A few signs of the times, & a calculated raise

I came across some pretty interesting signs of the times this week. The one above, via the Consumerist, was taken at a McDonald's drive-thru. It's not bad enough that the food puts you in the grave early if you eat enough of it, or that I feel horrible for days after eating it, but now I can't even get extra sauce to cover up the nasty taste of just about everything on the menu? Great - thanks for some recession love, ya bastards.

Of course, if McDonald's really wants to make things right, it would provide a crucifix (or, thinking cheaply, a prayer card) with each burger. And all food should be garnished with two Imodium™ tablets. Thus, short-term and long-term implications would be covered. Ahh, it never hurts to dream. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic - after all, what can we expect for a 99¢ burger?

More seriously, I'm sure you have all noticed a welcome trend leading up to the election...

I snapped this picture with my Blackberry™ Curve™ the other day on Kelly Dr. in Philadelphia. Pretty amazing that fuel prices have been plummeting leading up to election day. Gas prices have been steadily falling since late August, and in September they reached near free-fall status. They've been falling so far, in fact, that in some parts of Pennsylvania, including Berks County, where I work. On Friday, I noticed that a gallon was going for $2.75 in Kutztown, Pa., which would have been unthinkable even three months ago.

Heck, I was pleasantly surprised to see the price at left at a service plaza along the Pennsylvania Turnpike about a week ago, so my happiness has been spiking as the prices have been falling, especially since I commute 750 miles per week to my higher education job outside the Philadelphia 'burbs.

However, my point - I don't think the timing of falling gas prices is entirely coincidental. In fact, I think it's outright manipulation. It doesn't take a political scientist or pol to realize that Big Oil has big, BIG stakes in this election, and it's also pretty obvious which candidate Big Oil wants to see in the White House.

No matter who wins, I think we're going to see fuel prices rising exponentially after the election. The proof is already there to see, too; even energy groups are predicting rising heating oil costs this winter. Funny - gas prices are falling through the floor, as is the price of a barrel of oil, yet industry experts are predicting very high fuel oil prices. Do the math.

Something happened a few days ago that, in my mind, is a total manipulation of the government for political purposes -- the Social Security Administration announced a whopping increase of SS benefits.

From the Oct. 17 New York Times:

Social Security benefits for 50 million people will go up 5.8 percent next year, the largest increase in more than a quarter century. The increase, which will start in January, was announced by the Social Security Administration. It will mean an additional $63 a month for the average retiree, whose check will grow to $1,153 from $1,090. The increase is the largest since a 7.4 percent jump in 1982 and is more than double the 2.3 percent rise in January 2008. [Emphasis Mine]

First, I don't believe for a second that the Bush administration would ever enthusiastically give such an increase to retirees, unless it had plenty to gain politically from such a move. Conveniently, the announcement was timed to be 17 days from the Nov. 4 election.

The Bush administration, and most within the Republican Party, openly despise Social Security and have shown a propensity to do all it can to weaken the program, with the goal of ultimately eliminating it. Now, 17 days before the election, the biggest increase in benefits in 26 years is announced? I'm sure it's all just a coincidence.

Don't get me wrong - I'm totally for retirees getting a much-needed increase in their monthly checks. I'm just questioning the timing. Of course, if anyone in the White House press corps even had the temerity to question the timing, Dana Perino would scoff, saying, "the timing is totally coincidental." Yea, right. If Bush felt he could have gotten away with it, the increase would have been announced the Sunday morning before the election.

Just like the announcement of the verdict of Saddam Hussein was moved up weeks earlier than planned to the week before the '06 mid-term elections. When the then-White House press secretary, the late Tony Snow, was asked about it, he looked into the camera and said, with a straight face, that the administration "would never time such an announcement to interfere with an election."

There are other ways to manipulate the Social Security Administration, too, and the Bush administration is proceeding with full force. More on that a bit later.

35 years ago, + 1 day: the break-in

I meant to blog about this yesterday, but I was just too tired to blog after we got home from visiting my dad in the Poconos.

Thirty-five years ago yesterday, five men broke into the Watergate complex, home of the Democratic National Headquarters, and were caught by police after security guard Frank Willis noticed tape over a door latch (put there by the burglars to keep it from locking). The burglary touched off a cascade of events that led to the downfall and resignation of President Nixon.

Editor & Publisher had an interesting piece late last week about the anniversary that asks the question, "Would the Watergate story have been broken today?" A sample:

If Watergate had broken today, chances are someone would have posted a news story with inaccurate information too early, or the in-depth reporting needed might have been neglected in favor of quicker, more immediate, and more broad-interest scoops. That is not to say that the Post, still among the best daily papers and Web sites in the industry, would not have been on top of the story. But there is no doubt that online and immediacy demands of today could have impacted the careful, slow-building and meticulous coverage.

As for anonymous sourcing, it is clear the recent efforts to penalize confidential sources, and reporters who use them, may have an impact on reporting another Watergate today. Famed Deep Throat source W. Mark Felt, who helped guide Woodward during his parking garage meetings, may have felt more threatened with legal problems, and possibly jail, had he cooperated in today's climate -- as would Woodward and Bernstein.

Who knows, someone with a cell phone camera working in the parking garage might have snapped a photo of Woodward chatting with this unknown source. Or a blogger would have blown the whistle.

It's not an easy question to contemplate, because much of the cynicism and partisanship that exists today can be traced back to Watergate and Vietnam. (It's not a stretch to say that without Vietnam, there would have been no Watergate Scandal.)

The idealist in me likes to think that somehow the truth would still come out if such a political firestorm happened today, but the realist in me says "no way."

Why?

Because Watergate-caliber stuff has been happening in this country for over six years now, and because of the poisoned political atmosphere in Washington, the rise of Fox News and the pervasiveness of right-wing radio and the consolidation of our media, it's highly unlikely that such a scandal would be revealed today unless some major whistle blowers stepped forward.

In today's partisan atmosphere, can you imagine how harshly Woodstein would be crucified by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity? They'd be labeled "reporters with an agenda, out to get the president." Period.

And that's one of the main reasons why the Bush administration has gotten away with the mind-boggling things it has since January 2001 - when a legit news story comes out that's a major embarrassment to the administration, either the people reporting it get attacked, or the administration manipulates the media with another terrorism or War in Iraq story. Remember the timing of the Saddam Hussein verdict?

A few examples of the people who've been smeared: Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism chief from presidents Reagan through George W. Bush; former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill; the U.S. attorneys who were fired; a number of former army generals who served in Iraq; John DiIulio, the former head of Bush's stalled effort to aid religious charities; and Matthew Dowd, a former Bush staffer who played key roles in Bush's "victories" in 2000 and 2004.

Hey, the list goes on and on. The Karl Rove template on whistle blowers and defectors is simple - impugn the integrity of the turncoats, so at least the possibility is raised that they might be speaking out because of a missed-out promotion, or a political ax to grind.

So, in the end, I don't think Watergate could be exposed like it was from 1972-1974. Our mainstream media is too corrupted, consolidated and focused on pop culture pap, and very few journalists do honest, thorough reporting anymore. The norm now sadly seems to be "report now, and we'll correct it if we need to." In other words, report now, verify later, but only if someone screams and complains loud enough that we got the story wrong.

Think I'm being too cynical? Then you haven't been paying attention to the presidential candidates' press coverage so far, specifically on the Democrats. From Hillary Clinton's wardrobe and ancient marital problems to John Edwards' "$400 haircuts," the Dems, so far, have been subjected to a great deal of superficial, biased and irrelevant reporting.

On the flip-side, candidates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have largely gotten a pass. Giuliani, a man who has profited greatly and shamelessly from 9-11, made about $10 million in speeches last year, and his speaking contract demanded all sorts of ridiculous luxuries; use of a Gulfstream IV Jet among them, along with a $100,000 speaking fee. And the press is bitching about a $400 haircut? Please.

Anyway, Joe Strupp, the author of the E&P piece, ended with a note of optimism:

I'm not saying all is lost in the realm of true investigative journalism. A look at the recent Pulitzer Prizes found a welcomed return, in many categories, to investigative packages and stories, with news microscopes focused on issues ranging from housing scandals in Miami to oceanic problems in the Pacific.

Those are some good examples, no doubt, but I still maintain that in the age of infotainment, there is much, much more horrific and superficial journalism in our mainstream media than even adequate reporting.

Snow: "Crazy" we'd influence Saddam trial

When the going gets tough, the tough get better PR.

My prediction earlier today that Bush and his blowhards would be licking themselves all over about the Hussein verdict has come to pass, and there shouldn't be one person in American surprised by this latest PR gimmick.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, decried the assertion as "absolutely crazy" that the Bush administration had anything to do with the verdict being announced so close to the election. I'd be surprised if Snow's own mother would believe him. Bush and Snow are both fucking liars.

(According to Media Matters, Snow told CNBC on November 2 that the Saddam Hussein verdict "will be a factor" in the midterm elections.)

Consider these facts: this administration has a well-established track record of smearing anyone who stands in the way of it or its party holding onto power, both in the presidential election and in Congressional races (consider John Murtha, John Kerry, Max Cleland, among others); this administration wanted to prevent the 9-11 Commission from reporting its findings until after the 2004 presidential election; Bush said a few weeks ago, with a straight face, that he was never for "Stay the Course" when, over the past three years since the war began, anyone who has heard him speak on Iraq has heard him mutter that phrase; and how about the Valerie Plame Affair? Anyone remember Bush publicly stating that "anyone involved in leaking" in the case "would be fired"? Karl Rove has given public testimony that he was the source to some reporters in the case.

I could blog for three days straight about the lies of Bush and those who work for him. These people will do and say anything to stay in power. Now, we're to believe that it's a wild coincidence that the verdict was announced 48 hours before a critical mid-term election, when it's been widely reported that the verdict and sentencing wasn't due until mid-November? Umm Hmm. On to the ridiculousness. ...

According to AP, Snow said voters "ought to be heartened" by the verdict. "This is getting the Iraqis to stand up on their own. You can't have civil society without rule of law."

The hilarity continued when Bush resumed campaigning this morning.

Bush spun Saddam's conviction and sentence for maximum political effect. "They've sacrificed for the security of the United States," said Bush. "Without their courage and skill, today's verdict would not have happened."

"Today we witnessed a landmark event in the history of Iraq," Bush said on the campaign trail in Western Nebraska.

No, Mr. President. What we witnessed today was classic Wag the Dog. I hope and pray American voters, many of whom are fed up with your lies, deceit and failed policy in Iraq and at home, aren't fooled on Tuesday.