Wall Street traders pocketed hundreds of millions in profits; the American taxpayer, and homeowner, picked up the losses.

Read more here.

Remember, the Albuquerque Journal enjoys a near monopoly in this state. It should be held to a high standard, so if you have your own Untold Stories, send them to me. If you think this type of e-mail is a good idea, forward it to others, so they can request to be added the Untold Stories list.

Yours in media education,

Bob McCannon

Journal Ignores Petraeus' Apology for U.S. Atrocity

2011-03-04T08:12:00.000-08:00

The story below was not on the Journal's front page–in fact not in the paper at all! Published by every major newspaper, most minor ones and national network news yesterday and the day before, it was not in the Albuquerque Journal, which did, however, publish stories about Charlie Sheen both days.

As a general rule the Journal ignores stories about our two wars that have destroyed countless lives and over four trillion dollars (source: Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz). (source: Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz).

Below are two stories about this event–one conservative, one liberal.

For a long list of such omissions, go to: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5652565662951898764

Coalition Apologizes for Deaths of Afghan Children (Wall Street Journal - March 3, 2011)

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the coalition's commander in Afghanistan, issued a rare apology Wednesday for a helicopter strike that killed nine children, hours after Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the allies for launching what he called a "ruthless attack."
[Rest of story here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176644160681276.html]

Nine Afghan Boys Collecting Firewood Killed by NATO Helicopters (New York Times - March 2, 2011)

The NATO statement, which included an unusual personal apology by the commander of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the boys had been misidentified as the attackers of a NATO base earlier in the day. News of the attack enraged Afghans and led to an anti-American demonstration on Wednesday in the village of Nanglam, where the boys were from. The only survivor, Hemad, 11, said his mother had told him to go out with other boys to collect firewood because “the weather is very cold now.”

[Rest of story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html]

Journal Ignores Afghanistan

2011-02-28T15:58:00.000-08:00

The Albuquerque Journal continues to ignore the longest war in U.S. history with only a few small paragraphs last week. During this week, 100 Afghans and many of our young men/NATO soldiers were killed and wounded. We are spending $14 Million per hour in Afghanistan

As Congress argues about how to save $50-100 billion in the next year, we have spent trillions (no exaggeration) in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though most independent experts agree that the latter war is not winnable, and the former was a mistake.

The Journal has a responsibility to educate the public about the challenges, tenor and progress of this expensive conflict. This information is more important that a San Francisco snowstorm (Sunday's Journal) or Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars (a former front page lead story)? This interminable should be regular front page news.

Below you will find 12 articles from just the last few days. They are drawn from a variety of solid sources, including some reputable newspapers and the Associated Press (the Journal's main source).

Remember, the Albuquerque Journal enjoys a near monopoly in this state. It should be held to a high standard, so if you have your own Untold Stories, please e-mail them to me. If you think this e-mail is a good idea, forward it to others, so they can request to be added the Untold Stories list.

Yours in media education,

Bob McCannon

More US-led troops killed in Afghan war

An 8-year war built on lies: But when did the lying begin?

Afghanistan civilian casualties spike; officials say 200 killed in 2-week period

Bomb kills nine civilians in Afghanistan

Bomber kills at least 4 in northwest Afghanistan

Taliban Scrambles to Stem Bad Publicity After Civilian 'Massacres'

Three rockets fired into heart of Kabul

Low pay, big risks for fuel haulers in Afghan war

Canadian mentors walk a delicate path in training Afghan soldiers

Gates: Warning Against Wars Like Iraq and Afghanistan

US Reduces Troops in Afghan Valley

Afghanistan says 50 civilians killed in Western battle with insurgents

Bob McCannon

Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant,

President: The Action Coalition for Media Education

American Academy of Pediatrics' Media Educator of the Year

Author, college and secondary texts

SunCal TIDDs Bill Fails

2009-03-23T13:59:00.000-07:00

After passing the Senate, the SunCal TIDDs bill stalled in the House 33-33, save the taxpayers 408 million dollars. Here is a great comment from this blog:

Anonymous said...
Corporate Welfare,
shame on Linda Lopez and Sen. Bernadette sanchez for proposing this during these difficult finacial times. 4000 acre development. this works out to over $100,000 per acre. ARE YOU KIDDING. GIVE THIS MONEY TO THE PEOPLE. What happened to the ethics reform bill, oops , they must have been too busy working on how to sneak this by us common folks!

March 22, 2009 12:00 AM

More TIDDs Info You Won't Find in the J

2009-03-23T13:53:00.000-07:00

Another Response to my TIDDs story with comments(**) from a TIDDs expert:

SunCal will get the TIDD money whether they provide a single job or
not. There is nothing in the state law which requires that they
actually come through on their promises.

**The bonds can't be sold until there is sufficient GRT and property tax revenues generated within the TIDD to back the bonds ........ so SunCal doesn't have to create new jobs, but if they don't bring in jobs there will be no GRT......and no bonds.

That makes the TIDDs a pure giveaway - money for nothing. It ought
to be illegal. If they were contracts, they would have people going to
jail, even in New Mexico.

**I don't agree with this statement, but I understand what motivates the sentiment.

Once the Bonding is approved, it cannot be disapproved in the
future. Once and over - it's a done deal.

**I'm researching this point ..... everyone I have spoken with concurs with this statement. It concerns me very much.

TIDDs are funding for infrastructure - roads, sidewalks, parks,
flood control, stuff like that. Nothing to do with jobs - nothing.
But the money is a direct subsidy to the developer - it significantly
cuts his cost of doing business, so his profits go up by that amount.
Wonder why SunCal is will ing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
to get the TIDD passed? They will make hundreds of millions in pure
profit when the funds roll in.

**TIDDs are pure profit for SunCal .... I agree. Normally, the developer is required to construct the roads, sewer, and water, etc. with his own $$. In the case of TIDDs, he still must use his own $$ upfront, but then he is repaid in the future when the TIDD bonds are issued. So it cushions his bottom line --- his profit. It also shifts the risk from the private sector to the public sector.

They say they don't get paid until they do what they promise. In
real life, that means they promise to build a road and some flood
control, and they get paid for it. Bringing jobs is NOT in that
equation. It's all about infrastructure.

**This is true to a point. If there are no jobs ....there is no GRT. If there is no GRT (and property tax), there will be no bonds. So he must generate jobs. The real issue ... will he simply entice existing jobs away from another part of the city or state to his development. I think the cannibalization issue a serious one.

If TIDDs bring jobs from outside the state, why did the State
provide incentives of $132M to Schott Solar and $47M to Fidelity to
move into Mesa del Sol? MdS has huge TIDDs - no pun intended - why
didn't their magic suffice to bring in those outfits? In fact, what
effect did their TIDDs have, at all, in bringing these companies to
town?

Giving up the taxes doesn't matter? The development will be built
out in a few years, but for at least 30 years, the City and/or County
must provide ALL of the services, operations, maintenance, and anything
else that a big development like that would require. But they have to
do it with only their remaining part of the Tax revenue - 25% to 50%.
They can't do it. Somehow current planning seems to ignore this point,
but it's very real - there is going to be a real awakening when things
start to get built.

Or, if it turns out that this portion of the tax revenues is enough
- then taxes should be cut big time! You just can't win.

Journal Misses TIDDs Import

2009-03-23T13:48:00.000-07:00

The good news is that the TIDDS bill has been temporarily pulled from the house due to rising public outcry. Of course, the Journal softpedaled this story. The bad news is that TIDDs will be back! It's a complex issue, so I have assembled more information.

Now is the time to email your legislators to prevent 400 million of your tax dollars being given to a CA company that already has many documented bankrupt developments. Here are some talking points (from a legislator) and a list of House email addresses.

Our local guy is Moe Maestas who is pro TIDDS (and, according to today's paper, sponsoring a bill to wipe away criminals' past crimes, making more business for criminal attorneys. Guess what he does for a living?)

From a legislator:

• TIDDs are a giveaway to the Developers. They fund roads and sidewalks, and only increase the developer's profits. They have nothing whatever to do with bringing jobs into the state.
• TIDDs take away the tax base the Cities and Counties need to provide services to the new developments, and take State funds needed for Capital Outlay, Education, and Aid to Children.
• TIDDs take tax revenues to benefit large developers at the expense of the whole state.
• If you approve these big TIDDs, you guarantee the developers hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidy, but the state law requires absolutely nothing in return from the developers. They plan jobs, they promise jobs, but if they don't produce any, there is NO PENALTY. You should not DARE to vote yes for these giveaways.
• TIDD funding encourages new, sprawling developments. These developments will cannibalize jobs and business from other places in the area and the region. This means TIDD subsidies are helping create rich new areas at the expense of existing areas. The state should not, ever, subsidize this activity.
• If TIDDs have power to bring new jobs to NM, why did the State have to put in $130M to bring Schott Solar and $47M to bring Fidelity Investments to Mesa del Sol, which already has a huge TIDD? Wasn't the "Job Magic" of their TIDD enough to bring in these companies? Just what DID their TIDD contribute to bringing these businesses here?

Journal Fails to cover Ethics Commission

2009-03-13T10:20:00.000-07:00

New Mexico needs legislative ethics reform, but especially an Ethics Commission. Such a bill is proposed, but Senators like Bernadette Sanchez oppose it.

Below you will find a great oped from the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and Common Cause, published yesterday in the Albuquerque Journal, WHICH SHOULD BE RUNNING STORIES LIKE THIS ON ITS FRONT PAGE.

Ever wonder why we have an unending series of public officials stealing our money? Can you say Manny Aragon? Forty other states have independent ethics commissions which investigate and deter corruption and crime.

Little known fact: New Mexico has just such a commission that investigates, disciplines and, even, fires judges. The Judicial Standards Commission operates independently, competently, professionally and without bias, taking down judges that are drunks, drug abusers, corrupt and/or perverts -- all recent cases.

Ask yourself, why don't legislators want an independent group looking for corruption??

So, you might want to phone your legislator about establishing an Ethics commission and the other reforms listed in the following oped from the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and Common Cause, published yesterday in the Albuquerque Journal, which should be running articles like this on the front page.

Ethics Reform Bogs Down

By Don Chalmers And Jack Taylor
Ethics Reform Advocates
      New Mexicans are asking the Legislature for meaningful ethics reform this year, and we couldn't agree more. Apparently, a number of lawmakers are also in agreement, given that they have introduced more than 45 bills related to campaign contribution limits, establishment of an ethics commission, limitations on state contractors' contributions to public officials, fiscal penalties for public officials who have committed crimes related to their office and imposition of state conduct legislation on local governments.
       However, we are running out of time to get this done. The Senate Rules Committee, which is the first committee of several in the Senate to which the ethics bills go, has spent the last three weeks reviewing the various ethics bills sponsored by senators in an effort to allow each legislator the opportunity to have a hearing on his or her bill.
       To date, several bills have passed out of this committee, one of which has made it out of the Senate and over to the House. That bill would allow the imposition of financial penalties on those public officials who commit a felony related to their office.
       The House has also been working on some ethics reform bills. It sent a whistle blower bill, an open conference committee bill and a bill to allow the Attorney General to prosecute statewide elected officials over to the Senate. It also has a bill to establish an ethics commission in its third committee.
       Yet, we still don't have a single piece of major ethics reform legislation moving through the process fast enough to be considered by both chambers and be sent up to the governor.
       As in years past, the major bills are stalled in committee. We know that legislators have a great deal on their plate, but many of these bills were introduced early in the session. They should be heard in committee and moved forward now; otherwise, we will, once again, fail to enact major, meaningful ethics reform.
       Perhaps it would help if all of us, legislators included, remember that:
       n New Mexico is one of five states in the country with no campaign contribution limits.
       n We're one of 10 states with no independent ethics commission to investigate allegations of misconduct by public officials.
       n We're one of just a handful of states in which the public is not allowed to observe legislative conference committees, the powerful committees that reconcile differences between bills that pass both chambers.
       n New Mexico is one of just six states that until recently didn't broadcast any of its legislative proceedings. (That's changed a bit this session, largely due to a bit of high-profile civil disobedience by Republican representative Janice Arnold-Jones.)
       n In reports published by the UCLA School of Law and the California Voter Foundation that analyzed states' campaign finance disclosure systems, New Mexico has received two consecutive “F” grades.
       We don't want to remain at the bottom of another list—if our state is ever to move up the economic and social ladder, the first step needs to be cleaning up the rules of the game in our state government.
       Legislators need to do the right thing and take action quickly on ethics reform. This is what their constituents want. This is what the New Mexico business community wants. This is what government reform advocates want. We believe this is probably what most legislators themselves want.
       Don Chalmers is board chairman of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce. Jack Taylor is chairman of Common Cause of New Mexico.

Journal Covers TIDDs (sort of)

2009-03-13T10:18:00.000-07:00

Tax Increment Development Districts are becoming ever more common in the U.S. and New Mexico despite being a disaster in cities like St. Louis and Chicago.

During the last week, after several years of supporting TIDDs, the Albuquerque Journal has at last devoted more coverage to both sides of this issue with two front page articles.

If Bernadette Sanchez, Linda Lopez, Moe Maestas and other legislators have their way, over the next few decades, hundreds of millions of NM tax dollars are going to go to a corporation (SunCal) whose main claim to fame is dozens of bankrupt developments in CA.

SunCal says it is going to bring jobs to Albuquerque. There is absolutely no proof of this, but they keep saying it, even though the record shows that SunCal's TIDDs will probably just cause jobs to move to their area from other areas of the city, which is a double tax loss for taxpayers.

There is, however, proof of one thing, a massive spending campaign with unprecedented amounts of money going to legislators and lobbyists.

Following is the article from today's Albuquerque Journal:

To unsubscribe or subscribe, email me,

Bob McCannon (mccannon@flash.net )

Co-President
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120

Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702
www.bobmccannon.org

Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education:
Definitions and Literature Review" in Children Adolescents and Media, 2nd edition - college text, 2008

Winner: The Holroyd-Sherry Award for Excellence
in Media Education by the American Academy
of Pediatrics, Boston, October, 2008

Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)

Thursday, March 12, 2009

TIDD Analysis Leaves Out Concerns

By Jeff Jones
Journal Staff Writer
       Critics of a plan to give $408 million in future tax money to a California-based developer are questioning why a state analysis provided to lawmakers omitted major concerns about the deal that were described in a similar document last year.
    A 2008 legislative analysis of a so-called TIDD deal for SunCal Cos. said the firm's planned development on Albuquerque's West Side might not generate nearly as much tax revenue as SunCal claimed.
    Last year's analysis also said that according to one of SunCal's own studies, most of the demand for industrial space in the giant new development would come from firms already doing business in the Albuquerque area rather than new, out-of-state firms — a top concern of critics who warn the tax break amounts to "cannibalism."
    The issue could have a "potentially huge impact for the state," the 2008 analysis said.
    Neither of those criticisms was detailed in this year's Legislative Finance Committee analysis given to lawmakers considering the controversial deal, which was approved by the Senate in late February and is pending in the House.
    "I absolutely think it (this year's analysis) does not tell the whole story," said Sen. Eric Griego, D-Albuquerque, a TIDD critic who questioned whether the LFC was pressured on the new analysis.
    LFC director David Abbey told the Journal on Tuesday that he was indeed pressured on the TIDD issue.
    He declined to say who applied pressure and insisted it had no impact.
    "We absolutely didn't bow to pressure," Abbey said. "We prize our objectivity."
    While he defended the objectivity of both the 2008 and 2009 analyses, he said this year's report should have detailed the cannibalism concern. And the LFC analysis was amended for lawmakers Wednesday morning after the Journal's inquiry.
    Since a SunCal TIDD bill died in the Roundhouse last year, the developer has embarked on a major push to get a similar measure through this year's Legislature.
    SunCal has spent a chunk of cash — it refuses to say how much — on pro-TIDD billboards, advertising and mailers. It also has a team of 11 top lobbyists and has spread more than $50,000 in campaign cash among dozens of Democratic and Republican lawmakers and the state Democratic Party.
    TIDDs, shorthand for tax increment development districts, involve the formation of special tax districts in which portions of the gross receipts and property taxes are set aside to pay the developer for infrastructure such as roads and water and sewer systems. The TIDDs issue bonds secured by the tax money.
    Backers of TIDDs say developers get none of the future tax money until they build their projects and say they benefit the state because they bring new jobs and tax revenue.
    Opponents equate them to a tax giveaway. And some maintain that much of the business locating in the SunCal TIDD would be existing Albuquerque-area companies enticed to relocate or expand there by lower rent or construction costs made possible by the TIDD tax subsidy.
    Cannibalism concerns stem from the possibility of existing companies moving to a TIDD-subsidized development, shifting some of the existing tax revenue from local government to the TIDD.
    The LFC's 2008 analysis, prepared by agency chief economist Norton Francis, said a study done for SunCal assumed most of the industrial growth would be from "intramarket" demand.
    "This is activity that would have generated revenue for the state that is moving to an area where half of the revenue is redistributed to the development, a potentially huge impact for the state," Francis wrote.
    The analysis added that according to a separate state study, the amount of permanent gross receipts tax revenue generated in several of the areas in the TIDD "will be less than 20 percent of the amount calculated by the (SunCal) study."
    The shorter, 2009 analysis that did not detail the concerns was done by another LFC staffer.
    SunCal chief spokesman David Soyka in written responses to Journal questions said the study done for his firm was" clearly based only upon historical averages" concerning typical Albuquerque growth and does not address SunCal's emphasis on recruiting firms from other states and countries.
    "TIDDs will allow us to attract large out-of-state companies to New Mexico by providing infrastructure and shovel-ready industrial land," Soyka wrote. "We have met with more than 30 international companies in our recruitment efforts to date."

Where is Ted Stevens?

2008-10-28T08:43:00.000-07:00

Today, my paper, the Albuquerque Journal, put the conviction of corrupt Republican Senator Ted Stevens on the last page of the front section. Where did your paper put the story? Last night CBS and NBC featured the story.

This is important. This kind of corruption is not only history making, but our media need to feature public governmental corruption in order to keep public informed and the system honest.

For only the fifth time in history a sitting Senator of the United States became a convicted felon. In fact, Republican Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of seven felonies. He was the senior U.S. Senator, the longest serving senator, the ranking member and former chairperson of the most important Senate committee, the appropriations committee.

It is the committee that controls all spending bills and all earmarks. Earmarks are those spending appropriations which are never debated by the legislature. This Senator had more to say about money matters than any other Republican. People owed him! He had incredible power.

That he was beyond his time and out of touch was never in doubt. He most famously referred to the internet as a group of “tubes” in last year’s famous debate over net neutrality, coming down on the side of the big telecoms.

As chairman, he refused to allow Big Oil’s CEOs to be sworn in at a hearing (a singularly unique breach of custom). One now has to wonder why he would do such a favor for them. Did he get something in return?

He was one of the most arrogant of the famous club of one hundred millionaires.

More importantly, this man typified what is most wrong with our system of government. People fight, dig and scratch to become politicians, get elected, and, then, get rich. Common people like you and I sigh and scratch our heads, but the fact remains.

Whether mayors, county commissioners, city councilors, state or national legislators, these people almost always wind up living way beyond their meager salaries. With the Ted Stevens case, one source of their largesse is clearly revealed. Private corporations and/or business do them “favors.”

In this case $250,000 worth of improvements were done to Stevens’ home. He somehow was unaware that they had come for free.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need more investigation and reporting like this. Why? Simply put, to help keep our legislators honest.

If you think a friend might be interested in reading about the media's untold and underreported stories, forward this newsletter to them. I'll put them on my list.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, simply email mccannon@flash.net.

Have a great October 28th,

Bob

Winner: The Holroyd-Sherry Award for Excellence
in Media Education by the American Academy
of Pediatrics, Boston, October, 2008

Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
www.bobmccannon.org

Co-President, Co-Founder
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702

Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education
Literature Review" in Children Adolescents
and Media, 2nd edition - college text, July, 2008

Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)

Financial Crisis Review = Inadequate

2008-10-24T12:06:00.000-07:00

The Sunday Journal, Money Section (on how we got into this financial mess) did NOT include most of the following information. I think readers deserve better.

In April I warned about the economic danger of hedge funds and associated financial instruments, most importantly called derivatives and credit-default swaps(CDS). Sadly, the warning was prophetic, and our economy is falling apart, and not because of problem mortgages. Bad mortgages we could have handled; hedge funds we are struggling with.

Interestingly enough, in our current financial catastrophe the mainstream news (MSN) still refuses to discuss the role of hedge funds, derivatives and CDS. More importantly, the Presidential candidates are not talking about them either.

There seems to be an unspoken agreement to blame mortgages and generalized "greed on Wall Street" as the cause of the current crisis which has caused the FED to throw almost two TRILLION dollars at the problem (and the end is not in sight).

The lack of information is ominous, closely resembling censorship. It is more than an untold story; it verges on information control. I follow the mainstream news, and I have only seen Obama mention hedge funds once and McCain not at all.

CBS nightly news has talked about hedge funds three times and NBC twice. Two weeks ago there was a Sixty Minutes story that was very detailed and informative about derivatives and CDS. That is not much news for a crisis that has run over a month. We should all be hearing repeatedly about hedge funds, derivatives and CDS.

Don't get me wrong. I am not absolving don't Fannie, Freddie and the other causes of our crisis, but I am saying that more important topics are not being discussed in the MSN.

Leverage should be a major topic around the proverbial water cooler. We should all be talking about mortgage instruments that were leveraged twenty to three hundred times in various kinds of derivatives and, then, INSURED by CDS. After all, leverage did cause the Great Depression.

I have been waiting for Sixty Minutes' information to be verified by a responsible MSN source, and yesterday none other than Alan Greenspan did so, and he pointed out how wrong he was to leave these investment banks unregulated.

What's the total exposure? Believe it or not; we are talking about 50-60 TRILLION DOLLARS worth of highly leveraged, possibly worthless paper. That is the reason the markets are in the crapper, and that is the reason banks are failing left and right. Hundreds of people sold these schemes, made fortunes and should be on their way to jail, but where is the news?

Again, it bears repeating that leveraging assets at the margin was the cause of the Great Depression and the reason for the creation of the SEC, the FDIC and the FED. This is worse that the savings and loan scandal of the 80's that saw over 747 banks close due to the same kind of greed.

In April I quoted the SEC chairman, William Donaldson, who was fired by George Bush for trying to regulate hedge funds and CDS. As he said, "They are totally unregulated." That is why, for example, CDS are called swaps. If they were called insurance, they'd be regulated. As I noted in April Warren Buffet, John Bogle and Robert Kutner all agree about hedge fund dangers.

Now, here is the 64 zillion dollar question: why are the politicians and their media lapdogs avoiding the hedge fund issue?

I really don't know. I can only speculate that the pigs do not want this trough regulated.

I might further speculate that they want our tax dollars to stabilize their feed lots, so they can continue to take huge leveraged risks (now with our money) and possibly make zillions more in the future (instead of going to jail). If you have a better idea, please email me.

Remember, according to the Wall Street Journal, last year the 30 top hedge fund CEOs made an AVERAGE of one BILLION dollars in just that one year.

This needs to be talked about. Congress is holding hearings on regulating hedge funds. Last night, again, neither CBS nor NBC went into significant detail about these complex financial instruments. Write/call your Congressperson.

Journal Ignores Merrill Lynch

2008-09-15T10:03:00.000-07:00

The financial crisis in this country is getting serious. My local paper, the Albuquerque Journal devoted half of its front page today to a 14 year-old who got in a fight (the lead story) and an epileptic baby--sad enough, but we had TWO MORE MAJOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FAIL over the weekend! The failure of Merrill Lynch is not worth the Journal's front page.

The Feds are still pouring many billions of $$ into saving Bear Stearns, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and several other failed institutions while the FDIC has said it expects over a hundred more banks to fail. A hundred more! (And all so sleazy bankers could make big bonuses giving out millions of sleazy loans!)

The Federal deficit is now over a half TRILLION dollars/year, yet both Presidential candidates say they want to cut taxes AND reduce Federal spending. Hello?? Anyone who has taken Econ 101 would ask "how?" We have a ton of debt and two expensive wars, and Afghanistan is fixing to get a whole lot more expensive.

The only way would be to borrow more from our enemies or print more money, which, BTW, the FED is doing. They call it "expanding the money supply."

Inflation just hit the highest level in decades--over 12% annually adjusted for a few months. At 12% you have to make 12% on your investments to break even.

Now, I actually taught Econ 101, and I agree with what the Journal said in its Sept. 14th article about inflation. Inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods."

However, the Journal did not say, and no commercial media is telling you the key fact. "Inflation is a TAX." The government spends money it does not have--inflating the money supply (yes, running the printing presses) to pay its obligations (wars, programs or payments on its debt), and, presto, your money will not by as much. You have been taxed! Politicians love inflation; it allows them to promise more stuff to the voters without "raising taxes."

This is not a partisan statement. It is an economic axiom. As Colbert would say. It is "truthiness."

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, ask your candidates about the economic facts of life. Here are two articles that should have been on today's Journal front page.

After Frantic Day, Wall Street Banks Falter
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Andrew Ross Sorkin, The New York Times: "In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself on Sunday to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, said it would seek bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer. The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments."

Greenspan: Can't Afford McCain Tax Cuts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26689925/
The Associated Press: "Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain - at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending. 'Unless we cut spending, no,' the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion. 'I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money,' Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. 'I always have tied tax cuts to spending.'"

If you think a friend might be interested in reading the media's untold or underreported stories, forward this newsletter to them.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, simply email mccannon@flash.net.

Have a great day,

Bob

Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
www.bobmccannon.org

Co-President, Co-Founder
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702

Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education
Literature Review" in Children Adolescents
and Media, 2nd edition - college text, July, 2008

Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)

What Happened to 9-11?

2008-09-11T12:44:00.000-07:00

How did your local paper treat today's anniversary of possibly the greatest catastrophe in U.S. history?

If you were living here in Albuquerque, depending on the Albuquerque Journal, you probably would not even know it was a special day.

Now, I must confess that I was jolted into action by an email from a friend who just wrote me and said, "I loved the Albuquerque Journal front page. 9/11 was not worthy of ANY mention on the front page??? But, luckily, we got to read about campaign signs and mountain lions. The Journal is so ****ed up." (I am sure she meant "messed" up.)

What does it say when the LEAD story in today's Journal was about some boys being sexually humiliated WEEKS ago? Yes, it was a sick tragedy, but, really, it was the Journal's third story about these poor kids, i.e., very old news. This sort of editing reminds one of the National Enquirer.

The Journal devoted almost a whole PAGE to Sarah Palin, but only a TINY mention on page seven about the anniversary of the date that has cost our country literally TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THOUSANDS OF DEAD, a DEVASTATED ECONOMY and much more!

9/11 affects our lives in so many ways. Our bridges are ancient, falling down, and we don't have the money to fix them. Our electric transmission system is prehistoric; our schools are ineffective; we are sending $700 Billion to our enemies every year for oil. The list goes on. Economists call this opportunity cost--the cost of what we are giving up because of what we are spending on the war on terror.

Journal Promotes Gambling

2008-08-03T09:13:00.000-07:00

Gambling . . . Excuse me, I should use today's politically correct term, promoted by industry executives, lobbyists and legislators. "GAMING" is one of the largest industries in the U.S. It accounts for over $50 million in contributions politicians.

In fact, gambling is bigger than theme parks, the movie industry and outdoor sports. Actually, it is bigger than all of these COMBINED. It is so big and has such a huge media presence that we do not even question it any more--on the national or local scene.

Today's front page Albuquerque Journal story, "3 Groups Vying for State's Last Racetrack Liscense" filled a full page and a half of section A.

The writer, Charles Blount, touted the the economic BENEFITS of the proposed "racinos" again and again. Each "racino" would have 600 "state of the art" slot machines.

Unfortunately, Blount made NO attempt to point out the negative impact of injecting gambling into a small town NM community. He promoted the increase in jobs and the "annual economic impact" of the racinos ad nauseum, but REFUSED TO INFORM HIS READERS OF THE BALANCING NEGATIVE IMPACT OF GAMBLING.

Blount could have sought out some experts on gambling and included them in his story which painted such a positive face on gambling. I am not an expert, but the following have all been mentioned as negative and expensive impacts of introducing gambling to a community:

1) Less disposable income for community members who lose at the racino. The huge amounts generated by casinos has to come from individuals.

Most individuals in small town NM have precious little money they can afford to lose. For example, most New Mexicans cannot pay for their retirement.

2) Lost jobs at other businesses when community members have less disposable income to spend upon things like restaurants, home repair, health care, education, retirement, etc.

3) Increased crime and drug addiction associated with problem gamblers.

4) Increased tax burden upon community institutions that have to pick up the slack for the above (police, hospitals, agencies, etc.).

The Journal routinely neglects to honor the basic ethics of professional journalism, but this is a particularly egregious example of omission.

Sigh.

The Missing Energy Solutions

2008-07-03T09:45:00.001-07:00

For a week, I have been monitoring CBS and NBC's national news' coverage of the energy crisis. Each night they give us a "new record" in gas and oil prices, and "discuss" the controversy. Their debate is almost always framed as a choice between "drilling" and "conservation."

The networks go into "depth" (as much depth as sixty second TV news stories can) about the candidates positions on whether or not to drill in ANWR or offshore, or conserve. often mentioned is more "clean" coal (if such a thing exists) or more nuclear plants.

Shale oil, hydrogen cars, reporting on hybrid sales, and environmental stories are also covered along with the rare story on corn ethanol driving up the price of food. Along the way, we are subjected to interminable statements by industry "experts" who are usually lobbyists.

Now and then, one hears the words, "alternative energy sources," but they are seldom explored with any serious or persuasive intent, and of course, this whole charade is surrounded by oil company advertisements which tell us how Big Oil loves us and is looking out for our interests.

My local paper, the Albuquerque Journal, is no better. It ran a lead story on "NM's Energy Gurus (6-15-08)" and in a full page and a half of questioning our two Senators, who chair the Senate Energy Committee, the word "SOLAR" is only mentioned once (tangentially) and "WIND" not at all!

When the Senate refused to renew tax credits for solar and wind energy companies, the Journal put the story in Section C (6-18-08). Imagine that, with $4 gasoline the Senate will not renew solar and wind energy credits, and it is not a front page story!

Two week later (6-2-08) the Journal's front page story was "Public Says Drill." It highlighted only two solutions for our energy crisis, more drilling or conservation with nuclear and alternative energy mentioned only in passing. It mentioned drilling in ANWR three times.

Today's Journal article, "Time for Energy Debate?" gives readers the same old choices--drill more or conserve--not a word about renewable sources of energy.

What do you think?

Why do we see so little about alternative energy in our news?

Some say that if we had spent the $150 Billion economic "stimulus" package (that we borrowed) on wind and solar, instead of giving most of us a $600 check, we would be on our way to energy independence, building whole new industries with good jobs and employing legions of Americans for decades and lowering the price of oil.

Many scientists say there is enough solar power in NM to free the whole country from mideast oil. They say the same thing about wind in North Dakota.

Could Big Oil and Big Coal be tilting our news, both national and local? Are they afraid of energy sources that they cannot control?

Something to think about.

Have a great Fourth of July weekend.

Journal needs to Take Econ 101

2008-04-28T11:05:00.000-07:00

I teach history, economics and the media. Our media leave many issues "untold," so I have started this e-list, going to 500+ leaders, citizens and media. It is devoted to "untold stories"--information and viewpoints which are important, but covered inconsequentially in our media.

This week's example: For a year I asked the Albuquerque Journal to explore hedge funds. Friday, it finally gave front page attention to this topic with a woefully inadequate article.

Hedge funds are new and huge, probably the most powerful force on Wall Street, bigger than most global banks. Some days they comprise half of NYSE shares traded. They own about 40% of U.S. business.

They are profitable! The average salary of the top 25 hedge fund managers last year was $900 million; that's right -- almost a billion dollars for one year's work.

Warren Buffet, arguably the world's greatest investor, complains that most of these men are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries.

Due to a legal loophole, hedge funds are completely unregulated (no hyperbole--completely!). According to George W. Bush's former SEC chairman, William Donaldson, this is a dangerous situation. Bush fired Donaldson for insisting that hedge funds, like banks, be regulated by the SEC.

Hedge funds take huge risks, sometimes with disastrous results. Much of our cascading subprime mortgage crisis involves hedge funds and speculators like Bear Stearns and the Carlysle group. It would be wise to remember the prime lesson of the Great Depression--unregulated speculation almost destroyed our economy.

How does this hurt you? Experts hired by CBS News have estimated that one third of today's oil price is the result of speculation, not supply and demand, causing inflation and higher prices for food, clothes and many other products.

Do you think gas will go to $5/gallon? If hedge fund managers and speculators can make money pushing the price that far, they will.

How could hedge funds hurt New Mexico? Corporations increasingly demand taxpayer subsidies as the price of doing business (Verde, Forest Covington, SunCal -- even local shopping center developers). The potential of a hedge fund takeover of these corporations could be a threat to New Mexico communities who give them tax money and bond guarantees.

To avoid responsibility, hedge funds often employ armies of lawyers to hide their ownership in interminable "layers" of fiscal instruments. Bill Moyers reported that hundreds of Florida nursing homes were taken over by hedge funds who reduced services to jack up profits, hurting many residents, killing some. The occupants' lawyers oftentimes cannot even find out who owns the nursing homes!

Note: none of the aforementioned information was in the Journal article!

Hedge funds are just one of many issues that the corporate media refuse to cover in any depth. The Journal did a series of detailed front page articles on beautifying the Big I interchange. Why not a series on TIDDS and SunCal? Why indeed?

One reason is that big corporations buy advertising and politicians. Ads pay the salaries of newspeople. Legislators' campaigns are financed by corporations. Politicians influence the content of the news.

This is nothing new. American history is replete with examples of business and politics buying media coverage.

Nonetheless, citizens need depth, context, and non-corporatized points of view, and now we have this new electronic tool that can provide such.

More Tabloidism Re: Richardson

2008-04-28T10:59:00.000-07:00

Today the front page has an article about Tuesday's CNN appearance of Governor Richardson and political personality, James Carville.

This story uses terms tabloid terms like "duke it out," "face off," "showdown," and "political boxing match." The front page part of this article, continued on page 5, listed only negatives about Richardson. Oh well, so much for a Pulitzer.

But wait, it gets worse. In the "Metro and NM" section. The Journal place a current story (real news) about Richardson's upcoming trip to Venezuela to try and free 3 U.S. hostages from Columbian guerrillas. IS THIS A METRO STORY?

Which story should have been on the front page? A U.S. State Department coordinated humanitarian mission by an experienced diplomat who happens to be our governor or biased, gossip from a talk show?

Shock Jocks Spotlight Journal SlimeFest

2008-03-29T08:17:00.000-07:00

The J showed less integrity than a Hollywood tabloid and less honor than when it used maniacal shock jock Don Imus to criticize Bill Richardson (really, former lead story, front page).

Dragging out its designated slanderer, Leslie Linthicum (infamous for her unflattering two-part “biography” of the Governor), the rag’s front page bashed Bill Richardson for the THIRD day in ONE week—not with fact, not with real news--but with innuendo from another shock jock--that paragon of hysterical hyperbole, James Carville.

Surely, the front page could be used for something more newsworthy than the ravings of a man whose only job seems to be bald faced (or “headed” in his case) ad hominem in pursuit of ever more lucrative TV “commentary” jobs.

It might be lost on an unknowing reader that Carville has less credibility than Imus.

It might be lost on the uncritical J regular, that Bill Richardson is not only a good guy, but a good governor.

Disrespecting our fallen soldiers

2008-03-26T11:38:00.000-07:00

The front page lead stories for yesterday’s Journal (J):
-- the lead - UNM “close” to extending basketball coach’s contract (that should win a Pulitzer.)
-- two mayhem stories about murderers
-- yet another Richardson bashing – this one featuring “Judas” comments about his lack of loyalty for backing Obama and more crap from the Mayor

ON PAGE A-6 (no kidding), was the story commemorating the 4,000th death in Iraq. Heaven forbid that the J might have run a SERIES about the incredible cost in MEN (including 30,000 seriously wounded and unknown hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), not to mention TREASURE ($3 Trillion and counting – bankrupting this country)

On Monday, the J ran a small front page story about the 4,000th death, but larger and higher were stories about:
-- no increase in tuition at CNM (really - no increase is a front page story)
-- more bashing Bill Richardson - quoting the Mayor, etc., and the
-- LEAD STORY on Monday was (ready for this?) DNA testing your DOG - to find out his breeding makeup (I AM NOT KIDDING! - the lead story)

SOOO, that's how the J recognized the milestone of 4,000 brave men who have died in an absolutely useless war.

Whatta tabloid!

Now, compare that to the PBS Frontline commemoration of this momentous event.

This Frontline may have been the most impressive documentary I have ever seen. The number of sources and the careful construction of this four hour epic is incredible.

Even more amazing is the conclusion left with the viewer that basically three people conspired to create the rationale and atmosphere that led us to war and, then, the same triad completely screwed up the occupation.

History will hammer Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld who lied, circumvented the normal chains of command and, of course, manipulated poor, sad, ill-equipped George W.

What was amazing to me is the number of people in the administration and military willing to go on camera about this disaster.

I talked a normal "regular guy" type of neighbor into watching it -- his first Frontline -- he just sent me this reaction:

"If there were any justice in this World, they would try Cheney,
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as war criminals. If I had a son or daughter
that got killed or injured in that %$#@ *&%$, I am not so sure that I could keep myself from hunting down one of those &%$#@."

If you did not see it, you might owe it to yourself as a citizen/media educator to find it and watch.

Journal gives porn, not news

2008-03-13T10:52:00.000-07:00

"That is why our press was protected by the First Ammendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, NOT TO SIMPLY GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT IT WANTS, but to INFORM, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion."
John F. Kennedy

The page one lead story on today's Journal is about a professor who sent porn to another, beneath the screaming headline, "NMSU Porn Investigation." The second lead is a fluff story about a 95 year-old basketball coach.

I am sure Kennedy is sighing, as are we.

What War?

2008-03-05T08:53:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's Journal achieved a new record in its campaign to play down the war in Iraq so that we can avoid distractions and get to the important business of electing a Republican President.

Section A did not mention the war in Iraq. At all.

After all, there is nothing important about a war that has cost 4,000 U.S. lives and three trillion dollars so far. Is there?

Exxon vs Alaska: Before the Supreme Court, But Not in the Journal

2008-03-05T08:45:00.000-08:00

Continuing Series: Stories not covered in any meaningful way by the Journal (J)

"I thought the most telling moment of the last seven years occurred last week when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, literally, almost weeping that Exxon was being treated unfairly by a jury in Alaska."
James Carville, Meet the Press, 03-02-08

Interested? The Journal is not.

Silly Season: Journal Fluff Hits New High

2008-03-03T06:47:00.000-08:00

The Journal must really be going broke because it is silly season on their front page.

Front page of the Journal (J) today:
- woman finds wallet (top article-above the fold)
- deaf basketball player
- man shoots himself twice?
- an Arizona law

Really, one must calmly assess the situation and ask, "IS THERE NO OTHER FREAKING NEWS OUT THERE?

Because of the J's headlong race to irrelevance, I am starting a new seriew: "UNTOLD STORIES." It will suggest stories that our ONLY "newspaper" might have put on its front page.

Today's suggestion: "The Human Toll Approaches 4,000: the 3,973 guys who have died in this senseless, unbelievably expensive war?"

Award! I made Kent Walz's Trash Can

2008-03-03T06:45:00.001-08:00

Breaking news: I am in Kent Walz's trash can . . . yup, banished! How, you ask?

It took the Albuquerque Journal more than a week to write an article about the defeat of SunCal's TIDD bonding bill which would have funneled over $700 Million to the CA development company. So, I wrote this (the whole message):

"I note that it took the Journal a week to get out this news. (It takes such a long time for horses to make the trip from Santa Fe.) Or, if your into conspiracy theories, maybe they had to check with their SunCal masters."

Kent Walz, an editor wrote me the following (quoted exactly):

sun cal masters? really bob......you know better....your intellectual dishonesty is shocking. Don't bother to respond. You had your say. This is mine. In a time pressured world, i've added your emails to the auto delete category.

The satirical tone of my message and freedom of speech notwithstanding, I hit a major Walz nerve. His anger makes me wonder why. Hmmm . . . let's see.

As of Wednesday (with the death of the Tribune), the Journal now has a monopoly. Maybe the responsibility of being ABQ's only newspaper is stressing Kent out.

Time to Put an End to Corporate Welfare

2008-03-03T06:40:00.000-08:00

This is a LTE from the Albuquerque Tribune, which, unfortunately, just died, leaving the Journal with a monopoly. It shows the kind of article that the Journal would never publish.

And the following in the light of announcements that Wachovia received $120 Million REFUND on $3.2 BILLION in profits and that there is a building in the Caymans that houses 12,000 corporate headquarters (Enron had 650 there), and more that HALF of US corporations paid NO income tax.

Tribune: It's time to put an end to corporate welfare

Sharon Kayne
Thursday, February 7, 2008

Albuquerque Tribune
In his recent column, Harold Morgan completely mischaracterized the purpose of state House Bill 51, which would require combined reporting for corporate income tax purposes.

In "Tax Hit Dodged," from Jan. 31, Morgan implies that Rep. Peter Wirth's bill would have had the effect of double-taxing multi-state corporations that do business in New Mexico through subsidiaries.

The truth is, mandatory combined reporting, or MCR, would allow the state to collect corporate income tax from companies that do business here but are currently not paying corporate income tax on their profits.

How do they get away with such a thing? We let them. We allow them to shield their New Mexico profits by shifting them to a "passive investment company," which is most likely nothing more than an office in Delaware.

Didn't make any profits in New Mexico? Then you don't owe us any corporate income tax payments. Sounds like a very good deal for the Wal-Marts and Sonics of the state. It costs the rest of us some $90 million a year in revenue lost through what is really just corporate welfare.

The state's Taxation and Revenue Department understands these things perfectly. That's why they took Wal-Mart and K-Mart to court a few years back and won multi-million dollar settlements.

The discount giants can't avoid paying income tax here by sending their profits out of state anymore, but other mega-corporations still can. Tax and Revenue is now looking at computer retailer Dell. Taking the big boys all to court is a slow and expensive way to make them pay up, but that's the only option the state has until the Legislature steps up.

Here is how MCR really works: it requires that a corporation doing business in more than one state "combine" its income from all states. A formula is then used to determine how much the corporation owes to each state. Every state west of the Mississippi that collects corporate income tax — except New Mexico and Oklahoma — requires combined reporting.

So while Sonic is allowed to pretend it doesn't make any money here, it's paying on the profits it makes in our neighboring states. So much for Morgan's assertion that MCR would kill New Mexico's chances of luring more big corporations to New Mexico, thereby stalling our economic development. It has hardly hurt California's economic development. Or Washington's. Or Oregon's.

As compelling a reason as that is, HB 51 is about more than collecting money that's due the state. It's also about equity. Corporations that do business solely in New Mexico can't take advantage of this tax setup.

That puts them at a competitive disadvantage. It also means that the bill for the public services these multi-state corporations use gets paid by the rest of us. Big corporations would hardly do business in New Mexico without services like police and fire protection, paved roads, access to utilities, even public education (an uneducated consumer is not likely a well-paid consumer).

As one local business owner put it, "You mean I have to pay to pave the road in front of my business and the road in front of Wal-Mart?" In essence, yes. In fact, we all do. The rest of us also have to either make up the $90 million the state fails to collect or we make do with fewer services.

Wirth has carried MCR legislation before, and we've always supported him. That legislation has also sought to lower the corporate income tax rate for everyone while still bringing in more revenue.

Morgan did get one thing right in his column: "HB 51 might rise again in this session."

We hope so. And when it does, we'll be in the room to support it. Because, really, a state with the second-highest poverty rate in the nation can't afford to dole out $90 million in corporate welfare.

Wayne is communications director for advocacy group New Mexico Voices for Children.

Making Progress Against Corporate Welfare

2008-03-03T06:28:00.000-08:00

Kiss Senator Cisco

Full-on body hugs and kisses to State Senator Cisco McSorley.

The SunCal tax increment development district (TIDD) bill is dead after
his 45 minute fillabuster and vote appeal in the final moments of the
session. Sources say the bill was tabled after his talk and then
raised again by Senator Michael Sanchez in the final minutes before
noon. Cisco appealed the voice vote and the clock took care of the
rest. Sine Die.

I wanna know who voted for that bill too, though that wasn't the point.

At stake was the approval of $629 million in tax-paid bonds for one
corporation - for one developer, about 13 lobbyists and a bunch of real
and wanna-be land profiteers. Mental daggers to Cisco from them.

Some of these old school powers-that-be tried to get got Mike Murphy to
run against Cisco awhile back. He would have worked out better for
them. You remember Murphy - he has since been indicted for his role in
cash-skimming schemes on government construction projects. Ethics
schmethics.

Posted by Coco la Boca on Friday, February 15, 2008 in Politicos |

More Journal Pro-development Half Truths

2008-01-23T11:20:00.000-08:00

OK, gang, It is official. For the next 40 years SunCal will get 30% of the county's sales taxes, 10% of the property taxes and 50% of the state sales taxes from the first phase (4,000 acres) of their 57,000 acre development on the West side (bigger than Las Cruces and Santa Fe combined).

Think about it, we are subsidizing the development of a CITY!

It is such a shame that the Journal has not taken seriously its responsibility to inform the public about the TIDDs subsidies in a timely and detailed manner. Instead of researching why many other cities are turning against TIDDS, including Las Cruces, they have blindly followed Journal owner Lang's develop-at-any-cost agenda by printing SunCal's talking points and half truths like the following in today's paper.

On Jan 23, 2008, the ABQ Journal said, "County economic development coordinator Daniel Gutierrez said no taxes would be taken from other entities, such as Albuquerque Public Schools or University of New Mexico Hospital."

This is, of course, a sad half truth. When you reduce the amount of money going to the state, which provides APS' funds, you reduce the money available to go to APS.

Sigh.

Journal Backs Taxpayer Subsidized Developments in Spite of Water Shortage

2008-01-09T11:17:00.000-08:00

Today the Journal(J) ran two articles about how great our water supply is. Last month (Dec. 3), the J ran a front page article that said ABQ’s water supply, “appears set for the next forty years.”

This, of course was no where near the size of, say, the recent huge front page article about Roger Clemen’s steroid problems, but, then, tabloids will be tabloids.

The water triad seems to be part of the J’s continuing propaganda effort to support massive, taxpayer subsidized developments in the ABQ area, the latest of which is the Sun Cal 55,000 acre TIDD giveaway (bigger than Santa Fe and Las Cruces combined).

Facts about our ABQ’s water supply:

1. We use 32 billion gallons/year from our aquifer which is dropping at 8 feet per year.
2. It has dropped so much that we could soon see major subsidence (sinkholes).
3. Our San Juan-Chama-Rio Grande water project, which cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, will supply 30 billion gallons/year.
4. A period of extended drought would create chaos, as farmers, other cities and Texas fought over the diminishing Rio Grande water.

If that happened, where would we get our 30 billion gallons/year? And, don't say this cannot happen. I has happened many times in the geologic past! Just look at Atlanta's desperate drought for a developer-created disaster.

In any case, we are STILL looking at continuing to draw down the aquifer by 2 billion gallons/year, even when SJ-C-RG water comes on line.

BUT, developers argue, “We will conserve more water.”

Drastic conservation measures have already cut our water consumption from 42 billion g/yr in the 90’s to 32 now. Obviously, there is a limit to how much we can conserve, and conservation happens in the face of challenges from new growth--homes and industry.

BUT, developers argue, “The aquifer will recharge itself.” According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, “Recharge happens very slowly.” According to the head of ABQ’s water conservation program, “I could not tell you how fast recharge will happen.”

Soooo, developers want to double the size of ABQ in 40 years, AND use our tax money to make growth happen faster, even though we live in a desert.

The gamble on conservation and drought notwithstanding, one has to ask, “What the hell will our kids do in forty years?”

This, like the national debt and government spending in general, seems to be just another example of greedy politicians supporting their corporate bedmates at the expense of our kids’ future.

Asking a city councilor or a county commissioner about this draws angry responses, but corporate welfare is still welfare.

Paranthetical question: why did Exxon get subsidies from the U.S. last year when it was the most profitable corporation in the world?

Sigh

The Journal Actually Published My Letter About A Corrupt Development-Maybe There's Hope

2007-12-05T11:49:00.000-08:00

The Journal and most other media have done a poor job of educating the public about the most important local issue of the year. A giant corporation, SunCal, is seeking a huge tax gift that will last 25 years. Councilor Michael Cadigan calls it a "ripoff" of future tax dollars that could easily top a BILLION dollars--Tax Increment Development Districts (TIDDs).

The City Council -- at least the five members who decided to show up for work and vote on the public's interests--also agreed, voting 4-1 to limit TIDDs to developed areas or places where there is already a TIDD. Too bad the other four councilors were too busy having a hissy fit to do their part in voting on this important matter.

Last week's Westside Coalition of Neighborhood Association’s meeting explored this issue in great detail, listening to supporters like WSCONA Prsident Dan Serrano, Councilor Ken Sanchez as well as Cadigan. It then voted 9-3 to abolish TIDD tax incentives for the outlying 1,400 acres of the Albuquerque portion of SunCal's holdings.

1,400 acres is a HUGE development! BUT it is inconceivable that the County, led by Alan Armijo, has already paved the way for SunCal to gain TIDDS for 53,000 acres of land. 53,000 acres! That is bigger than Las Cruces and Santa Fe COMBINED!

This is a complicated issue, so one wonders why the local media have been so lax in running stories. There are many reasons for opposing this corporate welfare, so the WSCONA rejected giving this CA corporation hundreds of millions of dollars or our tax money to further stimulate development on 55,000 acres of the Westside (land that will be developed anyway), especially since other parts of Albuquerque desperately need such stimulus.

SunCal says is will pay for everything and be a great business partner, but some City Councilors have testified about SunCal's "take it or leave it" attitude. I suggest we look at recent corporate malfeasance; can you say Enron, Tycho or the savings and loans crisis of the 1980s (over 2000 crooked S&Ls)? Even if SunCal is pure, what if they are bought by a hedge fund. Fully 50% of U.S. corporations are now owned by global hedge funds who often turn out to be bad stewards of the public interest.

No matter what SunCal says, costs for police, water, environment, jails, I-40 interchanges, pollution, etc., will be bourne by YOU AND I! SunCal has already said that not a penny will go to Wesgate or east/west traffic abatement (which SunCal will worsen dramatically).

We are at a crucial crossroads.

Thirty years ago, Albuquerque developers and politicians promised a lake beneath the city that would be endless. For years, many educated people repeated this myth.

Fifteen years ago, we learned how small the 'lake' was and how fast we were pumping it down--eight feet per year!

Now, developers and politicians (and the front page of monday's Journal) say, “Have no fear. We will take plenty of San Juan/Chama water from the Rio Grande.”

The San Juan/Chama myth is now being repeated by those who want to double the size of Albuquerque in a few decades, but it would only take a few years of drought to dry up that source.

Common sense demands that we ask:

1. How much longer can we draw down our aquifer?
2. What if the drought continues? We are growing at a rapid rate right now.
3. The city has already granted a huge TIDD to Mesa del Sol. What about its thousands more homes and their future demand upon our water?
What about Black Ranch (tens of thousands more homes)
What about other developments?
What about Rio Rancho, other communities and Native Americans’ future demands upon the Rio Grande aquifer?

Water (not oil) is the most important scarce resource.

We must look at Georgia, turning brown, fighting lawsuits with Florida as drought dries up the river systems that also feed into Florida. Florida is losing industries, jobs and whole ecosystems RIGHT NOW because of overdevelopment in Atlanta. Those developers said that their crisis would never happen, but just one more year of drought wil put Atlanta flat out of water!

If the city and county throw gas on the fire of our insane level of development by offering hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to make California developers richer, we are courting similar disaster.

It makes no sense, and, if the Journal can run a series of front page stories about beautifying the I-40 interchange, they sure should run a series about this key issue.

Bob McCannon
President,
Ladera West Neighborhood Association

Dec 3: Front Page Says Water Plentiful!!

2007-12-05T11:40:00.000-08:00

CURRENT SOURCES ARE SET FOR DECADES. BUT THEN WHAT? This is the lead line for an irresponsible story about water. The city is about to start pumping Rio Grande water -- the San Juan/Chama project which cost hundreds of millions of dollars -- into its sparkling new purificatin plact and huge new pipelines.

Why is ABQ doing this? Because we are pumping our aquifer dry; it is falling 8 feet/yr. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the SJC water will only meet ABQ's needs AT ITS CURRENT SIZE, so we are obviously going to have to start pumping again soon to support our rapid rate of growth.

"Ahhh, but this will give the aquifer time to recharge," say the developers.

These are the same developers who used to promise us that there was an endless, huge lake of water beneath ABQ.

Question: what happens to SJC if we have a few years of drought?

Huh?

Outright Lies by Today's Journal

2007-11-30T12:13:00.000-08:00

Today’s Journal completely misrepresented a Westside Coalition of Neighborhood Association’s meeting last night. It said that the Coalition supported Councilor Cadigan’s bill to put limitations upon future TIDD tax incentives to developers. Not true!

In fact, the coalition rejected Cadigan’s bill. It voted to reject greenbelt TIDDs entirely, especially the one requested by SunCal which would give the CA corporation hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to develop its 55,000 acres on Albuquerque’s Westside.

My fellow Albuquerque citizens, no matter what the developers say, costs for police, water, environment, etc., for SunCal will be bourne by you and I.

Furthermore, we are at a crucial crossroads.

Thirty years ago, Albuquerque developers and politicians talked about a lake beneath the city that was virtually endless. For years, most of my friends, educated people, repeated this myth.

Fifteen years ago, we learned how small the lake was and how fast we were pumping it down--eight feet per year. But, the developers and politicians, said, “Have no fear. We will take plenty of water from the Rio Grande.” Thus, the San Juan/Chama myth was born.

The San Juan/Chama myth is now being repeated by those who want to double the size of Albuquerque in a few decades.

It was repeated last night by a misinformed man at the Westside Coalition. “San Juan/Chama will meet the needs of this development,” he said confidently.

Another person suggested that “the world is full of salt water” (another 'pipe' dream).

Common sense demands that we ask:

1. How much longer can we draw down our aquifer?
2. What if the drought continues? We are growing at a rapid rate.
3. The city has already granted a huge TIDD to Mesa del Sol. What about its thousands more homes and their future demand upon our water?
What about the proposed Black Ranch development (tens of thousands more homes)
What about other developments?
What about Rio Rancho, other communities and Native Americans’ future demands upon the Rio Grande aquifer?

We need to wake up. Water (not oil) is the most important scarce resource.

Look at Georgia, turning brown, fighting lawsuits with Florida as drought dries up the river systems that also feed into Florida. Florida is losing industries, jobs and whole ecosystems RIGHT NOW because of overdevelopment in Atlanta, and if the drought continues, Atlanta will just flat be out of water.

If Albuquerque further stimulates our insane level of development by offering hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to make California developers richer, we are courting similar disaster.

It makes no sense and, BTW, the Journal need to print a retraction.

Journal Front Page Snubs St. Marks' Best Class

2007-11-26T10:15:00.000-08:00

A careful examination of today's Albuquerque Journal provided no evidence of any data about the most excellent St. Marks eighth grade student class--obviously, just another example of superficial journalism from Albuquerque's "finest" paper.

Most dangerous country, but not to the Journal

2007-10-28T20:39:00.000-07:00

Only a series of big stories in the mainstream media jolted the Journal (J) into today's semi-major story about Pakistan.

It was a tepid and uninformative fluff piece about Benazir Bhutto, avoiding most information that Americans need to understand Pakistan, which many experts consider to be the most dangerous country on earth. Consider this missing information:

Osama Bin Laden moves ever closer to control of a radical Islamic Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons!

While Bush concentrates on Iran, which is far from producing a nuke, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is falling into radicalism.

Bush’s slaughter of civilians in Iraq and Iran is driving Afghani and Pakistani moderates into the arms of Islamic radicals, weakening our allies, making the world much more dangerous and costly (for us).

Over 20,000 Pakistani schools (Madrasas), pumping out vicious Anti-American, pro-Talibani propaganda, are increasing dramatically in popularity.

The U.S. intelligence community agrees that Bin Laden and the Taliban are now stronger than they have been in years, secure in nuclear Pakistan—a story you seldom see in the J,

BUT, you did get nine paragraphs in Section A about Ms. England. She apparently is too thin.

Slight of Hand Journalism

2007-10-24T10:10:00.000-07:00

Today’s Journal (J) spent three columns telling us that Bill Richardson ran behind Stephen Colbert in a recent poll. Now there is real news!

At the same time, the J continues to omit crucial information needed by citizens in a democracy.

Today’s article on the Valerie Plame outing neglects to mention that the President vowed to fire whoever was involved in this violation of federal law, which cost us a valuable expert who was fighting nuclear proliferation. It has since been proven that at least three White House aides were involved, all of whom lied about it, and probably Vice-President Cheney. Not only did Bush not fire the culprits, but he commuted Libby’s sentence.

Yesterday’s front page reported that the war has cost $455 Billion, which is a joke. Responsible estimates (that take into account future obligations) range from one to two trillion, the latter from Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Today’s section A reports that casualties are way down in Iraq and includes a giddy comment from a US general saying he’s never been so optimistic, and that Iraqis are, “coming forward in masses” to fight al-Quaida. Remember this!

Let’s see. Twenty-one U.S. families ruined and 651 Iraqis . . . in just October. Now that is progress.

Oh, and October cost 20 to 30 billion dollars that we DO NOT HAVE out of an economy that is teetering on the brink of recession due primarily to our debt imbalances.

What's Missing From J "News"

2007-10-11T16:17:00.000-07:00

The Journal (J) keeps avoiding the amazing cost of the war which we are adding it to the astounding debt that our children have to deal with.

The fiscal cost of the war, estimated to be at $2 TRILLION by Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, is a major factor in the impending fiscal disaster facing this country.

We are cutting back on prevention and enforcement even as crime hits record increases. We cannot afford proper care for our 82,000+ maimed Iraq war veterans. We are cutting programs to schools and infrastructure.

We are the only nation in the industrial world that does not provide health care for its citizens.

The value of the dollar is plummeting, reaching record lows. China and the oil countries are getting very nervous about the US paying its debts in dollars, of which they have trillions, while we pursue policies that reduce the value of these dollar holdings.

We are walking a tightrope of economic and social disaster, but reading the front section of the J will not tell get you the story.

THEREFORE, when slogging through the J’s daily promotion of the Iraq war and ceaseless front page promotion of fluff stories, take note of what important stories the J is NOT telling.

Blind Bias

2007-10-03T09:31:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Senate Democrats introduced a bill that would force Congress to pay for the war with a national surtax, instead of merely adding it to the astounding debt that our children have to pay.

Guess what? No mention of this in the Journal (J). NONE! The fiscal cost of the war, estimated to be at $2 TRILLION by Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, is bankrupting this country.

We are cutting back on prevention and enforcement even as crime hits record increases. We cannot afford proper care for our 82,000+ maimed Iraq war veterans. We are cutting programs to schools and infrastructure. The President will today veto a bill to provide health care to poor CHILDREN!

The value of the dollar is plummeting, reaching record lows. China and the oil countries are getting very nervous about the US paying its debts in dollars, of which they have trillions, while we pursue policies that reduce the value of these dollar holdings.

We are walking a tightrope of economic and social disaster, but the J will not tell the story.

I know that as one reads the J’s constant criticism of Bill Richardson (front page attack of his stance on the “Boy Scouts” yesterday), unceasing support of all things Republican like Sen. Pete Domenici (and, of course, his saintly sister, THE Sister) and his perky protégé, Rep. Heather Wilson, it is easy to lose sight of what is MISSING from Section A?

THEREFORE, when slogging through the J’s daily promotion of the Iraq war and ceaseless idiocy (like today’s front page article about a man who [gasp] tore up a Mexican flag at UNM), think about ALL the costs of this pointless disaster, costs that your kids will incur.

A Page Three War

2007-10-02T16:00:00.000-07:00

During the last week, the front section of the ABQ Journal (J) declared several times that “progress” was being made in Iraq, climaxing today with headlines like “War Deaths Fall in Iraq” and “1 Soldier Killed Monday.”

Apparently, to the J, the 64 Americans killed in September represent progress. The J did not run one picture of a US death. The J always refers to US dead with one sentence -- a few black and white symbols. Where are the coffins? Where are the destroyed families?

It is so much easier to ignore a war whose dead occur only on page three. About ten Americans are wounded for each death, and with today’s advanced medical technology, the reported “wounds” are exceedingly brutal and life-changing.

This is now the longest war in US history. It is bankrupting our country’s treasury, spirit and reputation, just like Vietnam. The J bears much of the responsibility.

A Celebration of Idiocy

2007-09-23T15:41:00.000-07:00

Sunday's Journal (J) achieves new heights of mediocrity. Section A spends over a FULL PAGE on a story about a Texas man who (gasp) falsified his identity so that he could play in a couple of celebrity golf tourneys. Really! One cannot make this stuff up.

It is a miracle that the foundations of Western Civilization held in the face of such catastrophe.

Why should the J print valuable information, when they can spend a FULL PAGE investigating celebrity golf tourneys?

Sigh . . .

War: What Casualties?

2007-09-23T15:04:00.000-07:00

In the first three days of September, seven Americans have been killed in Iraq, but you would never know it from reading the Journal (J). US casualties have either gone unmentioned or were just one sentence buried in other stories. The history of the war, as told by the J, is almost completely missing. Afraid of the death, blood and pain of the war, the J refuses to show images that would document American and Iraqi deaths as well as the huge numbers of badly wounded and displaced. Why? The J follows the blind dictates of its antiquated, conservative publisher, a staunch Republican. Pictures might reveal the truth of this senseless, stupid, futile destruction of so many young people.

Journal Beats Drum for MORE WAR!

2007-09-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

The Journal(J) continues to beat the Iraq war drum while minimizing the war’s costs, particularly the sacrifice of eight brave U.S. troops yesterday.

After yesterday’s Journal front page gave prominent coverage to Bush, his intention to keep the surge going and “progress” in Iraq, today’s front page IGNORED the death of EIGHT U.S. soldiers, burying the story on page three in three small paragraphs at the end of an article that was mostly about other Iraq issues.

However, the J gave top front page coverage to a very tentative, preliminary plan to bring water to Santa Fe, not to mention a totally unimportant story about a B-52 flying around with (gasp) nuclear weapons on board. What a shocker!

To put this into perspective, imagine what the Journal would do if EIGHT POLICE OFFICERS WERE KILLED? Imagine the banner headlines, multiple stories draped in black with pictures of the slain, the dead’s biographies and intimate and, if available, the gory details.

RESPONSIBILITY: The J’s refusal to meaningfully cover the details of this war’s cost (in blood and treasure) make it’s editors partially responsible for the continuation of this brutal, useless war, not to mention its unimaginable costs.

Oh, and 44 Iraqis were killed as well. Iraqi deaths are twice as high this year as last. Hmm . . . I guess the J could cover that, too.

Sigh.

Sigh.

Journal Fails Again (Yet)!

2007-08-26T10:14:00.000-07:00

Today's "incomparable" Albuquerque Journal, buried this AP story inside today's first section:

"This year's Iraq troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago."

The J edited the story to soften the impact and did not run the accompanying pictures. It can be found at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070825/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead

What does it take to make today's front page? Answer: a major league fluff story (with expensive graphics), about a virtual world website. Yes, I am not kidding--a website. The story was noteworthy only for its lack of organization, failed transition and elementary grammar errors.

Iraqi casualties have DOUBLED since the surge! And, this is a conservative estimate. So much for Cheney's argument that if we left or cut and run or whatever today's PR term for surrender is, there would be a "bloodbath." How much worse than 62 deaths a DAY can Iraq get? Heaven forbid that the J might point out the astounding death toll in a meaninful way, rather than advertise a website. Please, Mr. Cheney, define bloodbath.

I wonder what the Journal would do if daily U.S. casualties doubled . . . probably put it in the second section. Heaven forbid that readers realize the level of slaughter in this endless war . . . Sigh.

Call Ripleys: A Positive Richardson Article

2007-08-15T08:24:00.000-07:00

For the first time in recorded history, the Journal (J) ran a positive article about Bill Richardson. In the front page, above the fold article, Jeff Jones put a surprisingly human, friendly and confident face upon the Governor’s campaign for the Presidency, including a large and warm picture. One wonders if T. H. Lang was on vacation and if Jones will still have a job after Lang reads it.

Worst Iraq Day: Worst Journal Reporting

2007-08-15T08:22:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the worst casualty day in Iraq this year, both for U.S. troops and Iraqis. When all things are considered, the sophistication of five separate attacks, involving stolen tank trucks, the use of stolen uniforms, destruction of a major bridge and NINE U.S. dead, it was probably the worst day in the Iraq conflict since Bush declared, “Mission Accomplished.”

This story should have been on the FRONT PAGE, but the Journal (J) felt like the possible return of radio shock jock, Don Imus, was more worthwhile . . . sigh.

Jounal Continues Skewed Priorities

2007-08-13T06:30:00.000-07:00

In a perfect storm of tabloid excess, this weekend’s Journal (J), solidified its lead as New Mexico’s number one newspaper impersonator. It spent its front page on Friday and Saturday pillorying Bill Richardson, Sunday hysterically fear-mongering a white supremacist prison gang, and Monday lauding one of its most publicized projects—no, not health care for children, not the ruinous cost of our misguided war on terror, nor the botched Republican economic policies, but, yes, what the J sees as Albuquerque’s number one problem—THE LANDSCAPING OF ALBUQUERQUE’S INTERSATE HIGHWAYS. . . sigh.

On Saturday, one of the J’s most slippery propagandists, Leslie Linthicum, who previously wrote a four part “biography” of Bill Richardson, took off the gloves and blasted the Governor for the second day in a row on the front page for his mistaken comment in the gay and lesbian debate on Thursday. Despite the governor’s immediate statement that he had misheard the question and the debate moderators concession that he had done a great deal for their cause, Linthicum poured it on, citing every possible source of criticism and giving Richardson little credit for his considerable efforts in this area. Could it be that Linthicum and her co-writer, Michael Coleman, reflect the homophobic bias typical of the right wing, religious, Republican tabloid (Can you say Fox?) and radio nut cases that the J seeks to emulate? Surely, Rush Limbaugh liked it.

On Sunday the Journal used a large headline and rare red print to inform New Mexico that the Aryan Brotherhood IS COMING! In a lurid style reminiscent of the recently defunct “Weekly World News” (which gave us Bat Boy and space alien abductions galore), the J scraped up sketchy details about a gang which MAY be a threat, MIGHT have committed crimes in NM and MIGHT threaten you if you live to be a million years old.

But, the J’s Pulitzer moment was today’s, above the fold, color photo of bulldozers beautifying the big I interchange. What a heart warming cause for a major metropolitan newspaper! Early this year, the J devoted one of its rare multi-issue, front page stories to the interchange’s insufficient and boring landscaping. Never mind that the state legislature was debating far-reaching cuts to Medicare, the J alerted us to the inadequate esthetics of our concrete, asphalt and . . . yes, worst of all . . . gray gravel! Surely the J staff is walking a little taller today at this fruition of its efforts to beautify our environment. Undoubtedly, this is money well spent.

The Non-Human Costs of the Iraq War

2007-08-04T08:14:00.000-07:00

The Non-Human Cost of the Iraq War

Most horrified Americans recently discovered that 80,000 of our bridges are in as bad a shape as the one that collapsed in Minneapolis. Those who pay careful attention know that our whole infrastructure: education, energy, aviation, roads, railroads, anti-terror, drinking water, dams, waste disposal, health, pension and retirement systems are in desperate need of investment. Where has our money gone? One place is Iraq.

The Journal’s recent article, “War Funds Request At $147 Billion: Operations Estimated to Cost $1 Trillion by 2017” attempted to convey the magnitude of this war’s costs, but underestimated and left out essential information in the confusing subject of analyzing the cost of our several current wars.

This is critical knowledge for a public that must choose between candidates that represent a range of options for how to end the Iraq war.

Currently, we are actually fighting three wars, the general war on terror, the Afghan conflict, and the Iraq war. The latter should be considered as distinct from the others, both of which seem more justified than the occupation of Iraq.

The Iraq invasion of such a divided and volatile region has little prospect for long run success and, according to many experts, is actively harming our other attempts to fight terror. It is logical, therefore, to assume that money spent in Iraq is wasted.

Two rarely told stories emerge at this point: 1) this money is being borrowed and, therefore, added to the massive burden of debt going to our children; and 2) this money could be invested in the projects mentioned above that would improve our competitive advantage in the world economy and increase our quality of life.

The Journal’s article quoted the July 31, 2007, CBO report which stated that Congress has appropriated $421 Billion, just for the Iraq war, and it estimated that the White House will ask for $119 Billion for next year, totaling $540 Billion for Iraq.

Acceptance of these numbers should be tempered by the fact that all White House estimates to this moment have been unreliable. This week, when Congress asked Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, whether he agreed with the CBO estimates, he maintained that "we don't have that degree of certainty."

Indeed not, when Congress gave President Bush the authority to launch the invasion in March 2003, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted a quick victory and said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. When Lawrence Lindsey, a Bush adviser, estimated in 2003 that the war might cost $200 billion, he was fired!

The fact remains that even under the rosiest scenario -- an immediate and substantial reduction of troops – the war will cost a trillion dollars and, most likely, it will be more than two trillion.

One thing is certain; U.S. citizens will feel the fiscal pain of the Iraq war for many decades.

An enormous shell game obscures the war’s costs. How? It starts with the Fed's “cash” accounting system. “Accrual” accounting would force the government to carefully estimate all the future costs of the war that have already occurred, but as U.S. Representative Jim Cooper notes, “The budget of the United States uses cash accounting BECAUSE it gives you a very distorted picture.”

Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz notes, “The distortion is particularly acute in the case of the Iraq war. The cash costs of feeding, housing, transporting and equipping U.S. troops, paying for reconstruction costs, repairs and replacements and training Iraqi forces are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Costs incurred, but not yet paid, dwarf what is being spent now.”

The CBO estimates, reported by the Journal, are somewhat limited by these distorted accounting parameters. CBO can only do straight line estimates based upon past wars. It does not take into account the tremendous increases in severe wounds, brain injuries and the tenfold increase in post-traumatic stress-related conditions that are just beginning to be seen in huge numbers. At this time, the Veterans Administration has a backlog of 400,000 veterans claims.

For example, inprovements in body armor have resulted in over 7,000 veterans with severe brain, spinal, amputation and other serious injuries. They will require a lifetime of round-the-clock care. No one foresaw this.

The CBO puts a dollar figure on equipment that must be immediately replaced, but does not estimate the more difficult costs of the incredible of wear and tear received by durable military hardware such as ships, planes, trucks, hospitals, etc. As the Journal reported in May, our Air Force is wearing out.

The CBO does not take into account the costs to the taxpayer of increased oil prices that result from not only our increased military-related uses, but also the loss of supplies, high prices deriving from instability in the Middle East, and failed development of new wells in the Iraq region. Think about it, we are airlifting every one of 6,400 new mine resistant vehicles all the way to Iraq, burning oil and wearing out planes.

Higher priced oil is a direct and huge macroeconomic cost that is spread throughout the economy, everything from price of gasoline to higher cost food. Fears of oil-induced inflation also causes the Fed to raise interest rates. How many of the current epidemic of mortgage foreclosures would have been avoided if the Fed did not have to boost interest rates?

The CBO does not include increased costs of gaining new recruits to an already unpopular military (which is trying to expand) and increased interest payments on the war debt, especially if interest rates continue to rise. Remember, the prime rate hit 18% after the Vietnam war. Similarly, the difference between military wages and civilian wages for reservists and National Guard troops represents more lost income for the government.

And this does not include the intangible losses associated with lost service. For example, how much would have been saved if the 7,000 Louisiana and Mississippi Guard troops had been available to help after Katrina? Half the police forces in the U.S. now have people in Iraq. This costs taxpayers.

Lastly, it is sad to note, but the CBO does not account for the economic costs of lost productive capacity of the war’s dead and wounded, not to mention the lost tax income from those who would be working and paying taxes, but, instead, require payments from the general fund. And, this does not count the 600,000 dead Iraqis.

So, what could $2 Trillion buy? Almost anything. One example, according to Stiglitz, for somewhere around a quarter of the cost of the war in Iraq, we could have fixed all the problems associated with Social Security for the next 75 years and still have had a lot left over. One quarter.

Aug 2: Ludicrous Estimate of War’s Cost

2007-08-02T08:14:00.001-07:00

In printing “Operations [for the whole war on terror] Estimated to Cost $1 Trillion by 2017” on the front page, the J deliberately misled its readers with an estimate that is ABSURD.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that Congress has ALREADY appropriated more than $ 600 Billion.

In January two Nobel Prize winning economists estimated the “real” cost of the war (including future veteran benefits, replacing worn out equipment, etc.) at $2 Trillion. With the Surge’s additional costs, those estimates would certainly be higher today.

Back to the J fantasy, the White House estimates we will spend $ 150-170 Billion next year. That is three quarters of a trillion ALREADY.

Would anyone in their right mind believe that the next TEN years would only cost another $ 250 Billion? Obvously, we must leave the J out of the “right mind” category.

Also, one must wonder why the article has no background . . . like the White House original estimate that the war would cost $50 Billion. Or, how about Wolfowitz’s statement that Iraq’s oil would pay for the war??

Aug 1: New Standard for Incompetence

2007-08-02T08:12:00.000-07:00

The J article, “U.S. Troop Deaths Decline,” set a new standard for journalistic duplicity and incompetence. And for the Journal, that is a high bar to surpass.

While Wednesday’s Journal COMPLETELY IGNORED the six U.S. troops which died in Iraq on Tuesday, it ran another irresponsible story which continued the J’s attempt to promote the war as “improving.”

Yes, it is true that less U.S. troops died in Iraq in July than in the previous seven months, however, more of our soldiers died in this July than in ANY PREVIOUS JULY in five years of Cheney and Bush’s tragic war.

How misleading can the Journal get?

Today's Journal: Hiding Alcohol Ads' Danger to Our Kids

2007-07-27T05:55:00.000-07:00

The Journal's lead story, “Teenagers Prefer Hard Liquor” by Olivier Uyttebrouck, dutifully reports the results of a CDC study showing a new and recent change in teen preference for hard liquor over beer and alcopops in teen alcohol consumption.

However, Uyttebrouck fails miserably when he tries to fathom a REASON for the switch.

Uyttebrouck brilliantly reports that hard liquor can be mixed with . . . well . . . mixers . . . to make it taste better.

Uyttebrouck cleverly suggests that hard liquor could be easier to conceal than beer.

Uyttebrouck suggests that hard liquor might be easier to obtain or shoplift. (Or it "might" be passed out by little green men on St. Patrick's Day.)

Boring keenly to the heart of the dilemma, Uyttebrouck suggests that hard liquor makes people drunk faster. Wow, bio-chemestry, right on the front page of the Journal!

Great reporting, Olivier, but you missed the cultural boat.

FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS HARD ALCOHOL HAS BEEN ADVERTISED NON-STOP ON TELEVISION.

Since Smirnoff vodka aired the first hard liquor ad of the 21st century on Saturday Night Live on December 15, 2001, cable TV has saturation bombed our youth with hard booze ads, particularly on sports programs, and the comedy channel.

Tons of research, not to mention common sense, shows that advertising works. So how did Uyttebrouck miss this one?

Is he clueless, or is this just more of the Journal's blind, Republican, pro-business slant?

Coverage of Casualties/Lohan & Spears/Governor/Attorney General: Pathetic Tabloid Journalism

2007-07-26T08:24:00.000-07:00

Six, count them.

Six brave U.S. soldiers paid the ultimate price during the last three days, yet the Journal gave no coverage to their sacrifice.

None!

The J did, however, manage to print large articles about Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears each of the last two days. Truly, the J is trying to compete with the National Enquirer.

Nothing about our dead soldiers, but today’s J found room for a half page article, 14 paragraphs about the use of CATS as solace for terminal patients in RHODE ISLAND!

Is this valuable information for New Mexico citizens? Why this travesty?

Nothing could be clearer. Yesterday, the J painted a rosy future scenario of the Iraq war (see below). It was a large page one, above the fold article.

Today’s J gives one sentence to the near record breaking, MASSIVE SLAUGHTER of 88 Iraqis, over 200 casualties, proving the futility of the catastrophe in Iraq – giving the lie to a successful U.S. “new strategy,” so, of course the J ignored it. How self-serving.

No mention of our war dead. How sad.

In the last two days, the J gave 7 paragraphs to the Attorney General story while giving 24 paragraphs to Lohan and 20 to Spears. How trite.

The Associated Press, the J’s main information source, yesterday, revealed damning documents showing that Gonzales, the nation’s top law enforcement official, perjured himself before the Senate (again) and is refusing to prosecute the law, but the J does not even mention the story.

How propagandistic.

Journal Promotes War; Ignores Costs

2007-07-25T12:33:00.000-07:00

Well, I’m back from vacation, and the Journal (J) continues its typical pattern: A) pro-Iraq war; B) anti-Bill Richardson; C) pro-business/pro-development; and D) emulating tabloid style infotainment, reporting on celebrities and fluff.

For the last three days, the J continues to report only the most positive Iraq news possible. Today’s “War Plan: Hand Off To Iraqis By 2009” article suggests a rosy revised plan for the war and is full of conditional phrases like “envisions,” “appears to reflect,” “foresees establishing,” “probably would take,” “expect enough improvement” and “expect localized security by the summer of 2008.”

IS THIS SCIENCE FICTION?

The mind boggles that the J could print such hypotheticals after more than five years of rosy expectations of progress from this administration, which told us the war was over 1546 days ago. This article prints not one word from a responsible member of the opposition, what propaganda!

Most unfortunately, in its zeal to promote the administration war agenda, the J continues to ignore the details of the cost of this war, nothing about U.S. costs--not just in dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis, but in treasure.

Treasure, yes dollars, are crucially important because, according to Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, we have spent over two trillion dollars on this war. What does that mean?

A) That money is borrowed, indemnifying our children (mostly to China), and B) it has a HUGE OPPORTUNITY COST. It could have been spent on our crumbling infrastructure, fixing the Katrina losses, water programs for the Southwest, education, alternative energy research and development, or, Bush’s favorite, more gifts to the oil and coal industries.

Blog Editor Has to Eat Words

2007-07-09T07:36:00.000-07:00

I must admit; the J proved me wrong by publishing my blog article about the Transformers movie as a letter to the editor this morning.

Thus the J actually criticized itself (very unusual), and it informed citizens and parents about the marketing of a PG-13 movie to younger children (a common Hollywood practice) through over a hundred toys and advertising campaigns targeting kids under 13 and as young as two.

6.8.07 - Typical Attempt to Tar Richardson

2007-07-09T07:13:00.000-07:00

Sunday the Journal's lead was a huge story (over two pages) that listed every possible "shady" deal of NM oil man Johnny Cope.

Despite having no evidence of any wrong doing, the J cited every contribution to the Governor's campaign and other NM democrats. The J's "investigative reporter," Thomas Cole thus attempted to make a case that, somehow, the Governor was at fault for taking money from Cole. Indeed, for a Republican paper, the J seems to have an unusual problem with people who donate money to political candidates.

If you are scratching your head at this logic, you are not alone. Headlined "Tycoon Backs Governor All the Way," the article tried to make a case of guilt by association, even though the association was with a person who did nothing wrong. Surely, the J doth protest too much.

If this is the best investigative journalism the Journal can do, in a state rife with corruption (both Republicans and Democrats), perhaps the J should go back to doing front page stories on the need to landscape I-40.

Journal Continues to Support War

2007-07-05T11:38:00.000-07:00

In three separate articles today (one on the front page) the Journal gave large amounts of space to comments by the President, soldiers re-enlisting and others -- all implying that the Iraq war is worthwhile and making progress.

Our casualties, Iraqi casualties, and the mammoth costs of the war were not mentioned, even though June was the bloodiest month ever. 3,586 Iraqis died in June . . . real progress.

The Albuquerque Journal Markets Violence to Kids

2007-07-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

In a big front page graphic and A-8 story, the Journal again sells a product. Are they getting paid? The Journal could not even wait for its Friday Venue, where it usually promotes movies, but a day early had to advertise a much criticized, violent PG-13 movie, which targets children AS YOUNG AS FOUR.

The PG-13 movie, Transformers, pays for widespread and irresponsible marketing to preschoolers, so did they pay the Journal? The film, which opens on July 4, 2007, was rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language” by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

There are more than one hundred Transformers’ toys FOR CHILDREN UNDER SIX, and Transformer promotions by Kraft and Burger King are clearly aimed at young children with advertisements on children’s television programming rated appropriate for kids as young as two.

“It is extremely disappointing that Hasbro and DreamWorks would choose to promote a film to preschool children that the industry deems inappropriate for anyone under the age of thirteen,” said the Center for a Commercial Free Childhood's Dr. Susan Linn. “In their cynical attempt to wring every last dollar from one of this summer’s blockbusters, these companies have shown little regard for children’s well-being or parents’ desires to limit their children’s exposure to violence.”

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 129 Hasbro Transformers toys reviewed by the CCFC came with a recommended age YOUNGER than thirteen.

Seventy-two of these products (56%) are recommended for children as young as FIVE; an additional thirty-two toys (25%) are recommended for children as young as FOUR; thirteen toys (10%) are recommended for children as young as THREE. A toy promotion at Burger King is also for children THREE and up.

Not one word about this widespread and easily available criticism appeared in the Journal.

Are they: 1) bought; 2) lazy; or 3) stupid?

Hey, Journal, what happened to those good, old fashioned, Republican family values?

More Attacks on Richardson

2007-07-05T09:31:00.000-07:00

Albuquerque’s “leading” newspaper again attacks Bill Richardson, using the “money association” game. By reporting the “higher” salaries of three cabinet level officials and that some of the money comes from UNM and NMSU, the Journal utilizes a subtle ad hominem attack.

Keep in mind. None of the three have done anything wrong. Nothing is mentioned about the quality of their work. The McCarthyesque attack merely suggests indirectly that something must be wrong.

The Journal quotes their favorite political hacks, notably Roswell Democratic, Tim Jennings, who is usually sought for quotes attacking the Governor. It’s a great deal for the Journal, putting unsupported opinion in their lead story, instead of on the editorial page where it belongs.

Journal Doublespeak on Libby

2007-07-04T12:52:00.000-07:00

Today, a Journal editorial came out against the commutation of Lewis Scooter Libby's sentence. It seems that the Journal editors did so grudgingly.

After two days of stories, including yesterday’s lead, justifying and minimizing the President’s action, the Journal ran a small editorial condemning it. The editorial was second to one examining Sandoval county’s wireless network.

The totality of the Journal’s efforts have failed to give the details or main points of those opposed to the President’s decision. For an excellent summary of those points, I recommend:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

Why did the Journal feel that it must give token disapproval to the Republican President’s efforts to ensure Libby’s silence about White House involvement in multiple felonies? It is simple. Fully 60% of the country opposes the President’s actions, including 40% of Republicans. Now, the Journal can say they were being fair . . . kind of like Fox News, you know, "fair and balanced."

Far Right Bias In Lead Story

2007-07-03T06:32:00.003-07:00

Today, the Journal’s lead story on Scooter Libby pounds home the “excessive punishment” right wing talking point four times before the reader gets to the third paragraph. One has to turn to page six before the Journal mentions any competent criticism of George Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence before he has served even one day. Note that many conservatives do not condone pardoning crimes.

Remember when the Journal mounted a daily attack against President Clinton for his alleged “perjury” and “obstruction of justice?” Somehow these crimes are not so important to the Journal today.

34 Letters: None Critical of Journal

2007-07-03T06:13:00.000-07:00

Today the Journal published its Tuesday "shotgun" approach to letters to the editor, and the approach is symbolic of the Journal’s approach to journalism. By publishing 34 short, venting screeds, the Journal manages to look like a paper of the people, but keeps details from the people.

The tactic taps into the emotional feelings so typical of talk radio – no detail, no qualified spokespeople and, most importantly, NO CRITICISM OF THE JOURNAL. Unfortunately, there is also no information that is sorely needed by citizens in a democracy.

Misleading Headlines

2007-07-02T09:04:00.001-07:00

Anyone reading today’s Journal quickly would probably think that things are going better in the U.S. war effort. “Civilian Deaths in Iraq Fall” (A-1 above the fold) and “NATO Quashes Taliban Spring Offensive” (A-5). To the Journal’s credit, the Iraq article’s subhead is “U.S. Casualties up since Operation Began,” and the record level of our soldiers’ attrition is noted.

This is the second day in a row the Journal has put our soldiers’ sacrifice on the front page, a crucial story for keeping our citizens informed about one dimension of the horrific cost of this war.

The Afghanistan headline is misleading, as the body of the article actually shows that we have many military problems there, and things are not going well. Additionally, any article on this war needs to mention the Russians military disaster in Afghanistan, as the Taliban resurgence ominously builds up again. These folks have beaten great powers before!

‘Impressions’ are important, and one has to read closely to absorb the details in both articles indicating the long term problem that both wars represent.

The articles provide no hint of the historical and political morass that our involvement in both countries represents, not to mentions the fact that almost all observers, including former and current military men, believe that there is NO MILITARY solution to these conflicts.

More importantly, the articles do not suggest that when (if) we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the region will undoubtedly remain unstable and bloody, as it has for centuries.

The Iraq headline could have more accurately read, “‘Progress’ in Iraq?: At Heavy Cost.” The Afghanistan HL could have read, “Illusory Gains Against Taliban.”

Lastly, one continues to wish for the Journal to run a page one series on the totality of the cost of these wars, balanced against the probability that all our blood and treasure are being wasted.

6.30.07 – Improving Coverage: Slaughter of U.S. Troops Noted on Page One, But . . .

2007-06-30T07:59:00.001-07:00

The Journal finally wrote a front page article recognizing the incredible recent slaughter of U.S. troops in the Iraq war – 329 killed in three months. (Maybe, this blog is helping the Journal.)

Unfortunately, the story was not above the fold nor the lead article; those were reserved for Bill Richardson’s campaign finances and a fluff story about a stupid meth dealer. The latter might have deserved page one of the B-section, but never a lead news story.

Now, if the Journal would run a series of stories about the costs of the war – troops, Iraqis and the incredible $$ costs, the public might better informed. And why not? After all the Journal ran a front page series about beautifying I-40!

The Journal obviously thinks it needs fluff leads to survive (note first blog entry below).

One also wonders about the Journal’s continuing emphasis on the amount of money raised by Richardson. Why the “7 Million” headline, similar to other page one stories?

The Journal obviously does not like Richardson. Do they think his $$ raising tars him with the evil of campaign contributions?

6.30.07 – Improvement: Slaughter of U.S. Troops Noted

2007-06-30T07:59:00.000-07:00

The Journal finally wrote a front page article recognizing the incredible recent slaughter of U.S. troops in the Iraq war – 329 killed in three months. Maybe, this blog is helping the Journal.

Unfortunately, the story was not above the fold or the lead article; those were reserved for Bill Richardson’s campaign finances and a fluff story about a stupid meth dealer which might have deserved page one of the B-section, but never a lead news story.

Now, if the Journal would run a series of stories about the costs of the war – troops, Iraqis and the incredible $$ costs, the public might better informed.

The Journal obviously thinks it needs fluff leads to survive (note first blog entry below).

One also wonders about the Journal’s continuing emphasis on the amount of money raised by Richardson. Why the “7 Million” headline, similar to other page one stories?

The Journal obviously does not like Richardson. Do they think his $$ raising tars him with the evil of campaign contributions?

6.29.07 – Journal Bias Revealed

2007-06-29T05:43:00.000-07:00

Front Page: above the fold: “Family Awarded $54M in Death: Nursing Home ACCUSED of Failing To Help Woman” [emphasis added]

Please note, the jury did not just “accuse” the giant corporation (who routinely abused patients), the jury “FOUND THEM GUILTY.” This is not just a semantic difference; subtle media differences like this build the unfounded public perception that crazed juries are constantly rewarding undeserved people.

How else might this article have been headlined? How about, “Jury Hammers Sleazy Corporation Who Killed Elderly, Innocent Woman?”

Front Page: above the fold: “One Day, two miracles”

We all love fluff stories, and this one is heart-warming, but, really, a wife of a deceased soldier getting her car back and having a baby is, at best, a page two story UNLESS the Journal were to emphasize that the real and enduring tragedy here is the useless death of her husband.

Sadly, he, like so many who died in Vietnam, will go down in history as part of a war that merely added to the chaos of a region that has been chaotic for centuries, however this would never occur to the Journal, so steeped in right wing bias.

6.28.07 - Iraqis are People, too

2007-06-28T06:10:00.000-07:00

At last, the Journal increases the visibility of the slaughter of Iraqis in our stupid and incredibly expensive war. It notes that 60 Iraqis died yesterday, but it somehow failed to mention that this is a DAILY occurrence and, by no means, the worst!

Certainly, one doubts that the Page EIGHT story about the 60 slain Iraqis does justice to the plight of this nation that we have decimated.

The Journal has yet to publish a front page article about the extent of the cost of our war to the Iraqi people who may be enjoying freedom, but are immeasurably worse off than they were before our unprecedented and unwarranted war of aggression.

Estimates are that 300,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis have died for Dick Cheney’s petroleum pipe dream. Over 2,000,000 Iraqis have fled the daily violence and brutality.

Somehow, these facts are not important to the Journal . . . Sigh.

6.27.07 - iProduct Placement??

2007-06-28T06:02:00.000-07:00

The Journal turns itself into a giant advertisement for Apple's new iPhoto with the lead story and a huge graphic on the front page, the second day in a row of large stories about the iPhoto.

One wonders, "Is this part of the product placement virus that is rampaging through mainstream media? Is the Journal just another desperate newspaper trying to avoid extinction by tabloidizing its front page?

Or, are we idiots for expecting the front page's lead story to be about . . . uhmm . . . "news?"

Improvement

2007-06-27T05:50:00.001-07:00

Sunday, June 26th's front page article totaling 28 soldiers killed in the war represents the closest the Journal has come to a front page article that recognizes the tragic human cost of the Iraq war (which the Journal never emphasizes).

The Journal has yet to point out to New Mexico taxpayers the astounding $$ costs of the war which, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, are over $2 Trillion.

Is the Journal a Tabloid?

2007-06-26T09:55:00.000-07:00

Paris Hilton and Tony Soprano were the Journal's lead stories above the fold on page one for three days in a row, June 9-11, 2007.

The news those three days contained many important stories, including the deaths of 11 U.S. service people.

On just one of those days, the Journal spent 29 paragraphs describing Tony Soprano's last show, while devoting only TWO SENTENCES to our valuable service people who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Dramatizing fluff news at the expense of valuable national or community stories has been a noticeable pattern with the Journal.

Devaluing brave soldiers while emphasizing Paris and Tony is not acceptable or ethical journalistic practice for the major news conduit of citizens in a Albuquerque.

Such practices have occasioned the formation of this blog.