Go Home

Scare tactics

10 documents found in 0.002 seconds.

California officials have opened an investigation into Goldline, the stalwart Glenn Beck Show advertiser, favorite of Mick Huckabee and other apocalyptic types. ABC's Nightline picked right up on it and did a report tonight (video above).

This idea of buying gold in tough financial times isn't new. What is new is the high-profile pimping of it on cable news. Not only in ads, but as part of the message like Glenn Beck's "God, Gold and Guns". Using typical scare tactics, Beck recommends buying gold as a hedge against the government's ultimate financial armageddon.

Goldline's business is simple: They buy and sell precious metals, specializing in numismatic gold coins. Investigators are looking specifically at whether Goldline International misrepresents pricing policies on its collectible coins, inflating them when they're purchased and deflating them when they're sold.

Goldline's management team should know about financial armageddon. They were right in the center of one in 1986, when some of them worked for Valley State Bank's Collateral Loan Division.

Valley State Bank

Two of Goldline's executive team -- Mark Albarian and Joel Gabrelow -- were officers of Valley State Bank's Collateral Loan Division from 1984-1986. Gabrelow was also Vice President of Numismatic Lending at West Coast Bank.

Continue reading »



Bush Apologist Keeps Griping

SHORTER Peter Feaver: "There is no difference between Obama's scare tactics on nuclear terrorism, designed to motivate nations to secure nuclear material, and CheneyBush's scare tactics on nuclear terrorism, designed to justify a US-led preventive invasion of Iraq."

So, yeah, let's watch the dangerous rhetoric about "the greatest threat to our national security," huh, guys? No need to get the conservatives all excited about justifying their past mistakes.



Okay, Senate Is Including A Public Option; Now What?

So the pressure we brought to bear on Harry Reid's office over the weekend did have some effect. The bill does have a public option, despite mutterings from unnamed sources that the mythic and coveted 60 votes would be a whole lot easier without the public option. But we're not out of the woods yet, not by a long shot.

Now we get to see the Republicans really ramp up the scare tactics--telling the gullible and easily frightened that this is just one step behind the evil Soviet Empire that St. Ronnie slayed, with its government-run health care, all evidence to the contrary. Up until this point, Obama has kept the Senate dealings at arm's length, a political calculus that made some sense, looking at what happened to Clinton's attempt to get health care passed. But it's going to take some seriously strong political leadership now to make it untenable for any member of the Senate to vote against health care reform. As Mike Lux says, "Game On":

We don't yet know whether we will get the best version of the public option in the House bill, and the Senate version is not as strong as progressives have been pushing for. But strengthening the form of the public option can be negotiated over in conference committee, once we get there.

For now, we can thank Harry Reid (HCAN has a page here) and Nancy Pelosi for their gutsy leadership, and fight like hungry dogs to win the floor fight and deliver on this hope. In the coming weeks we will have an all-hands-on-deck, all out public war with the insurance industry over whether we finally pass comprehensive health care reform or once again fall short at the bitter end after coming so far.

Here's where things are as we head into the floor fight:

1. White House staffers confirmed for me this afternoon that they are backing Harry Reid's decision "100 percent." Now that's not to say they aren't a little nervous about it. I suspect that there are still some feelings by some people working in that building that progressives should have given up and rolled over, and let them cut a deal with Olympia Snowe on her trigger-written-never-to-trigger. That would have been easier than sweating what will undoubtedly be a very tough battle to get all 60 Democrats to go along with the rest of the party. But us irritating progressive folk got in the way of doing that, and now Obama knows it's time to stand and deliver. I believe my friends at the White House when they say they will do an all-out fight for this bill. They know that starting down this path, and not being able to pull it off, would be a huge embarrassment and destroy all the momentum we've built by making it this far. They are all-in, and know how much is at stake. Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina are famous for twisting arms and doing everything in their power to get the votes that are needed, and now is their time to deliver.

That's where you come in. Progressive Change has a petition for you to sign to ask President Obama to stand firm and fight:

"Every day, insurance companies deny care and let people die. Getting one Republican senator's vote is not worth delaying reform -- too many real lives are at stake. We need you to fight and state clearly that anything less than a strong public option is not change we can believe in."

Go. Sign. Make phone calls. Let your voice be heard.



Quote of the Day: Debbie Stabenow on the 'public option'

Debbie Stabenow was on CNN's State of the Union this morning and made the case for the public option.

STABENOW: Well, my first choice and very strong choice is a public option. And I have to say, Wolf, that what my friends are saying, Senator Gregg and Senator Alexander really are scare tactics that have been put forward by folks that don't want to change the system because they make a lot of money off the current system right now.

The reality for families today is if there's an insurance company bureaucrat between you and your doctor telling your doctor what they're allowed to do because of what they'll pay for, telling you what they'll pay for, putting you through all kinds of bureaucracy to try to figure out if you can get care, assuming you're not dropped if you get sick or can't get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. So what we're talking about is putting somebody on your side, being able to make sure that the insurance company, the for profit insurance company won't provide you with a low cost insurance policy for your family that you have another choice.



pool_1b70f.jpg

(Photo by James Heaney, Philadelphia Daily News)

It seems like any time the opportunity comes up to have a real discussion about race in this country, to turn an awful situation into a teaching moment, it almost always gets reduced to this binary equation: Terrible Racist Bigots vs. Enlightened White Liberals.

So when I saw the well-meaning outcry against the racially-tinged ousting of a group of young Philadelphia kids from a suburban swim club, I thought to myself: Oh, here we go again.

I grew up in Philadelphia during a very troubled time. During the '60s, block-busting realtors resorted to abominable scare tactics to get white homeowners to sell, even resorting to middle-of-the-night phone calls: "You'd better get out now while your house is still worth something." There were gang fights and even a few deaths in the neighborhood.

My family wasn't one of the ones that left. My mother wouldn't dream of it, and she welcomed our new black neighbors. My brothers, however, were dealing with the changing neighborhood out on the street, where every pointless violent incident against one group was answered by another. ("West Side Story," only without the soundtrack.)

Understand, all the kids were feeling the tension. We couldn't go to the public swimming pool at the Kingsessing Rec Center that was an easy walk from our house, because it was in a black neighborhood and if we went there, we'd get harassed or even beaten up. So we walked almost three miles to the Finnegan Playground instead - a long walk on a scorching hot day for kids. It seemed to take forever.

When I saw this story in the news, I wondered why the day care program kids didn't go to the closest public pool. But then I thought, maybe it was one of the white pools and they didn't want the hassle. See, we still think that way.

***

Flash forward twenty years. I'm a single mom with two kids, and my mom is watching them while I'm at work. Part of the deal is that she spends the day with them at the local swim club.

One day, when I come to pick them up, I go to the office to reserve a barbecue pit for the weekend; I'd invited some friends from work for a cookout. The manager (who was also the mayor of the town where I lived) said, "You know you can't bring any coloreds in here, right?"

I was shocked. Speechless, really. I finally said, "As it happens, none of the people I invited are black." I left, shaking with anger. But I was also in a moral dilemma because I needed my mom's help and I knew she loved the pool. What to do?

I'm ashamed to say I did nothing. But it really bothered me, and a few weeks later, I wrote a column about it. (My parents and kids were confronted about it by other pool members.)

We live in segregated worlds, and on some level, that's by choice - whether we admit it or not. Most of us work with all kinds of people, but who do we socialize with in our private lives? We might look down our nose at a low-class neighbor who uses the N word, but maybe we wouldn't even think of going to certain bars and restaurants because there aren't any white people.

Are we ever quite as liberal as we like to think?

When you picked the place you wanted to raise your kids, did you choose a top school district that (just incidentally, of course) happened to be 98% white? Or, if you live in an integrated area, did you send your kids to private school "because they'll get a better education"? Deep down, were you relieved, thinking your kids were somehow safer? Ask yourself why.

Right now is the first time in my adult life that I haven't lived in an integrated neighborhood. Not by any intent, it just worked out that way - and sometimes I feel a little apologetic about it. And sometimes I hear neighbors say things I can hardly believe, because white people so often assume all white people agree with them. But I don't, and I let them know.

My kids went to majority-black public schools in our inner-ring suburb. It was a conscious decision by my husband and me; my Jewish mother-in-law, a retired Philadelphia school teacher, was upset and offered to send them to Catholic school instead.

"They'll be fine," we said. And mostly, they were. (Although now my grown kids tell me stories about how they were threatened and harassed by black kids because they had a Jewish last name.)

Until a few years ago, my best friend was black, and her family openly derided white people. "White people are crazy," her father always said. And even though I agreed, I'd still protest. "Hey, I'm right here," I'd say.

"Oh, Susan, you're not white," her family members would say. "You're one of us." But I wasn't. And even though I ate Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners with their clan, that didn't make me black, nor could it really let me understand the life they live. (Although I do know a lot about black women's hair issues.)

But I empathize, because I'm an outsider, too. And that's why I'd much rather sit down and have a discussion with the people from that swim club than to ridicule and shame them for their ignorance. Like Anne Frank, I do believe people are good at heart, and that these swim club members reacted to a perceived threat out of fear. Because I understand they're afraid, and I feel just as sorry for them as I do for the kids who were crushed by their bigotry.

Now, if you think the best way to deal with fear is to attack the people who feel it, well, I guess you won't agree with what I just wrote.

(And just as a postscript: The pool in question does have black members, and it's possible that class was at least as big a factor as race.)



Mike's Blog Roundup

David Seaton's News Links: A good question and a good answer

cab drollery: The hazards of wasting a vote on Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Ron Paul, et al

The Satirical Political Report: GOP defends Spitzer's prostitution activities, but slams him for doing it with "undocumented hookers."

The Brad Blog: The insidious nexus between phony GOP charges of "voter fraud" and the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal will finally explored in a Senate hearing this week.

WTF is going on? Anatomy of a scam.

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: This explains everything...An Ombudsman stumbles around...A politician actually speaks sensibly on security and fraidy-cat authoritarianism, while a store-bought GOP shill just lies...McCain BBQ and our insipid press corpse...Violent framing...Cancer scare tactics...News you may have missed...like our press keeps missing stuff



Mike's Blog Round Up

A Tiny Revolution: When we murder millions, we don't just do it for fun! We have reasons !

Ali Eteraz: The cover of the this month's American Conservative magazine depicts Giuliani in a Fascist uniform

Feministing: Scare tactics and intimidation used against Planned Parenthood Clinic

The Left Coaster: Admittance to the Other Reality

Whiskey Fire: From the perspective of our lazy, script-loving press, Edwards is No Fun

Washington Monthly: Are conservatives just incompetent? Or is it their ideology? Some blame Democrats for the diasastrous BUSHCO reign



Mike's Blog Round Up

The Young Turks: John Kerry calls Joe Lieberman's scare tactics a disgrace.

James Wolcott: No matter what height of prominence a black person reaches, conservatives will always find a way to reduce him or her to low-paid, low-status, low-skilled caricatured servitude.

Martini Republic: Back to the Fear Tightrope

The Enigmatic Paradox: Who is more likely to understand death and write better about the dead than a dead person.

The Democratic Daily: A new low for Joe...Swift Boat Spawn back Lieberman

The Reaction: A sure sign that things are completely wack is finding myself agreeing with George Will...right after agreeing with Patrick Buchanan!



Stopping the Bum's Rush

By PAUL KRUGMAN for The New York Times

The people who hustled America into a tax cut to eliminate an imaginary budget surplus and a war to eliminate imaginary weapons are now trying another bum's rush. If they succeed, we will do nothing about the real fiscal threat and will instead dismantle Social Security, a program that is in much better financial shape than the rest of the federal government. Today let's focus on one piece of those scare tactics: the claim that Social Security faces an imminent crisis.

That claim is simply false. Yet much of the press has reported the falsehood as a fact. For example, The Washington Post recently described 2018, when benefit payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenues, as a "day of reckoning."

Here's the truth: by law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S. government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund. More



Let the lies begin! Scare-ola Gate 2005

NYTIMES:
Social Security employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy.

Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda," said Dana C. Duggins, a vice president of the Social Security Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 50,000 of the agency's 64,000 workers and has opposed private accounts.

Deborah C. Fredericksen of Minneapolis, who has worked for the Social Security Administration for 31 years, said, "Many employees believe that the president and this agency are using scare tactics to promote private accounts."...read on