FAIR on the drug war

From Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR):

"When [President] Obama said pot wasn't more dangerous than alcohol, it was a huge understatement: Statistically, alcohol is vastly more deadly. Yet media portrayed his remarks as enormously controversial--judging his statement by culture war rather than public health standards."

I find this so interesting, because it is pretty close to being exactly what I told my students in my drug war class. Alcohol kills about 88,000 people a year, not including people killed in alcohol-related car crashes, yet data from the CDC's Wonder program show that marijuana kills maybe 1.48 people per year.

Do the media accurately tell this story? See for yourself. Talk about embarrassing.

Difference between "that" and "those" in a speech

Recently, President Obama created a good bit of controversy for a statement he made in a speech. It's a statement that, taken in isolation, sounds very bad.

But, taken in context of the whole speech (including the very next line of the speech when President Obama says "The point is ..."), the single line of the speech is precisely the same thing that his opponent (Governor Mitt Romney) has made repeatedly on the campaign trail.

President Obama and Governor Romney both agree, and have said so in speeches this week--that our successes are not only due to our hard work and initiative, but also happen because of help we receive along the way from many others, including governments (who help educate us, provide for our safe transportation, clean air and water, public safety, etc.).

Yet, even as Governor Romney has said this very thing (this week he even said good people in government have helped us, too) somehow this did not outrage Fox News as it did when President Obama used the word "that" instead of "those.")

Watch Jon Stewart's explanation now: 

Part 1: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-25-2012/democalypse-2012---do-we-look-stupid--don-t-answer-that-edition

Part 2: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-25-2012/democalypse-2012---do-we-look-stupid--don-t-answer-that-edition---grammatical-gaffes

Then come back and tell me how Governor Romney and Fox News can justify their invented and unnecessary outrage. And explain to me how Fox News could actually have two little girls who started a business on one of their programs and ask them "... how do you feel about the President saying that you needed help to start this business?"

And when they said that they DID have help from others, Fox News still did not get off the issue (nor did they acknowledge who paid for these kids' education .... um, taxpayers perhaps?).

Obama presidency suddenly plagued by scandals

....

or so says the mainstream news.

This from CNN:

updated 10:16 AM EDT, Wed June 20, 2012

Make CNN Your Homepage Make CNN Your Homepage

Obama: 'Executive privilege' shields Fast and Furious docs

The Justice Department says President Obama has asserted executive privilege over the Fast and Furious-related documents the House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed from Attorney General Eric Holder. FULL STORY

• LIVE: House Oversight Committee
• Issa, Holder butt heads

Bergen: Leak 'scandal' is overblown

There have been calls by Mitt Romney and others to investigate a series of recent security leaks in the Obama administration. But Peter Bergen says the leaks haven't put American interests or people at risk. FULL STORY

Not to be outdone, here is the take from Fox:

Obama Exerts Executive Privilege in
Showdown Over 'Fast & Furious' Docs

URGENT: President Obama has granted an eleventh-hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over 'Fast and Furious' documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa against Holder by Republicans in the House.

VIDEO: Issa's 'Furious' Disappointment | Issa Gives Last Minute Deadline | User's Manual to Contempt of Congress

Obama Camp Demands Crossroads Reveal Donors

Obama campaign files FEC complaint demanding that GOP advocacy group Crossroads GPS disclose donors

• Group Launches $5.5M Ad Campaign Against Obama in Battlegrounds

So I wonder what there really is to these stories and why, suddenly, the mainstream news organizations are making them their headline stories?

Arguments about the President

Recently Newsweek magazine ran two opinion pieces about President Obama.

The first by "conservative-minded Independent" Andrew Sullivan (here) argued that much of the criticism Barack Obama has received has been unfair and ignorant of the President's actual record as well as his long-term view of politics. It also outlined Obama's major accomplishments. Sullivan concludes:

"If I sound biased, that’s because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name."

So this author admits his bias and thus his subjectivity. But he also offers facts that can be checked and/or refuted.

Newsweek got some criticism for the title on its cover--something like, "Why are the President's Critics So Dumb?" (the title of the article was: "Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics.")

To make up for it, in this week's edition, there is an article titled: "David Frum Strikes Back at Andrew Sullivan on Barack Obama." In this article, David Frum (here) argues that Sullivan is wrong, that President Obama is wrong for America, and that Obama must be defeated in order to save the country.

He argues: "You don’t have to succumb to ideological fever or paranoid fantasy to see that the Obama administration is dragging America to the wrong future: a future of higher taxes and reduced freedom, a future in which entrepreneurs will innovate less and lobbyists will influence more, a future in which individuals and communities will make fewer choices for themselves and remote bureaucracies will dictate more answers to us all."


You can (and should) read both arguments to decide the truth for yourself. But when you do this, you should be looking for those facts to refute the original argument.

What I noticed very early on in the second piece by Frum a serious problem. On the first page of the article, Frum writes:

"Employment at the Social Security Administration is up by more than 6,000 since 2007, or 10 percent. In fact, hiring is up across the federal government, by 15 percent since 2007." Frum is using
these data to argue that Obama is thus BIG GOVERNMENT (ruuuuuuuuuuuuuun!).

One major problem with these data? Obama did not take the oath of office of President until January 21, 2009 (if you forgot you can see that here).

When a person starts an argument using data (from 2007) to smear a man that did not become President until 2009), it calls into question his motivation and even his entire argument. And this is a nice example of subjective bias in the media.

 

 

You just cannot make this stuff up

Top story today on Yahoo News is this account of a run-in President Obama had with a "Tea Party" member in Iowa.

US President Barack Obama went head-to-head with a prominent conservative Tea Party activist, in a microcosm of a political clash that will play out in the 2012 election.

Ryan Rhodes, a leader of the group in Iowa, took on Obama during an open-air town hall meeting, which marked a moment of new intensity in the president's campaign for a second term.

Rhodes shouted out that the president's calls for more civility in politics had little chance of coming to pass after "your vice president is calling people like me, a Tea Party member, a 'terrorist.'"

His question referred to media reports that Vice President Joe Biden made such a remark in a private meeting with House of Representatives Democrats at the height of a debt showdown earlier this month.

The clash came as Obama was intent on wrapping up the meeting in the shadow of a red country barn draped with an American flag, as the sun set on a rural corner of Iowa.

"I know it's not going to work, if you stand up, and I asked everybody to raise their hand... I didn't see you, I wasn't avoiding you," the president said, but later circled back to answer Rhodes's question.

"I absolutely agree that everybody needs to try to tone down the rhetoric," he said, before going on to detail some of the more explosive charges that conservatives have laid against him.

"In fairness, since I have been called a socialist who wasn't born in this country, who is destroying America and taking away its freedoms because I passed a health care bill, I am all for lowering the rhetoric."

Obama and Rhodes later engaged in an animated conversation as he greeted supporters on a rope line after the event, and the activist later told reporters that he believed that Obama was indeed a socialist.

The president was on the first day of a three-state bus tour in which he is sympathizing with Americans dismayed and frustrated by the slow pace of the economic recovery and trying to repair his battered political standing.

Rhodes backed winning candidate and Tea Party favorite Representative Michele Bachmann in last weekend's Iowa Straw poll, and is regarded as a founder of the anti-big government movement in the state.

The Tea Party lacks a centralized national leadership but emerged in the 2010 congressional election cycle as a powerful influence on conservative Republican politics, with its message of low taxes and cutting spending.

The movement was also seen as a key driver of Republican leadership tactics in a debt showdown with Obama, and some Democrats accused Tea Party activists of holding the country hostage over raising the government's borrowing limit.

_________________________

So he wants to tone down the rhetoric but immediately thereafter calls the President a socialist?

You just cannot make this stuff up.

President Obama answers a question about legalization of drugs via YouTube

On the top rated questions in President Obama's recent YouTube question and answer session was submitted by a former law enforcement member, now associated with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).

You can see his question and Obama's answer here:

Obama says this is a legitimate issue for debate, but that he is against legalization. He then goes on to cite successes in the public health approach in substances that are legal and regulated (e.g., tobacco and alcohol), apparently not aware at all of the contradiction there.

What Obama does NOT say is that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is not allowed to spend even a single penny on research to examine any approach other than prohibition. Until members of Congress opens their mind and change the law, we'll continue to have lies and distortions from ONDCP about national drug control policy, and we'll remain stuck in drug war failure for decades more.

Drug war reformers who hoped Obama would be the guy to finally bring about real change are in fact seeing significant change. But legalization will not occur under his watch.

President Obama to answer question about legalization today

Here is the beautiful thing about social media (things like Facebook, Youtube, etc.).

It gives us normal folks a chance to be heard, and even to ask questions of our leaders.

Here is a question on YouTube that President Obama will answer today:

You might not know enough about this to answer it yet, but how do you think you might answer this question now? Should we DISCUSS or CONSIDER legalization drugs as a serious alternative to prohibition?

Reaction to Obama's State of the Union address

President Obama gave his 'State of the Union" address last night. I watched it, like I have with every president since I've been an aware human being.

It was a very good speech. On Facebook immediately afterward, I have him a B+. I'll stick with that this morning. (I wanted to see a bi-partisan type speech, and that is what I saw).

He stressed about 10 things that Republicans have historically liked. Things like tax cuts for corporations. A simpler and more fair tax code. Deficit reduction. Spending freezes. And tough talk on terrorism (albeit at the end of his speech).

He also stressed about 10 things that Democrats have historically liked. Things like increased spending on education. Alternative energy sources. Equal opportunity. Cuts to the bloated military defense budget. And he continued to defend health care reform.

Clearly, this is no "socialist" president, so I was still shocked to see some politicians react to it in the mainstream media by calling it a socialist speech. Nearly the entire speech was about the importance of the economy, capitalism, jobs, "big business," and corporations. Anyone who thinks Obama is a socialist is, excuse my French, a fucking idiot.

(I don't often cuss, but when I do, I do it for effect. Saying you are an idiot if you believe Obama is a socialist just doesn't quite get it. No, you are a fucking idiot. Try looking up the definition of socialism in a dictionary, or better yet, an encyclopedia. Study how it is has been implemented in the world before you spout off with such nonsense.)


The media are fact-checking President Obama. For example, see:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-union-2011-fact-check-president-obamas-address/story?id=12760731

Or if you want to see a more "fair and balanced" view (ha ha), see:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/25/fact-check-obama-imbalanced-ledger/

One thing I noticed was the word "crime" did not get mentioned once.

As a criminologist I say, "Finally!"

The New York Times also has this cool feature showing common words in previous such addresses by presidents.

And the Republicans are being fact checked too.