When the Central Florida Association of Black Journalists (CFABJ) invited author and journalist Eric Deggans to discuss his new book, Race Baiter: How the News Media Wield Dangerous Power to Divide a Nation, at their monthly meeting, there was little doubt I had to attend. Deggans is a media critic for the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and commenter for NPR and the Huffington Post. He is a frequent critic of Fox News and all things conservative.

In preparation for his visit I read through his book and viewed a seventy-minute presentation of Deggans recorded by CSPAN. The title is a backward handed homage to Fox news commentator Bill O’Reilly that labeled Deggans “one of the biggest race baiters in the country;” hence, the title. The book can be summed up simply: Fox News, talk radio and conservatives generally use racism and racist rhetoric to appeal to racist white males to make money, and it is dividing (read: destroying) America.

A few chapter titles in his book include: “Fox News Channel vs. MSNBC: Downgrading all Journalism in a Race to Win a Political Fight,” “Fox News Focus on Scary Black People” and “Hate Radio Why Talk Radio May Not Be a Haven for Middle Aged White Guy for Much Longer.” Within his presentation Deggans used examples like the story about a White House barbecue posted on the Fox News Nation blog page titled “Obama’s Hip-Hop Barbecue Didn’t Create Jobs.” The story was accompanied with pictures of President Obama, Chris Rock, Charles Barkley and Jay-Z, prompting Deggans to complain there was only one rapper pictured, so it is not a hip-hop barbecue. In Deggans’ mind, this is a clear case of “racial code,” because, you know, only black people go to barbecues.

Other examples Deggans used to illustrate his point were the controversial remarks Rush Limbaugh made about birth control activist Sandra Fluke, Newt Gingrich’s charge of Obama being the food stamp President, and a Brookings Institute study that found Fox viewers believe whites are as discriminated against as blacks.

So his message is clear. Fox news is racist. Conservatives are racist. Fox commentators are mostly racist, and Fox News viewers are racist. Everyone else, however…wait Deggans does not really discuss anyone else. His book is a detailed diatribe against Fox news and Conservatives, but virtually ignores other news organizations, liberals or Democrats. This is quite odd given that the tag line of Deggans book is “How Media Wields Dangerous…” At what point did Fox become the media? It is true, their ratings are higher than CNN and MSNBC combined, but that’s hardly big enough to classify them as “the media.” Where was the discussion about ABC, CBS, or NBC? Deggans thinks Hannity and O’Reilly are dangerous; okay, what about Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann? It is no stretch to assert that either are choirboys when it comes to divisiveness. If Deggans wants to attack Fox news and conservatives, and it is clear from the content he does, then why not call the book, “How Fox News Wields Dangerous Words…”

I questioned Deggans during his presentation on this and other points. Want to know how he responded? Be sure to read part II.

Image credit: Eric Deggans via Facebook

The article Eric Deggans Confirms Own Bias in Race Baiter Part I appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

There is a new kind of economic disorder in the United States taking roots in their fiscal policy. It has emerged in the system foreshadowing an economic apocalypse of the US economy, and is known as the Fiscal Cliff.

The implication of the Fiscal Cliff, if left unchecked, will be devastating in nature and highly toxic for the US and global economic stability. The term ‘Fiscal Cliff’ refers to a package of tax increases and spending cuts that may take place due to the expiration of certain laws dealing with tax code and state spending.

In other words, it refers to a stage where economic fortunes may slip down under a deep no-growth trajectory because of laws which will get activated automatically in January.

According to the BBC, on 31 December, a raft of temporary tax cuts is due to expire just as huge automatic spending cuts are introduced. Individuals and companies will be hit simultaneously with tax rises and reductions in government contracts, benefits and support.

BBC further says that some $607 billion of cuts and tax rises are planned, including reductions in the defense budget, the end of an employee tax holiday, changes to Medicare allowances and higher personal taxes.

The ideology of both Republicans and Democrats is asymmetrical when it comes to resolution of the fiscal mess: President Obama proposes a tax increase for the households that earn more than $250,000 per year, but Republicans tend to repeatedly torpedo that proposal. Republicans seem to favor a “no tax rate increase policy,” with some adjustments and corrections in spending programs.

According to Boston.com, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said “No republican will vote for higher tax rates… We will generate revenue from eliminating deductions and loopholes, but we will insist our Democratic friends reform entitlements – something we’ve never done, and that’s where the big money is at.”

According to CBS News, about $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts are scheduled to take place next year, and some state-run health care programs for the elderly, such as Medicare, will be affected by a 2 percent reduction in payments.

There come questions about how to jump-start job creation and fuel economic growth while still slashing away at federal deficits. Tax hikes to annihilate deficits may plunder the economy itself; tax increase arrests spending and investment but can positively correlate with a deficit reduction scheme.

Ironically, it all depends on how much importance we attach to ballooning deficits and interest service and how we see growth. If spending is slashed through different programs, like Medicare, it will adversely affect savings among the elderly as it will wipe-out state help, leaving them to rely on whatever means they have.

On the other hand, even if Bush-Era Tax Cuts were to be extended for the next two years, will they be helpful in opening the door for faster economic growth? For the last few years Bush-era tax cuts were in place in the economy along with the low interest rate policy adopted by the US Federal Reserve, but the economy is still coughing. What is needed is to increase taxes if deficit reduction is primary for the economy.

The argument is that it might drag the economy back into a recession, but again a question arises. Are these tax-cuts helpful in getting the economy back on a stable surface?

There is no magic wand that can drain out the federal deficits and growth rate with the same pattern of spending and bush-era tax cuts in place.

Ultimately what can be done to avert the crisis, to shield the US economy falling over the cliff? The resolution is in striking a deal that limits spending (to some extent) and increasing tax rates on households earning more than $398,350. Spending on defense should be lowered dramatically; further laws with sunset provisions must be avoided.

The article Fiscal Cliff: Serpent in US Economy appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Imagine a married man with two kids, and a great executive position in a multi-national company. Because of his position he makes excellent money that allows his wife to shop at her pleasure, but also makes his family a target for threats and kidnapping. He uses his money to hire security guards to protect his family, and to pay for a high-end alarm system for his home.

Now imagine that this man loses his job, but the threats to his family persist. He cannot afford both the shopping of his wife and the security guards for his family. To reduce expenses, he gets rid of the guards, and the alarm system, but keeps giving his wife money to shop for shoes as she wishes.

Doesn’t that scenario seem a bit odd? Wouldn’t it be more responsible to cut the shopping and continue to pay for the needed security of the man’s family?

The scenario painted above is the exact one facing the U.S. regarding the security and defense of the country. In the real world, President Obama is the man, and his family is the United States population. His decision last month to reduce the size and scope of the military is just like the man’s decision to get rid of security guards that are protecting his family from kidnapping, to save money.

The United States is facing a fiscal crisis that has the potential to send the country into an economic tailspin. With a national debt of 16 trillion dollars, and yearly spending at a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, President Obama knows that cuts need to be made in spending.  Following in the grand tradition of liberal Democrats before him, he is trying to solve the problem by raising tax rates, and of course going after defense spending. This is wrong-headed, dangerous, and short sighted.

In his defense, President Obama, is not doing anything that other politicians have not done. Long before Obama stepped onto the scene, President Herbert Walker Bush began cutting troop levels. Clinton followed suit with the closing of numerous bases and offering what he termed, a “peace dividend.” Truth be told, politicians have been cutting the military first, ever since the time of Rome and Carthage.  It is an easy foil, but always has consequences that are bad.

The problem is that no one, politicians or generals, are any good at predicting the future of military conflicts. During the Korean War, it was determined that since we had long-range missiles on our fighter jets, we didn’t need guns on them or needed to bother teaching dog fighting (aerial combat) skills. The result? U.S. planes were getting shot out of the sky left and right. Forcing the air force to spend money to retro fit the planes with guns, and bringing fighter pilots out of retirement to teach dog fighting.

At the start of the Iraq war, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld determined that the U.S. would use a lean and mean war effort. The result was huge casualties, because troops were spread thin, and fatigued from multiple tours that came because of the troop reductions that Bush and Clinton made in the 1990’s.

Now, President Obama is doing the same thing. Cutting troops, reducing spending on hardware like fighters and aircraft carriers. Instead, they will use more drones, and a focus on elite forces like the Seals, and Special Forces. The rationale being that there will be no large-scale wars in the future.

Aside from the fact they cannot know that, even current conditions could point to that view being totally wrong. Drone air attacks have been very successful, but that’s partly due to the desert environment of the Middle East. Drones are practically useless in the jungles of Southeast Asia, or South America. Drones will not be able to see through the canopy of jungle trees, so they cannot be fully utilized as though they are in Afghanistan, or Iraq.

China is continuing to build up its military—new fighters, ships, drones– Russia is a sleeping bear that reared its ugly head two years ago in Georgia, and who knows what will happen in the middle east between the Muslim world and Israel. All around the globe there are warm spots of conflict, a spark away from flaring into hot spots of war and strife.

Lastly, relying on elite forces ignores the fact that the people in them take a long time to train, and do need breaks in deployment. Have we not learned that lesson from the wars of the last ten years? By reducing the force numbers,—already too low—we hamper our ability to handle conflict in different locations.

It’s not a stretch to see us mired in the Middle East again, while simultaneously dealing with terrorists in African, Asia, and problems in South America. Of course, it’s easy to say, “We just don’t need to get involved so much.’ But who says we have a choice? We were not in some protracted war before 9/11, but they attacked us anyway.

The reality is that we increase our troops, and spend money on military hardware, not for what happens three years from now, but what happens 10, 15, or 20 years from now. The hardware we used in the first Iraq war was developed during the Reagan years. President Obama, and our military leaders have no clue about what will happen in the next 10 years. They can guess, but every time they decisions like this in the past, they have been wrong. So it is better to over prepare, and under utilize, rather than be under prepared and have to scramble to catch up.

The world is a complicated and dangerous place. A weak America makes it more dangerous, not less. Especially for American citizens that may live or die based on the decisions our leaders are making today. If we cut the military, the country, and indeed some places in the world, shall end up paying the price. A price far higher in blood and tears than the price of what we’re spending on the military now.

The article Obama’s Military Cuts Continue Legacy of Politicians’ Mistakes appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Through the centuries immigration has been a major source to the United States’ growth and development. But it has been also, and it is still, a source of controversy and conflict.

One of the biggest problems tied to immigration in US is the large number of illegal immigrants which outnumbered the legals one. A 2011 survey showed that the illegal immigrants living in the United States in 2010 were about 11.2 million – a number essentially unchanged from the previous year -.

In the controversy about this fundamental issue, either Democrats and Republicans agreed over the years on the need to make changes to the federal immigration laws to face this problem. But essentially just in 2010, after the passage of a new immigration bill in Arizona, the need of a reform in this field has came back to light and has become the subject of discussion.

The Arizona immigration bill, the toughest of the nation about illegal immigration, was signed on April 2010.It required state and local police officers to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they stop if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal It also makes it a state crime to not carry immigration papers. One day before to take effect, in July 28th, the bill was blocked by a judge who asserted the primary authority of the federal government over state lawmakers in immigration matters.

The bill was strongly criticized by President Obama who declared that it threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

Analysing the strategy of the Obama administration in matter of illegal immigration, it is clear that he is pursuing the programs started by the former President Bush administration, despite initially he pledged he would had moderated his predecessor ‘s policies.

Starting from the Bush administration’s policies Mr. Obama expanded a program to verify workers immigration status, replacing immigration raids at factories and farms with a different enforcement strategy sending federal agents to check companies’ records searching for illegal immigrant workers.

These kinds of audits don’t lead to the deportation of the illegal immigrants workers as in the past, but these are being usually fired. Since the beginning of this practice in 2009 thousands of suspected illegal immigrants workers have been fired.

The aim of this policy is to prevent future illegal immigration discouraging the employers to hire illegal immigrants and the immigrants to not cross the borders illegally being conscious of the difficulty of finding a job in those conditions. The effects of the enforcement of this strategy are evident mostly on the Mexican illegal immigration which seems to be reducing. Mexicans – that are the largest group of illegal immigrants – are delaying in crossing the United States borders illegally because of the current situation of low possibilities to find jobs, a considerable decline has been shown by the Mexican Government’s census data.

According to the Department of Homeland Security officials, in each of the last two years the number of immigrants who were deported is the highest in the country’s history, about 400,000.

Over the last months many states government all around US started advancing legislation proposals inspired to Arizona’s bill, with the aim to crack down on the illegal immigration penalizing the illegal immigrants. Mostly in the states under Republican control, this fact is due to the lack of consensus recorded by the Congress.

The debate on toughening up on strategies against illegal immigrants is stirring also the states that have usually been tolerant, that are proposing tougher measures in matter of illegal immigration.

The purpose is to make life so difficult for illegal immigrants to push them to go back to their own countries. As never before since 2006 the possibilities of these laws to be passed appear so high. Perhaps is something changing in the Americans’ attitudes toward immigrants or it is just a political manoeuvre? We will see if the 2012 elections would make reach a turning point on this issue.

The article Tougher Line Against Illegal Immigration appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.