A 72-year old man spent so much time on hold with a state unemployment agency trying to claim his benefits that he racked up a $700 cell phone bill, reports Jeremy Joyola of Eyewitness News 4 in Albuquerque.

Ernie Sanchez called the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, a government-run unemployment relief agency over a thousand times trying to get his unemployment money to cover his basic needs, but could not seem to get through. Now, he told Joyola, he has to use almost all of the benefits to pay his Verizon bill.

“It’s almost the same amount for two weeks of benefits that I was trying to get,” Sanchez said.

Joyola writes: “The bill shows Sanchez made 1,114 calls to the unemployment office in one month. Some days, it took hundreds of calls to get through — each call costing $0.45. When he would get through, he says he would be put on hold. One time, he was on hold for almost 3 1/2 hours.”

That one phone call cost Sanchez nearly $100, the article reports..

“I feel cheated in some way,” Sanchez said.

]]> http://pieceofshitcountry.com/2010/03/01/man-racks-up-giant-phone-bill-trying-to-claim-unemployment-check/feed/ 0 Guy B. http://pieceofshitcountry.com/2010/02/19/reader-debate-is-america-ungovernable-the-economist/ http://pieceofshitcountry.com/2010/02/19/reader-debate-is-america-ungovernable-the-economist/#comments Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:11:44 +0000 Guy B. http://pieceofshitcountry.com/?p=188 ]]>

Reader debate: Is America ungovernable? | The Economist.

Yes it is broken.  And yes it has become ungovernable.

It’s about time a publication such as the Economist treats the real larger problem of the forum in which public debate is conducted in America. It is however very disappointing to see that the Economist sides with the view that nothing out of the ordinary is going on.

In fact, Rome is burning.

For starters, You can not have a healthy democracy without an informed citizenry.  In this regard, US media institutions do not fulfill their important role as the fourth pillar of government.  They have been faced with a conflict of interest as they have become corporations and have been under growing pressure to interpret their statutory object ever more strictly (the object of the company is … to maximize profits.)  And as any decent fan of Spiderman will know from the not so endearing character Mr Paterson, Editor-in-chief at the Daily Bugle, “If it bleeds, it leads”.

With the FCC’s 1987 decision to repeal of the “fairness doctrine”, sensationalism led the way to greater profitability.  Media’s profit margins were no longer restrained by the obligation to inform the public in an honest and equitable fashion of events of public importance.  And so the deluge of asinine pundits and their deliberate shenanigans began their work in every home in America.

So the idea that a majority of American’s believe this or that, terrifyingly loses its force as a compelling argument.

I dare say that not all opinions are equal.  Some people indeed speak with more authority then others.  Those who have reached a position on a subject after considerable thought and information, do not have the same resonance as those who support Sarah Palin, for example because she’s “a mom” or “she stands for what America is”.   See their inability to explain why they support her her: http://bit.ly/8sVZ4Z They can’t because its like asking someone why they like chocolate or why they’ve fallen in love.  It is not a rational informed decision.

And so we must distinguish between between rational and emotional decision-making.  Both are very important in human behavior and both are indispensable, but they are also very different and more or less suitable for different exercises.  The science of pushing emotional buttons in conjunction with broadcasting technology has completely changed the democratic landscape.  On the Science of Public Relations (aka: propaganda) and its application to modern politics, see BBC’s 4 part special The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis.

So all the above is important to understand how intellectual lightweights have taken over congress in unprecedented numbers.  And that is a sacrilege to the venerable institution.  Those lightweights are more likely to be malleable to their corporate sponsors.  And so the vocation has become professionalized re-election.  Just as News chiefs are no longer in the business of informing but in the business of ratings, congressmen are not in the business of solving problems, but in the business of re-election.  And that requires first and foremost, financing.  See Lawrence Lessig’s efforts: http://bit.ly/5htaPc

In sports there is such a thing as fair play and we find it admirable.  A healthy sense that while we are adversaries, ultimately we’re all in this together, to play ball.  In politics too there has to be a minimum duty of care to debate and confront ideas fairly.  And this has all but disappeared.  Demagoguery is rampant.

Campaign Finance reform seems to be the absolute first step necessary for any change for the better.  Otherwise the countries immobilism will simply lead America to be crushed under its own weight, plundered by its wealthiest and outpaced by other nations to be reckoned with.  Considering America has half of the worlds fire power this should be a worrisome prospect for the entire human race.

Rome is burning and someone should start to cry “Fire”.

A douche or douchebag is a device used to introduce a stream of water into a body cavity for medical or hygienic reasons.

It is also

A fair representation of Rep. Steve King

Actual Photo Rep. King

Think Progress » Rep. King Fear-Mongers On Obama’s Plan To Close Gitmo: It Could Give 9/11 Mastermind A ‘Path To Citizenship’.

When Mike Gallagher said that Obama wanted to “bestow American citizenship rights to somebody from another country” who wants “to murder civilian Americans,” King claimed that closing Gitmo could put 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed “on a path to citizenship”:

KING: Let’s just say that, that, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, is brought to the United States to be tried in a federal court in the United States, under a federal judge, and we know what some of those judges do, and on a technicality, such as, let’s just say he wasn’t read his Miranda rights. … He is released into the streets of America. Walks over and steps up into a US embassy and applies for asylum for fear that he can’t go back home cause he spilled the beans on al Qaeda. What happens then if another judge grants him asylum in the United States and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is on a path to citizenship. I mean, I give you the extreme example of this.

Here are some words I was compelled to look up in the dictionary:

Integrity: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

Self-Respect: Due respect for oneself, one’s character, and one’s conduct.

Ok, I’m going to make one big assumption here, as a starting point.  I will be assuming that Rep. Steven King from Iowa’s 5th district, a walking, breathing human being with a pulse, actually knows that what he is saying is NOT TRUE.  It’s a bit of a shortcut to get to the good stuff, but I’d really rather not rummage through the possible pseudo-arguments that could support Mr Kings good faith.

Sidenote, if you’ll indulge me dear readership:  Dear Mr King, there is no fucking US Embassy inside the U.S.  – Dumbass.

Ok, moving swiftly along.  So he knows its Bull.  How did we get to this?

I mean Mr King was once a little boy, a little Stevie.   How exactly did this happen to him?  That’s what I find fascinating.  I mean what events, experiences laid the foundation for Mr King to think, “yeah you know what… I’ll just go ahead and make these types of statements because it serves my interests.”  Does anyone actually intend to grow up to become manipulative, deceitful, and intellectually dishonest.  Who romanticizes this?

No one.

So is it a “win at all cost” mentality, that taken to its extreme, is at the origin of this perversion?

Because indeed it is a form of perversion, these radio talk shows, that under the guise of reporting information to a public, in fact construct a deliberate phantasmagorical narrative.  What is worse, “public” servants, such as congressmen, participate in the practice.

And this makes me think that I should make an effort not to be so surprised.  Its always hard to recognize what is happening when you are in the midst of it.  In a round about way it reminds me of this great story my law professor once told my classmates and I when discussing the high point of Stalinist Great Terror.  He mentioned that an audio recording was found in the Russian archives, where at the end of Stalin’s speech the audience composed  of Stalin loyalist and members of Soviet intelligentsia broke out into furious applause.   The applause recorded was uninterrupted and lasted 48min.

48 min.  What could this possibly mean?  What was going on?  What could cause such a senseless exaggeration?  It was simply that everyone in the audience was looking at his/her neighbor and looking to spot the first one who would dare stop.   The fear of anonymous unsubstantiated and in fact even trivial denunciations that were current practice at the time even ended up affecting the duration of applause.  Simple explanation.  He who would be found less enthusiastic, might be noticed, might be reported and could disappear.  My point is that those people actually had to live and suffer that reality, as absurd as it was.  So that story should be remembered as a stern warning that mass delusions can be constructed again.

So I why do the people participating in sensationalist talk shows, politicians that choose to steer away from any approximation of the truth, why do they do it?  There must be a simple explanation.  Could it be the unbridled profit motive?

This week Fox News CEO Roger Ailes said proudly On ABC’s Round Table “I’m not in politics.  I’m in ratings.  We’re winning.”

Hey, there is an other good word for you:

Demagogue:  a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

What a shame.

—–

Just because I love this Steve King guy so much, I thought I’d quote him one more time in a different context.

On March 7, 2008, during his press engagements to announce his reelection campaign, King made remarks about Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and his middle name, saying:

“I don’t want to disparage anyone because of their race, their ethnicity, their name – whatever their religion their father might have been,” I’ll just say this: When you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States — I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam? I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror. Additionally, his middle name (Hussein) does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world. That has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They will be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says: Pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict. There are implications that have to do with who he is and the position that he’s taken. If he were strong on national defense and said ‘I’m going to go over there and we’re going to fight and we’re going to win, we’ll come home with a victory,’ that’s different. But that’s not what he said. They will be dancing in the streets if he’s elected president. That has a chilling aspect on how difficult it will be to ever win this Global War on Terror.” [37

What a Douche.

Man Infuriated By Overdraft Fee Jailed After Threatening To Rob Bank.

A 40-year-old Pennsylvania man is in jail after threatening to rob his local Bank of America branch in revenge for an overdraft fee.

Francis Coleman, an unemployed machinist from Bethlehem, called his local TV station Wednesday night and told them he wanted a camera crew to film him robbing the bank.

“Tomorrow I’m gonna get my satisfaction. I’m gonna rob the place,” Coleman said, according to WFMZ producer Dan Rinkus. “Satisfaction is going to be had, one way or another.”

Coleman complained to Rinkus that Bank of America sold his information to what he called a “credit assistance agency,” which took money from his account, leading to overdraft fees. Rinkus said that in a matter-of-fact tone, Coleman gave the address of the branch he intended to rob at 11 a.m. the next morning, and volunteered that it was near his house.

Now Coleman is in jail on $75,000 bail, charged with making “terroristic threats.”

This is crazy outrageous.

Right-wing media baselessly claim CIA has “diverted” resources to climate research | Media Matters for America.

Courts in Corpus Christi, TX have sentenced a young man to 8 years in state prison without parole for $7500 in graffiti damages. It does make you wonder if it’s a privatized prison with kickbacks to district judges that he’s going to doesn’t it?

YouTube – SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING – Interviews with Supporters.

I would love to put this side by side with footage of other indoctrinated crowds, especially those that gave raise to democratically elected tyrants.

The above footage gives the viewer a sense of mindlessness, a strong connection with the Limbic system.  Paraphrased by: “I support her, but I don’t know why.”  And the reason they can’t rationalize it, i.e.: put it into words, is because its not rational.  It has to do with an different part of the brain.  One that we indeed use everyday and that is very important, but not rational.

“I love my girlfriend.”  – “Why?”  “I just do. She’s nice and beautiful and I like to cuddle with her.  I love being in the same room, but I can’t really give A REASON.  I just do.”

Not the same as: “I purchased the latest Sanyo HD 2000 camcorder after reading several reviews.  Its got great value, lightest in its class, Dual video and stills, with flash, 8 hour battery autonomy which is plenty for my purposes and a 16 gigs replaceable memory card. “

Its just not the same process. Indeed, this distinction has been one of the great (though maybe not most desirable) discoveries of the 20th century.  It gave birth to the pyscho-analytic movement, techniques of propaganda, the focus group, and the massive public relations industry which has completely changed the relationships of power in Western societies and later around the world.  (See the life’s work of Edward Bernays and a fascinating 4 part series from the BBC titled The Century of the Self)

So then the question becomes: which is a better suited process, the emotional (Limbic) or the rational?  Are they both equally acceptable?  Is there something less valid about an opinion held, or a democratically cast vote on the basis of one process rather then the other.

Indeed I believe there is.  However we must construct that argument.  Rather then to challenge the Palin Book-Signing Crowd and their like, on issues, trying to say to them – rationally – “yes, but M’am, Obama is not a Leninist.  ‘Tsar’ is just a nickname given to special counselors chosen for their expertise in a particular area to keep the president up-to-date and provide advice. M’am I assure you, they have no autocratic power. They have nothing to do with Russia, (and even if they did it would be a pre-Communist Tsarist Russia). In fact and this term ‘Tsar’, this journalistic slang, has been coined in Ronald Regan’s days and has been used consistently through Bush I, Clinton and Bush II”.

That just wouldn’t do it.  It would not matter to them.  And even if it did, by the time you’d manage to explain it to one of them and demonstrate the gaping holes in their ‘logic’, 4 new mindless Palin supporter types will have been recruited as the process of indoctrination gains traction and indeed grows exponentially, as emulation takes place in Church groups, in front of the television and within communities.

And so two sentiments swell within us: for one, these people appear hopelessly lost to us, and secondly despite our lofty ideals, deep inside, we can’t get ourselves to respect their point of view.  One might think, “Man, I can’t believe these people get to vote!”  And so the alienation begins.

There is something of course laudable, egalitarian and valuable about the principle One Man One Vote. But are all things consented to, equal? We are likely to find something disturbing about the consent of one man who followed  David Koresh to a bloody shootout with the FBI.  Or an other man, being an inner circle member of The Order of the Solar Temple, who nodded approvingly at the leadership’s decision to approve mass suicide in two villages in Switzerland.  Both were  victims of psychological coercion that ultimately led to their tragic death.  So we can accept that consent is not the sure mark of free will.  And so we can work our way backwards and see that it applies to less extreme instances of psychological-coercion.  Indeed citizens that make choices and indeed vote on the basis of emotional (Limbic) opinions they formed through exposure to a massive propaganda machine must be in some way less valuable, less legitimate.

So what do we do?  We could imagine an entrance exam, demonstrating a minimum knowledge of issues, to qualify to register.  But that would offend the universal suffrage principal we hold dear.  Well, what must we do?  What can we do?

We must ensure that the landscape is fecund for democracy.  That it not be sabotaged.

To guard against sabotage, the priority should NOT be placed on debating the issues, because its not about the issues (that requires articulated reasoning, which we can see is absent). What motivates the Palin crowd is in a different realm then reason, its emotional.  And so, the priority should be placed on attacking the emotional source of the intellectual corruption.

Debating these people is like trying to fix the porcelain when the bull (or a bully) is still in the China shop.  First neutralize the bully that is breaking the China.  Then bring out the glue.  You can try to fix it, and indeed we should promote better information and education, but first you have to stop the propagandists.

Democracy requires an informed citizenry with a culture that promotes rational argumentation in decision making-processes and this is A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY. And indeed Fox News (and all sensationalist Media under the guise of informative outlets) is a danger to national security.  We must take that step and make that connection.  It is JUST THAT SERIOUS.

(but before we get to that, we need campaign finance reform.  But, that’s a different story).

You just have to read it.  Its hardly possible to imagine.  Talk about the Devil is in the details.  Its the myriad of intervening parties, relationships, funding, events, that crisscross each other so that it takes the patience and minutiae of a Swiss clock maker to put the puzzle together and see the picture for what it is. Big Kudos to Tim Dick Dickinson here.

One theme that can be picked up is the trend of small associations that take on a some grand name, usually with words like Freedom, Patriots, Transparency, that are surreptitiously serving the narrowest interests.  Groups that were set up and funded overnight by unscrupulous politico-corporate insiders and posing as spontaneous grass-roots movements.  The perfidy is ghastly.

I am not going to expand on this.  Rolling Stone’s The Lie Machine is REQUIRED READING.

]]> http://pieceofshitcountry.com/2009/11/24/the-lie-machine-rolling-stone/feed/ 0 Guy B. http://pieceofshitcountry.com/2009/11/09/c-n-n-rep-grayson-in-the-situation-room/ http://pieceofshitcountry.com/2009/11/09/c-n-n-rep-grayson-in-the-situation-room/#comments Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:47:42 +0000 Guy B. http://pieceofshitcountry.com/?p=106 ]]>

After his pertinent presentation to the House of Representatives, Rep. Grayson (D-FL) did the rounds of TV outlets.  On CNN’s The Situation Room he rocked the house.

The side note I would like to develop here concerns Wolf Blitzer’s reaction?  Wolf says to Grayson you can disagree with Republicans, “but to say that they want sick people to die quickly is a huge, huge insult.”  As a journalist, does Wolf really not understand or not know why Grayson is saying this?  Or is Wolf just playing pretend journalist?  Or pretend intellectual?

For starters, it would indeed be insulting, if it wasn’t true. Like the basic defense to defamation: a statement can not be defamatory if it is true.  On the other hand, of course Republicans don’t want sick people to die quickly as an aim in and of itself.  But they don’t want that in the same way that my boss’s wife doesn’t want to kill innocent helpless furry animals, but craves her full-length Chinchilla coat to go to the opera.  The aim is not directly to have sick people die quickly, the point is to please the Republican sponsors: BIG Insurance, BIG Healthcare etc.  If the sick die quickly, well that doesn’t hurt either.   But, lets leave it at that.  I will not attempt to defend Grayson here on the premise that “truth is an absolute defense” as Grayson himself rightly mentions.

What I want to know is why the three CNN political analysts are raising the issue as if it’s a shocker that Grayson’s making such a strong statement, being such a provocateur.  “Huge, huge insult”?  Like its coming out of left field.  What, is Wolf a teenage high-school girl?:  “OMG! I can’t believe you just said that. Like totally, OMG.”  Gloria Borger asks:  “What does your statement, on the floor of the House, do to raise the debate?”.    As if in some way Rep. Grayson is lowering the level of debate here?  Are you serious?  This is the response of CNN Senior Political Analysts?

You can not be serious, knowing that this summer Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) claimed in a speech before the House that the Democrats’ Healthcare reform would cause seniors “to be put to death by their government” (and yes thats a direct quote).  Its damn obvious why Grayson is being provocative.  Its because its about time.  What is this feigned surprise?  As if this Democrat is going too far, or hitting below the belt.

News channel correspondents should not explicitly take sides.  That’s a good rule of thumb – fine.  But not taking sides does not mean taking a position halfway between on the one hand those debating and reasoning and on the other the Representative from the 5th district of Crazy.  If you stay equidistant to two such reference points, you still end up in Mildly Loony Land and that doesn’t help move matters forward.

For the years now, Republicans have been irresponsibly hollowing Congress from the inside and showing complete disdain for the legislative process that should indeed be based on reasoned debate in good faith.  Here was a great opportunity for CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and his team to shut up and stand aside.  Maybe even show that this kind of rhetoric has been a trend and roll some tapes of Republicans own hyperbolic speeches.

And there are plenty of Republicans to pick from, like:

1) Republican Betsy McCaughey, former NY Deputy-Governor, who spearheaded the notion that Obama’s reform sought to encourage the sick to commit suicide or have them euthanized by the government.  Here on the Daily Show.

Also AARP’s thoughts about Ms McCaughey.   AARP is the biggest advocacy group for senior citizens.

2) Republicans such as Michele Bachmann suggesting the reform would leave care for the elderly and disabled at the bottom in the list of priorities.  She claimed that those pushing for reform believe “medical care should be reserved for the non-disbaled.”  She goes on “So watch out if you’re disabled…Every person lives through different stages of life rather than being a single age. Even if a 25-year-old receives priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 now was previously 25.”

Watch her Speech

3) Republicans such as Sarah Palin who on the heels of Rep. Bachmann, posted a comment suggesting the reform would entail Soviet Great Terror style “Death Panels”, which would decide whether elderly parents and babies with Down Syndrome, like her own, would live or die.  See Huffington Post.
Ultimately the above demonstrate the displacement of the essential ingredient for a democratic society, namely reasoned debate at the heart of decision-making, in favor of deceit and propaganda (for this see Al Gore’s wonderful book The Assault On Reason.  Excerpt here).

Specifically about the GOP, the best and most comprehensive piece I have found on the deliberate and orchestrated nature of this team of “knuckle-dragging Neanderthals” is in Rolling Stone Magazine by Tom Dickinson titled “The Lie Machine“.    Which deserves its own post on POSC.