August 29, 2005
Bush vs. Truth and Reality
Why is it that when factual information about our government and our nation is made available to the American people, it is either covered up or the people making it available are immediately punished by the Bush administration for releasing it?
Bunnantine Greenhouse, the Haliburton whistleblower, reported that the procurement of no-bid contracts by Haliburton KBR for work in Iraq, was "the most blatant and improper contract abuse she has ever witnessed."
Her reward for complaining to her superiors and testifying before committee that a terrible and illegal wrong was being done? They threatened to fire her, which would end a thirty year career in the military.
Joe Wilson criticized the Bush administrations' exaggerations of the intellligence being used to justify our invasion of Iraq.
His reward for trying to prevent the deaths of thousands of people based on falsehoods? They "out" his wife as a CIA agent, compromising her ability to do her job.
Now we have Lawrence Greenfield, who was selected by Bush to head the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one of his agencies duties would be to track crime patterns and police tactics.
As Eric Lichtblau of The Times reported, Greenfield was demoted for complaining that the government was attempting to downplay the aggressive treatment of African American and Hispanic drivers by police officers.
His job was in jeopardy the moment his agency completed the study and found that police were aggressively targeting African Americans and Hispanics. It was not the reality that the Bush administration wanted to put out to the American people.
It is becoming harder to obtain the truth in part because those who dare speak it or question the Bush administrations view of reality, are squashed under the boots of this administration, who have always recognized that reality and the truth are detrimental to their agenda.
At first the National Socialist Party, who were right wing conseratives of their day, simply derided their critics, then they used the power of the government and police to harass and presecute them, later they jailed them and finally they resorted to killing them.
There are parallels here that need to be acknowledged.
Posted by: Razer Mackham at August 29, 2005 11:24 PMWhat is this fascination that the Dems have with the Nazi’s anyway…sounds like they should all move to Canada.
Paranoia reigns myopically supreme…
So, discerner, you’re not even going to address the issue Andre brought up, and just trash-talk Dems? Typical.
And how do you know Razer is even a Democrat? He sounds more like a libertarian concerned about the Bush administration’s approach to civil rights.
Everything you are saying is true and goes much deeper at every level of government. Same with the news. GW only answers the reporters that ask the questions he wants asked. Everything is carefully orchestrated at his news conferences. Too much power and not enough checks and balances. We are being bullied. Plain and simple. Fear tactics. But I do feel that more people are becoming aware and are daring to stand up. Eventually the voices of the brave that do will be heard. Various groups that realize what is going on (the truth) need to unite to have a strong united voice. It is beginning to happen and people’s eyes are opening, thanks to those of us who refuse to keep them shut. Good article, but the neocons will rebut it with rhetoric I’m sure. They can NEVER admit when they’re wrong.
Posted by: Donna at August 29, 2005 11:56 PMLoL
Eric Lichtblau?
Did you provide a link to this report or to the article that ‘Eric Lichtblau’ wrote? I understand why, Eric is no enemy of biased reporting as long as it’s liberal. For a list we just take a look at the Times Watch website
As for the report, I have a huge problem with statistics like this if they are not presented in their proper light. It’s similar to saying that a company has X number of blacks working for them without evaluating why (ie, how many applied, how many were qualified, etc).
The study proves only what the numbers show from the statics gathered. But what do they tell us? Why were more hispanics and blacks arrested? Was it because they were black or hispanic? OR was it because they had outstanding warrants more often, or were here illegally, or bought into their leader’s constant suggestions that they are going to be mistreated so they act defensively with the police and cause the police to be suspicious?
We don’t know. Those details are not presented. We don’t have the full story, only numbers that are used by people with agendas to promote their political power. Give me more information so that a student of statistics and know what they mean and don’t mean can actual understand the whole picture.
Until that is known, the numbers are not proof of anything, no matter how hard people try to use them.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 29, 2005 11:57 PMWell done, Andre.
Donna, I’m with you. This can’t last because people (even some Republicans) are becoming too aware of it.
Rhinehold,
You are missing the point Andre makes and are picking at only one aspect, (Lichblau), and asking for more proof. It is easy enough to research. The point, I believe, is made to show how the Bush admininstration bullies the whistle blowers who dare to expose the many lies and cover-ups that are commonplace in our current government. Try looking at the overall article and try to realize the truth. It is staring you in the face. It’s as if anyone who criticizes GW is immediately picked apart, threatened and at times fired or demoted. Is that American? Is it what our founding fathers envisioned? It’s as if our 1st ammendment rights have been demolished…one of many we are losing. I can’t understand why GW appoints people to commissions and then only accepts certain answers to his inquiries - the ones that suit his agenda and his pretenses. Anything else - i.e. the truth, offends him and he makes the reporters of those truths pay. He only likes “yes” men. No democracy in that. All hail King George!
Posted by: Donna at August 30, 2005 12:33 AMSorry, but I may not have all of the facts of the story, but all we have is Greenfield’s word for what happened as told to a very liberal reporter who has a personal vendetta against the administration. I have not seen much proof of the situation personally, at least not enough to know what happened for sure. If you can provide proof of what happened and why he was dismissed, I would like to see more.
And I disagree with some of the assertions in the article, much like Joe Wilson saying that his wife can no longer do her job, when we know that she had spent years working at a desk in DC after the birth of her children and her identity appears to have been well known in the intelligence community. It makes it stretch to say that it hampered her or put her in harms way. We should still find out what happened and how the information was leaked, of course.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 30, 2005 01:16 AMI also wanted to point out that I am against the ‘editing of statistical reports’ as was ALLEGED here, however I would rather the reports have more information or at least attempt to get to the heart of what the data means, not just collect meaningless numbers.
What is the proof we have that the report was attempted to be edited before released? Wasn’t the full report released on the intarweb unedited?
More information like this to make your case is much welcome.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 30, 2005 01:19 AMRhinehold:
To get the info you want, you need a Freedom of Information Act. Thanks to BushCo, the FOIA process has been lengthened by more than a year. In the old days, it just took weeks!!!
Neat, eh?
Posted by: Aldous at August 30, 2005 03:51 AMWe should be against racial profiling. Whether it is racil profiling in traffic stops or affirmative action, we should judge people by what they do, not by the color of their skin.
Statistics can be slippery, however. If you stop everyone on the highway who is speeding, you very well might catch more men than women. Would that be gender profiling? Behaviors may not be evenly distributed among diverse populations. In the county where I live, a disproportionate amount of pedestrian traffic fatalities are Hispanic immigrants, although the Hispanic population is not large. It probably has to do with the fact that newly arrived Hispanic immigrants walk more often (since they don’t own cars) and are unfamiliar with U.S. traffic laws. The statistic itself explains nothing.
Returning to traffic stops, I always wondered how even the most prejudiced cop could tell the race of a driver coming at him at 75 mph, especially at night (all I can see are headlights, but I guess bad cops have good eyes), and then gear up to chase this one guy down.
I have had two traffic tickets in my life. Both times when I had out of state plates. That is the real profiling problem.
Rhinehold,
While i support your view that incomplete, noncontextual numbers are as bad as false numbers and that the dissemination of such faulty information is irresponsible and suspect; i agree that the FOIA process today is so cumbersome it is effectively nullified.
Furthermore, an artistic painter may very well be able to ‘paint’ after being robbed of his sight yet remain unable to do his ‘job’. Plame was robbed. She deserves compensation. The nation deserves justice for the criminal betrayal.
Posted by: jo at August 30, 2005 07:56 AMStatistics don’t lie but you can lie with statistics… That said we all have unconscious biases, often they are at odds with the way we really feel. Harvard has a series of online tests that show you your unconscious biases. Everyone should take them just to be aware that they exist. You can find them at Harvard IAT Tests
Cops are just people, they have these same unconscious biases, unfortunately they work at a job that requires snap decisions, decisions based largely on those unconscious biases.
That said to cover it up, well that is just stupid. Examine, educate and the bias may go away.
Another area where the Bush administration has manipulated the truth is in the manipulation of data.
Going all the way back to the 1st of Bush’s tax cuts, the Treasury department abandoned its longstanding method of presenting tax burden information by income group (quintiles). In the old method (used even by the Reagan administration), it was very easy to find which quintile your income fell into and then find what you estimated tax burden would be. It also allowed people to determine what the proposed new tax burden was for a typical family — a group that covers some 2/3rds of Americans.
But Bush threw that away in favor of a nationwide “average.” Under Bush’s manipulation of the data, he wanted you to believe that your taxes went way down because Bill Gates’s taxes went way down. And Bush manipulated the data in other ways: include capital gains tax cuts (which very few typical families pay), plus other things, into the tax cut for the “average” family. Thus, those 2/3rds of Americans were told by Bush that their “average” taxes were going way down — all because people like Bill Gates were getting huge cuts.
Sorry, can’t let some of this stuff go unchallenged.
And I disagree with some of the assertions in the article, much like Joe Wilson saying that his wife can no longer do her job, when we know that she had spent years working at a desk in DC after the birth of her children
We know this? Do you have statements from either the CIA or Wilson that this is the case? How do we know this?
Even if it’s true, and I’m not saying it isn’t, how do you know that outing her didn’t affect her job anyway? Isn’t it fair to say that the outing of the CIA front company that she “worked for” hindered not only her job but the job (and perhaps lives) of many others?
and her identity appears to have been well known in the intelligence community.
What evidence do you have of this? To my knowledge, only one right wing reporter has made the claim of knowing her identity before the Novak column. One. What other evidence do you have?
Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 11:18 AMJack,
I’m shocked - SHOCKED! - that you and your neighbors are going out of your way to run over hispanic immigrants. Shame on you!
Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 11:19 AMRhinehold-
Can you respond to the Lichtbau story without resorting to an ad hominem attack on the NYT? I would like to know what specific facts were neglect, what lies were told. You do not have cause to rule out the New York Times as a source, merely because of a perceived slant. You must prove the slant (if it exists and is provable) did something to obscure the facts or motivate a lie. Other wise, it’s just a cheap debate tactic, and a fallacious one to boot.
Can you respond to the Lichtbau story without resorting to an ad hominem attack on the NYT?
1) There is no link in the original article to the Lichtbau story, so I originally did not do the writer’s necessary homework to look it up before my first response. Had the original writer done that it would have been much easier.
2) I did not resort to an ad hominem attack on the NYT, I instead posted what I thought was a clear attack on the ability of Eric Lichtblau to write an unbiased examination of an event. Instead, as the link *I* provided shows, he has a history of one-sided attack stories that are more suited for the editorial page than for actual journalism.
There is no evidence provided to explain any of the assertions and Eric, as far as I’ve been able to tell so far, has based this story off of one person’s perceived injustice without anything to really back it up. I asked afterwards that if anyone *DID* have any evidence that I would be more than willing to read it and review the situation again, but I will not be dragged into another in the long line of attacks on this or any other administration that is based on emotion and hatred instead of facts.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 30, 2005 01:21 PMYou are missing the point Andre makes and are picking at only one aspect, (Lichblau), and asking for more proof. It is easy enough to research.
Donna, if it’s that easy to research, why was the research not provided in the original story? Why is it incumbent upon ME to research this and not the person trying to convince me of it?
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 30, 2005 01:23 PMAs for the comment made about Dems being obsessed with Nazis, it is the other way around. Every since Republican have taken a choke hold on the United States, everytime someone disagrees with them they call him or her a nazis. I am so tired of the tactics use by the right wing. But alot of people are starting to wake up the the fact the right wants every one to be the same.
Posted by: Kevin at August 30, 2005 03:57 PMI know of a cop who suffered from a complaint that he only stopped Blacks during traffic stops and speed traps and criminal arrests. He was investigated and found guilty based on the “statistics” of his stops. He was fined and had a negative entry put into his persoonnel file.
He appealed at the insistance of a lawyer who followed his case.
During the appeal the lawyer referred to case law involving a female officer from a neighboring agency who was charged with violating the rights of Hispanics in the same manor, but who won her case. Here’s how.
Her lawyer displayed the stats of her traffic stops and criminal arrests relevant to her assigned work area (beat). Included in those stats was the stat stating that her work area had a Hispanic population of 84%. The percentage of Hispanics whom she stopped and\or arrested?
61%
Conclusion?
In any given rural community the social and criminal infractions are going to be committed by the people who live there.
Her percentage was high because Hispanics were the dominant race of people who lived in her beat.
The same tactic was applied to the male officer:
The percentage of Blacks in his assigned work area?
77%
The percentage of Black traffic stops and criminal arrests?
48%
He won his appeal.
The point is that statistics never tell the whole story and should only be seen as but one method for investigating claims.
It’s usually an injustice otherwise.
Posted by: cnw at August 30, 2005 04:53 PMHere’s an interesting side note: I had a video crew out shooting in some really (I mean really, really) bad neighborhoods. Those kind that even the police don’t drive through. They were covering an educational program funded by IBM. They had absolutely no problems. $110k in gear… nothing except one day, they had a TV/monitor stolen… by some drug dealers who lived several miles away.
The moral of this story: most people, even in the worst places, just want to live their lives and raise their kids as best they can.
Posted by: tony at August 30, 2005 07:16 PMI find the whole taxes argument incredible. My taxes did go down considerably, and I am not by any stretch wealthy (I made in the range of $22,000 a year). My taxes went down by $500-600 dollars, don’t remember the exact amount. When your monthly paycheck is $2000, $500 is quite a bit.
Now, a little lesson in economics. If Bill Gates pays 500 times as much in taxes as I do, he will also receive 500 times the tax cut. That makes sense. If I pay only a small amount of taxes, I can receive a huge tax cut!
Posted by: danny at August 30, 2005 07:17 PMNo, you don’t understand, Danny. According to the left, you got 500 bucks back but Gates got 500,000 back. So, by comparison, you got screwed for 499,500 bucks! If they had kept his 499,500 then you could have gotten more back and lets face it, you need money more than Gates…
It’s not like it’s HIS or YOURS, it’s the governments letting you have some of it back, being the gracious benevolent organization that it is.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 30, 2005 11:27 PMRhinehold -
Wow… Greenspan, you are not…
If we’re throwing generalizations around - let’s discuss the ‘REPs.’ They are basically buying you off with the $600… and giving the rich way more than $500,000. If you remember, a huge deficit was created with these tax cuts. That’s because they cut taxes on things that effect the rich, not people making $25,000 a year. (Estate taxes, capital gains, luxury taxes…) So, Bush is handing out money to the rich in huge sums, and buying you off with a trivial amount of money (and charging most of it to our national debt.)
Also - people making $25k will not see spikes from their state and local taxes (to offset the lack of federal funding…) but people making $65k or will. My $600 in tax refunds got blown away by almost double that in other tax increases.
I own my own business (a very very small business - 5 people.) Most of my ‘salary’ comes from distribution of profit- which is basically taxed as capital gains. So, one would think I would be happy about getting rid of that tax… but if you consider that most people who own companies - or make their money from real estate and other investments are far far wealthier than I am, do you think it’s fair for us not to pay taxes? If tax is not collected on capital gains, then it has to come from somewhere, right? Are you ready to drop in more of your salary to cover the gap? Do wealthy people deserve to life easier at the expense of the poor and middle class?
Taxes suck - but it’s the price of living in a civilized world. It’s good to look for places to cut taxes, but really, how much (given the huge amount of pork-barrel spending in our budget) to you really think they will actually cut? And if we all don’t cover our own fair share, then we simply build up the debt for our kids and their kids to pay off.
Now, a little lesson in economics. If Bill Gates pays 500 times as much in taxes as I do, he will also receive 500 times the tax cut.
Danny (and Rhinehold), it’s a fact that, as a percentage of income, the top 1% got a tax break four times as large as the lowest 20%.
Danny, Bill Gates got a 12% tax cut, you got a 7% tax cut.
BTW, the $600 tax rebate was something the Democrats insisted upon to stimulate the economy immediately.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 09:23 AMThe wealthy are always the targets of discussions regarding inequities in the tax structure. IMO wrongfully so. Simple mathmatics tells us that when you apply a percentage to varying levels of income, the higher income level will yield the greater amount. Both however have received the same percentage.
I believe this to be fair. Upsetting to some because they see the total amount, not the equity of the calculation.
Bill Gates has been used in examples. Bill Gates donates more money to charitible and humanitarian causes than most people ever dream of having. If we dig a bit deeper, I know we can come up with a multitude of similar benefactors among the wealthy.
For the life of me I cannot imagine why someone who has the wisdom and opportunity to earn vast sums of money should have to pay more and/or additional taxes.
If average Joe gets a tax cut of $500, there is little question that it means more to him than Bill Gates getting $500K.
Posted by: steve smith at August 31, 2005 10:41 AMBill Gates has been used in examples. Bill Gates donates more money to charitible and humanitarian causes than most people ever dream of having.
And Bill Gates will never in his entire life have to worry about making a mortgage payment, paying a medical (or any other kind) of bill, or have to take out a loan to finance his kids’ college education. That’s why the discussion of the merits of the size of his tax cut, when compared to the taxes of the vast majority of Americans, should be treated separately (which Bush manipulated the data on) and shouldn’t even be compared in the same breathe. He’s not a typical American.
Posted by: steve at August 31, 2005 10:51 AMThe truth is often evasive. Should the truth be known it matters little if the party in control is Democrat or Republican, as they are all from the same elitist class seeking only to use the American people for their own self-serving needs.
Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2005 11:37 AMSteve,
How much income tax do you pay? Whaht is the percentage? And what is the percentage of income tax Bill Gates pays? (Note that i think 90K is the cap- after that all income is tax free)
Hugh, i agree.
Posted by: jo at August 31, 2005 12:23 PMJo,
More than one person names steve is posting here. I am posting under steve smith. I did not post the August 31,2005 10:51 am message.
If your question about how much income tax I pay is directed to steve smith, here is my response…
I no longer pay any income tax due to disability status. I receive disability income from SS and from another source.
When I did pay income tax it was significant enough of an amount that I used a tax accountant so that I could be sure to find every legal way, however obscure to reduce my tax burden.
Posted by: steve smith at August 31, 2005 12:46 PMSteve Smith,
For a change i was posting to the other Steve although you and me seem to be running into each other quite a bit today… no fear, i will be heading out soon .. though do plan to return and pester you some more another day. ;)
btw, i also used a tax accoutnant when i was a small business owner.. unfortunately it was health insurance for either the employees or me, couldn’t handle both so today i am without benefits diabled by congestive heart failur resulting from a stroke for pushing myself too hard. ahh, live and learn.. or die trying. lol
jo
Posted by: jo at August 31, 2005 12:59 PMBoth however have received the same percentage.
Steve Smith, that’s not true. The top 1 percent got a 17% cut, and the bottom 20 percent got a 4% cut. The percentages were not equal.
I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. You are wrong.
The top 1% got a 12% cut.
The 80-99% bracket got an 8% cut.
The 20-80% bracket got a 7% cut.
The lowest 20% got a 4% cut.
I apologize for not having the knowledge to answer your post directly, Andre. I am a COMM student and have wondered about the role of media in a political environment. Journalism, in my view (however biased), is independent in thought and influence of the current administration - or it should be. Now, let’s not even touch broadcast because they are all wackos as far as I’m concerned (yes, Fox News leads the pack of loonies but even CNN is slipping these days). It is up to the individual to discern fact from fiction. The gov’t says one thing and media another, but what is the truth? Wow. If I could find the answer to that I’d be in philosophy and not journalism. So we must piece together facts. No one has a monopoly on truth or lies. Politically speaking, the left and right are experts at twisting and wheeling both. I am fairly in the middle, as you will soon learn from my posts. So I arrogantly think that I can be somewhat objective from time to time. But I am most likely mistaken. At least I can admit it. But to be fair, I will tell you where my leanings lay.
For most of my college career, I leaned left. Now as a 4 1/2th year student I realize that I am a moderate with leaning to the right on this war. This is only because I am a student of history. During the American Revolution things sucked for the common citizen living in the colonies. Taxes were sky-high, health was poorer than when we were under British rule, and whities dressed as “injuns” through all our tea in the harbor damn them. But we came out ok. We had to fight another war against the Brits and now we are buddies. The French helped us out in that war and now we dis on their fries, wine, and laid back take on life.
The liberal in me says we are all ok. Let’s just continue posting and spreading around our musings because this gets our media-drenched minds working. Then maybe some young guy such as myself may one day lead this wild country of ours and perhaps do a passable job (only pissing off the warhawking right-wing nutjobs and pinko commie left-wingers).
And we should strive to see the humor in all this. What are we arguing about? Something we have no direct control over. Bush won the election. He is easy to mock, but something tells me he means well. He isn’t really a Texan but he has adapted to their laid back lifestyle. Hence the long vacations. But what would you do as president? Think about it and be honest.
I think things are getting better. While Iraq may not get the hallowed democracy that we all want, they will come up with something that works. Call it stasis. Right now things are shaking over there. They have to settle down sometime - look at history.
And I reiterate the point I made in my post a week ago that we need to look elsewhere in the globe. China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia (I hate to say it but Saudi is probably our most sneaky enemy). And where should we be putting our money? In Sudan, Southeast Asia, South America, CUBA F*CK THE EMBARGO. Scuse my French… er, Freedom?
I also wish ya’ll would think outside the box on the “energy crisis”. Global warming is ok - there is fresh potable water in them there ice caps. Nuclear energy is fine, we have to release that built up radiation in New Mexico and Colorado somehow. If some wacky terrorist blows some poor souls up with a nuke it may wake us up. I think we, Mother Nature, and Our Father above are resilient enough to handle it. Remember to be chill and know that the future is in safe hands.
Anyway, I will step down off my soapbox. I just thought that since no one has posted in a few days, a 22 year old should step up and represent the upcoming workforce/politicians/writers/lawyers/lobbists/clergy/retirement home workers. I just ask you guys to sit back, crack open a beverage of your choice (mine’s a tall glass of o.j.) and watch The Sound of Music or The Wizard of Oz or something. Play with your dog or your kids. Enjoy life and quit’yer bitchin’!
Cheers to the future!
Phozzzy
