Yesterday I received an email on the topic of the 2008 election that was strangely familiar.  And there was a reason for the familiarity: I had seen it four years before, forwarded to my email box by the same person.  The reality is that this message is a complete hoax, and the fact that it is regurgitated after multiple elections (first being the 2000 election) and forwarded throughout the internet shows that gullible people are easily fooled because it comports with their established ideology.

First of all, here’s the email:

THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD & BREAK YOUR HEART

Interesting  Statistic
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of  Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out facts of 2008  Presidential election:

Number  of States won by:
Democrats:  19
Republicans:   29

Square  miles of land won by:
Democrats:  580,000
Republicans:   2,427,000

Population of counties  won by:
Democrats:  127 million
Republicans:  143 million

Murder rate  per 100,000 residents in counties won  by:
Democrats:  13.2
Republicans:   2.1

Professor Olson  adds:
“In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.

Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at  stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom

Anyone not blinded by ideology would quickly see these so-called “facts of [the] 2008 Presidential election” are suspicious, starting with the number of states and square miles of land won.  Has it really been that long since the election that people actually think McCain won 10 more states than Obama?  Talk about short-term memory.

It only took me 2 seconds — literally — to search Google to find out that this email is a long-discredited hoax.  FactCheck.org completely dismantles the widely forwarded message in its current 2008 manifestation.  Starting by pointing out that Professor Olson has denied being the source of these “facts” since 2000, FactCheck then addresses the stats:

• President-elect Barack Obama actually carried 28 states (and the District of Columbia), not 20 as claimed in the message. Sen. John McCain carried only 22 states, not 30.The murder rate for counties carried by Obama was 6.56 per 100,000 inhabitants, less than half the rate claimed in the message. The rate for counties carried by McCain was 3.60 per 100,000, much higher than claimed in the message.
• The total area of states won by Obama is actually 1,483,702 square miles, significantly more than the 580,000 stated by the e-mail. McCain’s states have an area of 2,310,315 square miles, not the 2,427,000 claimed.
• The population of counties carried by Obama is just under 183 million, not the 127 million claimed. McCain carried counties with a total population of just under 119 million, far fewer than claimed in this message.
• The murder rate for counties carried by Obama was 6.56 per 100,000 inhabitants, less than half the rate claimed in the message. The rate for counties carried by McCain was 3.60 per 100,000, much higher than [the 2.1] claimed in the message.

As you can see, the stats are not just slightly wrong, they’re way off.  But I doubt this will stop dishonest people from using it again, because in the world of right wing America ideology trumps reality every time.

Technorati Tags: Election 2008, politics, politics of fear, propaganda, Republicans

Writing at the Huffington Post, media reform campaigner Timothy Karr has a great article on what really scares rightwing TV and radio fearmongers like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs: greater localism and diversity in media.  Karr exposes their self-serving lies with a healthy dose of reality — which has a well-known liberal bias — pointing out, “The central mandate of the Federal Communications Commission — as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 — is to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media. This same principle of localism has been a rallying cry for several generations of true conservatives.”

He continues:

Broadcasters get hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies and the right to use our airwaves in exchange for a basic commitment to be responsive to the interests of local communities.

Moreover, the Supreme Court recognized that “safeguarding the public’s right to receive a diversity of views and information over the airwaves is … an integral component of the FCC’s mission.”

Sadly, the FCC has failed to live up to this standard. And what mainstream media’s fear-merchants are most afraid of is not censorship, but an FCC that actually does its job — creating more opportunities for people like you and me to participate in media.

We don’t have that now. Washington bureaucrats have allowed powerful media corporations to control the public airwaves and dominate local cable networks. We have reached a nadir where the free press that Thomas Jefferson hoped would open “all the avenues to truth” has devolved into a media system that’s a megaphone for the few.  Read on…

Truer, more obvious words couldn’t have been spoken.  The only way to break the current dominance of these paranoid, faux-populist douchebags is to demand the FCC regulate the public (i.e., our) airwaves by honoring its founding principles of diversity and localism.

Technorati Tags: censorship, CNN, Fox News Channel, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, media reform, Rush Limbaugh, Timothy Karr

Some of you might remember way back in late 2001 the widespread reports of Al-Qaeda’s vast and sophisticated cave complex in Afghanistan.  We were led to believe bin Laden used his family’s construction enterprise to build a high-tech underground compound with “its own ventilation system and its own power, created by a hydro-electric generator. Its walls and floors are smooth and finished, and it extends about 315m beneath a solid mountain.”  The article, written by Richard Lloyd Parry writing with the Independent (London) at the time, goes on to claim:

It is so well defended and concealed that – short of poison gas or a tactical nuclear weapon – it is completely immune to outside attack. And it is filled with heavily armed followers of Osama bin Laden, with a suicidal commitment to their cause, and with nothing left to lose.

Scary stuff indeed.  Sounds like the lair of an evil genius from an Ian Fleming novel.  The cave story was quickly picked up by other news outlets, though certain details changed – was the complex built by the bin Laden family or the US government in the 80s for the mujahideen fight against the Soviets?  Journalist Edward Jay Epstein details how the story spread and finally reached its pinnacle in the US when the late Tim Russert unquestioningly accepted it as fact during an interview with Donald Rumsfeld on Meet the Press.

The following clip is from Adam Curtis’ excellent three-part documentary The Power of Nightmares, originally broadcast on the BBC in 2004.  I highly recommend this film to anyone who hasn’t seen it.  It’s (legally) available online for download or streaming at Archive.org. The clip begins with part of the interview with Rumsfeld on Meet the Press.  Note how the former Secretary of Defense states matter-of-factly that there are many such complexes in the Afghan mountains, going beyond claims made in the original reports.

Curtis exposes how this was little more than blatant propaganda used to incite fear, to make the mostly British and American public think Al-Qaeda was indeed a grave threat that needed eradicating.  This wasn’t some rag-tag bunch of terrorists with little support, these were advanced extremists that could only be handled with high tech weapons and massive military force.  And it worked.  This is at least in part how – with other similar stories – the US government justified increased military spending on advanced weaponry following 911, even though the perpetrators used box cutters and a little flight training to achieve the attack.  The message and purpose was clear: we should simply cower in fear while allowing our leaders to protect us against such a tremendous threat, all the while expanding the military industrial complex.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, media, oil war, politics of fear