Archive for category Lying
Some of the decision making abilities of our society have been purposefully confused by special interest groups who have misleading names. This has been a very successful strategy of right-leaning leaders in industry and government for many years because they know their interest in making more money, rarely if ever aligns with the average American’s real needs and wants, especially in the climate change arena.
A confusion strategy is used on bills introduced in congress and ballot issues too. You may know the name of a bill you want to contact your congressman about, but advertising on television and radio is sometimes dishonest. Added on, and last minute provisions, specifically designed to contradict the intent of a bill might even elude your congressman. It would be easy to introduce bills with names that simply give the aim of a bill, but that almost never happens today unless that bill is being introduced by Alan Grayson or Bernie Sanders.
But I thought of something the other day that really baffles me.
The supreme court has been arguing a case before them, concerning capitol punishment involving the agonizing death of an inmate due to an inability to obtain drugs from other countries that won’t sell them here, because of their opposition to capitol punishment.
Some states here allow assisted suicide as an end-of-life option. I haven’t heard of a single instance of that going bad. How did this get to the supreme court and why can’t the court see the obvious solution to this simple problem?
Media Matters for America asks a great question: Where’s The Media’s Ebola Mea Culpa?
Before the 2014 elections, broadcast and cable news aired more than 975 segments raising the alarm about the (extremely unlikely) danger of an Ebola epidemic in America. The story was quickly dropped after Election Day. One survey found that the people who were paying the most attention to the Ebola story were the ones least informed about it.
I’d suggest the news media’s collective malfeasance ranks not far behind the run-up to the Iraq War in terms of a fundamental failure to inform the public about a life-and-death issue. Thankfully, Ebola did not plunder the U.S. Treasury and cost thousands of American lives like the Iraq War did. But Ebola did require leveled-headed journalism, which was often missing.
Faux News Channel led the way, but most other media followed them with nonstop unfounded hysteria timed right before an election. When do we get an apology?
I watched “The Daily Show” last night, and it was obvious this would go viral. Of course, there’s really no way to tally all of the Faux News Channel’s lies. It’s a constant stream every day.
Cenk Uygur’s rant is worth quoting:
People think that Brian Williams is the problem because he exaggerated a war story about Iraq? Are you kidding me? The whole war was based on a monstrous lie that almost the entire media enabled and perpetuated. That’s the real problem.
If the rest of the press scapegoat Williams and feign righteous indignation over his lie, as they are in the middle of doing now, it will be unbearable. Where were all of those people when we were being sold a bill of goods on Iraq? Oh I know, on air. They sold us those lies en masse. So, please don’t pretend you have integrity now. Please don’t pretend that the real problem is an exaggeration about a tiny story in the middle of the war.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for 9/11 when we invaded Iraq. That is the biggest failure of the media I have ever seen. Has anyone apologized for that yet? Has anyone been fired for that yet? If you want to fire all of the executives and editors who let that lie be sold to the American people through their media outlets, then I’m 100% with you. Then we can also fire Brian Williams.
I have nothing to add, except the furor over Brian Williams really pegs the absurdity meter.
David Westin: Brian Williams’ Lies Are ‘Miniscule’ Compared To Iraq Lead-Up (Video)
Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down. The amazing Faux News Channel lie about the supposed existence of European “no go zones” where Sharia law applies and non-Muslims can never set foot wasn’t simply a mistake by one so-called “terrorism expert.” They are professional liars, it’s what they do!
To be fair, after two weeks of repeating the “no go zone” lie across multiple programs, Faux News offered an extremely rare on-air apology admitting there is “no credible information” for what they claimed was an everyday fact of life in England and France. But not before Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal latched on to this, with incredibly bad timing.
Fox ‘Expert’ Totally Wrong But How The Internet Responds Is A Thing Of Beauty (Video)
CNN Correspondent Confronts Bobby Jindal Over False Comments About Muslims
Fox Host Apologizes For Letting Muslim “No-Go Zone” Myth Go “Unchallenged And Uncorrected
French Comedians Parody Terrified Fox Reporters In Paris ‘No-Go Zones’
Self-styled “terror expert” Steve Emerson set off a sort of global laugh track last week when he claimed that parts of the United Kingdom had been completely taken over by Muslims, and that the city of Birmingham no longer allowed non-Muslims to enter. Emerson’s fact-free rant spawned the Twitter hashtag #FoxNewsFacts, prompting users to conjure up outlandishly satirical tales that mocked with the farcical quality of Fox News analysis. “When I heard this, frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fool’s Day,” British Prime Minister David Cameron said of Emerson’s remarks. “This guy’s clearly a complete idiot.”
…Emerson is a shadowy figure who levels ridiculously defamatory claims against Muslims on a regular basis, reaping millions of dollars in profits in the process. His analysis is highly suspect, and yet he has been repeatedly called upon as a knowledgeable witness by government officials. The question is whether the snafu that made him the object of global ridicule finally end his status as “expert.”
Maybe Emerson is a complete idiot, but he’s apparently smarter than the people who pay all that money to his “Investigative Project on Terrorism.”
Via Media Matters.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a bill approving the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Virtually all the Republicans and 28 Democrats voted for this foreign-owned project, which is likely to impose significant environmental costs, cause an increase in American gasoline prices, and contribute to global warming. The proposed 1,200 mile dirty oil pipeline would carry bitumen — a tar-like substance mined from the Alberta tar sands, chemically diluted, and heated to improve flow — at high pressure across Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to Gulf Coast refineries. Existing pipelines of this type spring dozens of leaks every year, and the mess is much more difficult to clean up than a crude oil spill.
Why allow this? Right-wing propagandists insist that Keystone XL will create “42,000 jobs.” This is false.
The State Department concluded that the Keystone XL project will result in just 50 jobs, including “35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors.” Further, their report stated that spending on the project would support only 3,900 temporary construction jobs if construction lasted one year and just 1,950 temporary construction jobs if construction lasted two years.
President Obama has threatened to veto the congressional attempt to force the issue, however he seems to be keeping the option open to ultimately approve this disastrous project.
In a rapid vote yesterday, the House directed the Congressional Budget Office to use “dynamic scoring” — a Washington term of art to describe imposing conservative ideology upon the once-neutral task of measuring the budgetary impact of legislation.
…The new, “dynamic” CBO will be systematically biased to make conservative proposals appear misleadingly cheap and liberal proposals misleadingly costly to the public fisc.
There’s a good chance we’ll never see the $50 million, 6,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture during the Bush administration. Today they are releasing a heavily-redacted 480-page executive summary.
The report, which was completed two years ago, found that torture did not lead to actionable intelligence. “Did we torture people? Yes. Did it work? No.”, says Senator Angus King (I-ME), a member of the committee. The Senate investigation also concluded that CIA torture techniques were far more brutal than previously known, and that the agency (including then-CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden) lied to the White House and Congress when they asserted torture thwarted specific terrorist plots, and falsely claimed terrorists were captured as a result of torture.
It has long been known that torture is not an effective means of acquiring intelligence, yet the Bush administration authorized, conducted, and promoted an illegal torture program in our name. There will be no accountability on the part of those who authorized and conducted the torture regime, we know that already.
The 5 Most Damning Revelations From The Senate’s Report On Bush-Era Torture
Obama Responds To CIA Torture Report: Enhanced Interrogation ‘Contrary To Our Values’ “Rather than another reason to refight old arguments, I hope that today’s report can help us leave these techniques where they belong—in the past.”
Faux News primal scream therapy: “The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome!” says Faux News pinhead Andrea Tantaros.
UN human rights expert: US legally obliged to prosecute senior Bush officials for torture crimes
Reminder: George W. Bush Said The U.S. Didn’t Use Torture
CIA Still Argues That Torture Worked David Kurtz: “So long as the CIA continues to assert that torture (though it doesn’t use that word) yielded actionable intelligence, I don’t see how you can call this a closed chapter in American history.”
This goes way past irony: The One Man Jailed For CIA Torture Tried To Expose It
Happy Thanksgiving, one and all. Don’t let right-wing lies ruin your Thanksgiving dinner. Media Matters offers this handy Thanksgiving Survival Guide.
No matter what political stripe you are, you are excited about Obama’s fierce defense of Net Neutrality lately. The problem is that he is standing up for something he can’t personally affect. It’s the FCC that will make that decision and the big downer is that the man Obama appointed to head the FCC , (Tom Wheeler), used to be a cable lobbyist.
Anyway, the best debate you’ll probably hear about the issue was on the Diane Rhem show from November 12th, since I don’t think there’s any way a public hearing will take place. The last time the FCC did that, it was an embarrassing spectacle for the commission as they faced an auditorium of very angry citizens back in the Bush days.
Diane likes to have a fair discussion, but I thought I could tell what side she was on. It’s not hard to be on the side of “Net Neutrality” because 4 million Americans have sent letters to the FCC about the issue, and I can guarantee you that a tiny fraction of the letters were for letting internet providers discriminate about the speed of the websites we choose.
It was a sensible discussion except for one panel member who was obviously there to bolster a corporate controlled internet. he’s Rob Atkinson, the president of something called, “The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation”. I get weary when ever I see the word innovation these days, because it usually means something like ‘get out of the way little man; we’ll decide what’s best’.
Atkinson doesn’t waste much time using the fear of government meme so popular with liars these days.
All the major carriers, Verizon, Comcast, all the rest of them have committed never to block legal content, never to degrade legal content.It’s a red herring that the other side is doing because what they want is they want a regulated utility model and ultimately they want a government-owned model. That’s their game.
MARVIN AMMORI, (attorney in private practice, affiliate scholar, Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet & Society):
… When you look at the people who have lined up against net neutrality, it’s just the big cable and phone companies and the organizations like Rob’s that got funding from them. That’s it.
I’ve never heard Diane Rhem prod all other panel members to give their opinion on whether another guest was lying before, but I was delighted to hear this part of the show:
In the famous case that Marvin’s talking about with what’s called the Comcast BitTorrent Case, Comcast did not block anything
So I think Rob is just trying to throw some fud out there. The FCC found that Comcast was blocking. We proved it.
No, they did not.
They did. It’s in the order. I litigated that decision. I argued that decision. I wrote the complaint in that case. And the CE…
Did they or did they not?
GIGI SOHN, (special counsel for external affairs, Federal Communications Commission):
Yes, they did.
They were slowing up…
The CEO of BitTorrent is a friend of mine and we collaborated the entire time during that case, both CEOs then and now.
Cecilia, did they or did they…
CECILIA KANG, (reporter, The Washington Post):
They did, they did.
I also thought it was funny that Atkinson was trying to make the case that most people really don’t care that much about high speeds after a question from a caller:
What is true is very, very few consumers will pay even 5 or $10 more a month for the next tier up. So there — I can get 100 megabits to my house where I live in Washington, D.C. I don’t get it because I don’t want to pay the extra. Most consumers are like that. They just won’t pay a few dollars more for high speeds.
…So the idea that people don’t want to upgrade, I mean, I would love, if I could afford, to get the fastest no matter what. Nobody would say no to that if possible.
Amen and amen Cecilia!
It’s an interesting debate and, as usual, the transcripts and audio can be found at Rehms site.
With the truth at your fingertips, it’s easy to call out right-wing lies wherever they appear. Try Mythopedia today: http://mythopedia.mediamatters.org/
The Cato Institute is once again peddling the myth that government assistance to low-income Americans IS TOO GENEROUS and it discourages them from working (“keeps them in poverty” as right-wingers love to claim, with false empathy).
Their method of analysis was debunked long ago by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Not only does Cato count certain benefits as income when the typical AFDC family does not receive them, but Cato also exaggerates the average benefit levels these programs provide.
By overstating the benefits and ignoring means-testing, right-wing ideologues are able to conclude that welfare beats working for a living at a low-wage job. If this were true, the logical next step would be to increase wages – but instead the right-wingers demand a reduction in public assistance.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Lying category.
Search One Utah
- Congress on Track for Another Government Shutdown (11)
- Conservatives Anti-Abortion Obsession Will Cause More Abortions, More STDs and More Misery (5)
- Larry Bergan: What’s that condom word I keep hearing about, Ken? If you want more STD’s, abortions and cancer deaths...
- Ken Bingham: STDs is an epidemic and the left’s obsession with creating the impression than sex comes without consequences is...
- Larry Bergan: Pat Bagley nails it with a cartoon and commentary: Since publishing this cartoon I’ve been called a Nazi, Dr....
- Faux News: Paying people for the hours that they actually work ‘undercuts work ethic’ (51)
- Kentucky Man Uses Birdshot to Solve Drone Problem (5)
- Lindsey Graham: Attack on Iran Better Than Diplomacy (10)
- He’s the Front Runner (15)
- Richard Warnick: How Donald Trump Is Causing the 5 Stages of Republican Grief While Republicans may try to attack Trump on issue...
- ‘We have to give America something worth voting for’ (32)
- Richard Warnick: In true Clinton fashion, she seems to have done what most people would regard as the wrong thing — but...
- brewski: Time to jail people for contempt: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-lambas ts-state-dept-for-slow-production-of-...
- brewski: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics -government/article29519419.html Something to vote against.
- John Ellis (‘Jeb’) Bush: Medicare Phase Out ‘A Winning Argument’ (22)
- Richard Warnick: Derp.
Tags2nd Amendment 2008 Election Alan Korwin ammo Assault Weapons Ban bailout Barack Obama BLM Bush california proposition 8 carl wimmer DeChristopher Economy education fox news gay marriage George W. Bush glenn beck Gun Control gun lobby guns hand guns Iraq John McCain Karl Rove kleck lies Mass Shootings Mormon church nra Obama Pro-Gun prop 8 Racism racist Republicans Rocky Anderson Salt Lake City Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting second amendment self-defense Tea Party Tim DeChristopher utah Video