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
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Dec 3: Front Page Says Water Plentiful!!
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?
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?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Outright Lies by Today's Journal
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.
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.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Journal Front Page Snubs St. Marks' Best Class
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.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Most dangerous country, but not to the Journal
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Slight of Hand Journalism
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.
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.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
What's Missing From J "News"
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Blind Bias
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
A Page Three War
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.
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.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
A Celebration of Idiocy
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 . . .
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?
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.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Journal Beats Drum for MORE WAR!
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.
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.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Journal Fails Again (Yet)!
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.
"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.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Call Ripleys: A Positive Richardson Article
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
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.
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.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Jounal Continues Skewed Priorities
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.
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.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
The Non-Human Costs of the Iraq War
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.
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.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Aug 2: Ludicrous Estimate of War’s Cost
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??
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
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?
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?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Today's Journal: Hiding Alcohol Ads' Danger to Our Kids
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?
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?
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Coverage of Casualties/Lohan & Spears/Governor/Attorney General: Pathetic Tabloid Journalism
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Journal Promotes War; Ignores Costs
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.
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.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Blog Editor Has to Eat Words
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.
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
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.
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.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Journal Continues to Support War
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Journal Doublespeak on Libby
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."
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."
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Far Right Bias In Lead Story
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Misleading Headlines
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.
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.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
6.30.07 – Improving Coverage: Slaughter of U.S. Troops Noted on Page One, But . . .
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?
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
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?
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?
Friday, June 29, 2007
6.29.07 – Journal Bias Revealed
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.
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.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
6.28.07 - Iraqis are People, too
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.
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??
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?"
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?"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Improvement
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 $$ costs of the war which, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, are over $2 Trillion.
The Journal has yet to point out to New Mexico taxpayers the astounding $$ costs of the war which, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, are over $2 Trillion.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Is the Journal a Tabloid?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)