In a capitalistic society like ours where even "news" is consumed according to brandname, FOX, NBC etc, just like Cheerios or Wheaties……disinformation becoming rampant, I guess, is inevitable.

Today's capitalistic information providers seem to be pulling off the impossible, i.e., convincing Americans that they can have whatever facts they so desire. A kind of designer-news-and-information boutique, if you will, where whatever you want to believe, or already believe to be true,….is, viola!….true.

My good blog friend Da King provides today's case study on this topic.

Da King on Wednesday…

"Right now, we have a majority government who is telling you that what's best for you is to have the government FORCE you to buy health insurance, and next up, they are going to tell you that adding over $1,700 to your annual utility bills is a really great idea."

The $1700 in that sentence is disinformation. It is not remotely true. Here's where it came from…..

A group calling themselves the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a Freedom of Information Act to the Treasury Department back in April asking for all documents, "concerning proposals or programs….involving cap and trade schemes that deal with carbon, carbon dioxide, or greenhouse gases."

The Treasury responded on September 11. This is the "information" the Treasury released from which Da King's disinformation was derived….

"In his Feb. 24, 2009 Joint Session address, Pres. Obama called for a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, underscoring his commitment to domestic climate policy. While such a program can yield environmental benefits that justify its costs, it will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of (redacted) dollars. At the same time, given the Administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap and trade program could generate fedeal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually……"

Here is the problem that led to Da King's insistence that Obama's cap and trade policy would raise everyone's electric bill by $1700 per year:

See the emboldened sentence in the above quote?….that's not part of Obama's cap and trade policy proposal, nor is it part of the Waxman-Markey legislation reflecting Obama's proposal. Obama's proposal and Waxman-Markey would not, "auction all emission allowances", it would only auction 1/3 of all emission allowances, thus cutting down the initial cost to power producers….costs that would then, most likely, be passed on to consumers.

The $1700 per year number makes it appear as if average electric bills, if cap and trade goes into effect, would go up by $160 per month….which would be disastrous. But the $1700 per year number has no relationship-in-fact with Obama's proposal or Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, either by accident or on purpose, made phony conclusions from the Treasury Department's release of FOIA information. The energy plan by Obama and the Democrats will only auction 1/3 of the carbon credits….not all of them. The CBO estimate is approximately $13 per month in new costs to consumers. Big difference.

How then, did this disinformation get so widely circulated?

John Boehner (Embarrassment-OH) said on PBS Sept. 17th…

"It's a cap-and-trade proposal that came through the House that we now find out from the Treasury Department would cost each American family over $1,700 per year."

And then Glenn Beck took it from there…..

"You have what came out today, the outright lies coming out of the White House. I hate to call anybody a liar. You tell me. It’s the cap and trade energy bill. We want to thank our friend Chris Horner at CEI for pointing this out to us.

……

"Look at the document, because in the document, it says “a cap and trade program could generate receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually.” Wow, that’s a lot. In fact, it’s so much it’s the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15%. Huh. Bigger is always better. That’s $1,761 a year, per household, all of us, every one. "

Then unbelievably, Beck said this….

"I have a question. Did the President of the United States tell the people in Congress about this? Facts are stubborn. Don’t they suck?"

Watch Glenn Beck make a total fool out of himself. It is only slightly better than watching a car wreck in slow motion.

Paul Krugman…a Nobel economist, on Beck's disinformation….

Thus, last week Glenn Beck — who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the G.O.P. — informed his audience of a “buried” Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.

But we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr. Beck. Similar — and similarly false — claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts.

A year ago I would have been shocked by this behavior. But as we’ve already seen in the health care debate, the polarization of our political discourse has forced self-proclaimed “centrists” to choose sides — and many of them have apparently decided that partisan opposition to President Obama trumps any concerns about intellectual honesty.

Multiply this story exponentially…..and it helps to explain why Americans today hold such contradictory views of the "facts."

Da King was simply passing along bogus information he had received, apparently, from very unreliable, and possibly purposely misleading, sources. Da King was a participant in Glenn Beck's 9-12 event and has said that he watches Beck occasionally. The question now is whether Da King, as other conservatives have been forced to do, will issue a correction.
__________

Must reads on this topic.

Brad Johnson at Think Progress is all over this disinformation story.

8 Republicans pass along false information.

Media forced to issue retractions..

UPDATED below.

Just what does it mean when radio host Rush Limbaugh, and now many others, say they hope Obama fails? What does that mean? And what would it look like, if indeed, Obama failed? Is "hoping for Obama failure" the same as hoping for American failure? And if it is….is it treasonous to root openly for America's failure?

Here's a one minute piece of…Rush, when he first called for Obama to fail….

Here's 46 seconds of Rush from Saturday's CPAC, where he flounders while seeking some equivalency for his "I want Obama to fail"….

In addition here, I also heard Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum call for Obama to fail….so this is not simply the brain-damaged, rage-trash of one sick radio emcee.

Let's evaluate the exact wording of Limbaugh….

"If his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not it's foundations. Why would I want that to succeed?"

I love this part. The deconstruction part. Just love it.

Barack Obama, as he campaigned, has proposed, now as president, that he would lower taxes on 95% of working Americans, while raising taxes on 5% of tax paying Americans, the richest 5%, those making more than $250K per year. Additionally, Obama has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax rates, from 15% to 20%, keeping the estate tax but raising the minimum estate value exempted from such a tax, and limiting the amount of mortgage interest that is deductible.

How does returning our tax schedules to 1993 levels eliminate as the nation's "foundation", "capitalism and individual freedom?" During the 90's, when some 20 million new jobs were created, when average working Americans actually saw their buying power increase slightly, and when capitalistic freedom was never more apparent with all the investment monies that were available……during the 90's, had Bill Clinton eliminated the American foundation of capitalism and individual liberty?

The answer to Rush's, admittedly, rhetorical question, "why would I want that to succeed?"…..is….so the nation succeeds as it did under virtually identical tax rate circumstances during the Clinton administration. That's the correct answer. Rush knows that's the correct answer….but if a Democratic President Obama's economic plan succeeds, then Republican Party hopes are futher diminished. Republican open resistance to Obama's plan would be rewarded with a futher kicking to the curb by the voters of the already-under-seige GOP.

If Limbaugh wants Obama to fail on the two other major fronts, health care and energy…..which, theoretically, could be included in the rant statement about, "individual freedom",…..then further deconstruction is necessary.

First, energy. Scientific experts agree N. America doesn't have enough oil under the ground to ever sustain U.S. current demand. Commodities-trading shysters, aware of the last statement, openly and unforgiveably manipulated an oil bubble that resulted in $4 per gallon gasoline, $5 per gallon diesel, as well as a sense of powerlessness throughout the nation.

President Obama wants to remove that ever-present threat by seriously going all-in on alternative energy. From cap and trade, to wind and solar, to electric and battery powered vehicles, Obama's "restructuring" of America's long neglected energy situation is anything but a removal of "indivual liberty" as our nation's "foundation." It's just the opposite. Obama's energy plans are strengthening our indivual liberty and insuring our "capitalistic" survival.

Health care. The best that can be said about our national health care system is…"clusterf*ck." Not because doctors, nurses, technicians,……you know, those who actually provide health care,….are doing anything wrong, but because of the layers of for-profit paper and money shufflers who dictate health care terms while simultaneously working to deny as many American health care claims as possible.

This system has greatly hampered American employers, provided lower overall health care quality as compared to other industrialized nations, and made health insurance unaffordable. President Obama's plan is to give Americans more choices by allowing one of those choices to be Medicare. This plan will force health insurance companies to lower their prices or face extinction by the, you know, "market."

In a crisis situation, which is what our health care system has created, capitalism will be maintained through the offering of more choices to consumers, individual liberty will be maintained by allowing consumers to MAKE those choices.

How does that, according to Limbaugh, amount to a "restructuring and reforming of our country", so that "capitalism and indivual liberty" are not it's "foundations?"

In summary. President Obama's plans, as I've set forward, do not change America's foundation of capitalism and individual liberty, assuming those ARE the foundations….and not the Constitution. Rush Limbaugh's wanting Obama to fail, wanting Obama's plans to fail, is admitting, really, that he wants America to fail. Rush wants America to have fewer health care choices and he wants those choices to remain unaffordable. Rush wants taxes on the wealthiest, the group he belongs to, to never go up and always come down. Rush wants America to moronically,"drill, baby, drill", rather than pursue a new energy agenda that might cut into the profits of his rich friends for a time.

Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail. He wants him to fail so that Republicans can rush back into power and save the day. Limbaugh would rather see the nation, all 300,000 million of us, endure more hardship and suffering, than for his alleged god, economic conservatism, to be proven out by Obama to be a hopeless failure.

Someone who openly cheers for his country to fail is, by definition, a traitor.

UPDATE
From the Onion….

"NATION APOLOGIZES TO RUSHBO: WE’RE SORRY FOR ELECTING OBAMA!

The entire country today admitted that it “didn’t mean it” when it elected Barack Obama president, in direct disobeyance of orders from petulant American dictator, Rush Limbaugh."

"

Have you heard about the new resistance movement? It's a resistance movement against the not-yet-president Barack Obama.

Conservative Republicans have proven in the last eight years that they can't govern successfully on a federal level, and really don't want to anyway. The next eight years will be a clinic on what conservative Republicans do well…..obstruct progress. Block the people's will.

Barack Obama promised to end our occupation of Iraq, extend health care to virtually all Americans, end the disastrous trickle down, top-heavy economics of the past 28 years by investing in the middle class and ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, boldly confront global warming, restore America's status in the world, and close Guantanomo, among other promises.

The American voters elected Obama with 53% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes. An inarguable mandate from voters to implement his campaign agenda.

So…if Americans want what Obama is offering….and they clearly do….then what of conservative Republicans who voted against Obama, who don't want anything to do with his mandated agenda?
Well, their job is to stop Obama from doing the will of the people.

The "resistance" is calling….

Welcome to Obama’s nation…
The “transformational” figure who will “change the world” is now in charge, and he’s on a mission. Emboldened by an overwhelming electoral victory and a near-supermajority in Congress, President-elect

Obama and his allies are preparing to implement his liberal, “post-American” agenda. Simply put, what President-elect Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress have in store has the potential to rapidly move America to the socialist Left.

1 million citizens resisting…
Who can stop the Obama agenda? Only an unprecedented idea-based Resistance from freedom-loving citizens can prevent the full implementation of Obama’s march to the Left. That’s why Grassfire.org is seeking to identify and mobilize grassroots citizens who will Join The Resistance— an alliance of patriotic, resilient and determined conservatives who will not forsake their principles. Our goal? One million citizens joining together by Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

The Resistance States:
As an American citizen, while I will show respect to President-elect Obama, I oppose the far-Left and socialistic elements that comprise the centerpiece of his agenda. I recognize that it will take a patriotic and resilient Citizen Resistance to block implementation of this agenda and I join with others who oppose these threats to our liberties.

Specifically, I Resist:

Socialistic wealth redistribution including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs. Silencing conservatives through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech.
Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”. Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens.
Weakening of our military through rapid pullback from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament. Social liberalism including radical pro-abortion agenda, the end of marriage and the homosexual agenda.
Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control. Post-American globalismthat diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty.
Environmental extremism, the CO2 tax, undermining coal and nuclear, and bans on exploration. Weakening the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional gun laws that take away or penalize us for owning firearms and our right to defend our family, our property, and ourselves. Link

The "resistance" has signed up about a quarter million "patriotic, resilient, conservatives" thus far, the goal is one million.

The part I like the best is this….. "Only an unprecedented idea-based Resistance from freedom-loving citizens can prevent the full implementation of Obama’s march to the Left."

If the right had any good ideas, Americans would have voted for them. They don't and we didn't. The fact that conservative "ideas" have gone down in flames during Bush-Cheney….umm….hasn't helped much either. The "freedom-loving" spin is amusing as well. Freedom of conscience to deny the rights of others? Freedom of government to torture? Freedom for the executive branch to violate law?
Freedom to be intolerant? I have no idea what freedom these obstructionist wannabes are referring to.

Even the arch-conservative freak, Pat Robertson, has said that Obama has chosen a centrist cabinet which Robertson is "pleased" with….but to the "resistance" freaks, Obama will "march" us to the left.

Naturally, all this was to be expected. The only question remaining is whether or not the corrupt main media will assist the resistors by repeatedly echoing the objections of this "idea-based Resistance."

Smart money says they will.

Pope Benedict is a very, very serious and wise religious leader. Else he wouldn't be Pope. Benedict is not simply world wise, you must understand, he is extra-worldly wise. When he speaks ex-cathedra….he speaks as God. And traditionally, God has been regarded as all knowing. That's some wisdom.

So when Pope Benedict speaks, even when not speaking directly about Roman Catholic Church doctrine, he speaks with authority. People listen.

They shouldn't.

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement. Link

For the most part, unlike the Pope, I've stayed out of the climate change discussion. Unlike the Pope, I'm not plugged into the invisible heavenly kingdom where all the wisdom files are kept. I don't, unlike the Pope, have divine broadband, stairway to heaven access. It's not available yet in my area. And when it becomes available….man….the cost!

So this post is not about climate change. It is about this one sentence in the article….it's vital, according to Pope B, that, "the international community based it's policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement."

Quite breathtaking, really.

The international community should rely on science not dogma. Does Pope Benedict base his understanding of life on science? Does Pope Benedict base his understanding of life on dogma?

Does science have an explanation for the dogma of the Eucharist? Have researchers now discovered how it is that Jesus, himself, is in all those wafers handed out at Mass? What about the science of the resurrection story and the virgin birth and all the rest? These purely fantastical and unscientific beliefs, are all fully embraced by the Pope. Aren't these outside-of-science beliefs what makes up the dogma of the Catholic faith? Would the Catholic Church even exist, would there even be a need for a Pope, if it wasn't for the superstitious and supernatural dogma which is the foundation of all of Christianity? Is this supernatural based Catholic dogma considered by Benedict to not yet be settled? Are Catholic beliefs "living" and flexible or rigid and petrified?

Non-science based old fables of superstition and mythology make up the dogma of the Catholic Church led by this Pope. That same Pope is now saying, "..it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement."

Like I said, I'm no expert on climate change. I'm no expert on anything. However, I do have questions. What would environmentalist dogma look like? Is environmentalist dogma full of exciting fairy tales of magic and miracles, you know, like the Pope's Catholic Church dogma is? Unlike the Pope and his Church, aren't environmentalists using science as their dogma to point out the many destructive forces out there at work in the world?

I mean, are these environmentalists, like, doctoring all those pictures of all that ice melting? Are environmentalists rigging those charts that show a sharp upswing in temperatures over the recent past? Or, are those ice melting pictures and graphs, etc., the empirical data of scientific investigation? And unlike scientific investigations into miraclulous religious claims which always come up empty handed, aren't the environmentalists actually following real empirical data that points in a specific direction?

Or is the Pope actually making a political statement here with a bit of environmentalist bashing? Is he saying that he, Vicar of the Son of God, knows the intentions, the hearts, of these environmentalists? Is it that he thinks (him and God) environmentalists are only trying to bring down western capitalism with all their melting ice photos and charts and graphs?

Does the Pope think, like Rush Limbaugh, that environmentalists use science simply to promote a larger agenda? An agenda that is only made up of hatred for the U.S. and western societies? An agenda that seeks to bring low all industrialized economies for the sake of socialism? Is that the "dogma" the non-scientific-based, religious-dogma-believing Pope….umm….believes?

If so, then it is only proof positive that this modern day Pope, like many ancient and medieval popes before him, still believes in fairy tales.