INTRODUCTION
There's a professional side of my life of which most who read my diaries aren't aware. I was never really keen about discussing it on these boards (although I have brought it up a few times in comments, usually after a diary went off the "last-50" list), perhaps most importantly due to the fact that I'm really a fairly private person, and because I thought it would appear gratuitous and unnecessary to bring it up; if for no other reason than the truth that what I do for a living often involves working (past, present and future) with many folks and groups whom I rather extensively criticize in my diaries. Others would say: I'm writing about what I know. (Then again, there are a few who attempt to put forth the concept that I'm clueless; and they crossover into that realm of false accusations and ad hominem attacks regarding "conspiracy theories." And, yes, I've noticed over the past few weeks that this has been a more frequent practice of some, even within this community, and as it pertains to many posts by many diarists within this community and elsewhere.)
As is self-evident and exacerbated by the fact that I've always used my
real name in my diary posts--diaries which frequently criticize politicians and Wall Street firms--I've either worked or am currently working with many of the people and companies that I take to task in my writing these days.
To put it bluntly, if I was sincerely interested in furthering my own, personal business agenda, the very last thing I should be doing is what I'm doing here.
Today, and due to what I'm pretty sure will be yet another significant cause for conflict here in this community, from this point forward (in fact, it already is), I feel compelled to write about it. (I've posted a link to a lengthy personal bio at the bottom of this diary for disclosure purposes, and because it's pertinent to the subject matter that I cover herein.)
# # #
BUSINESS AS USUAL
I remember, about a decade ago (give or take) when a former college classmate of mine, who was then the Executive Producer for NBC's Dateline, ran a segment on his show about the "hidden scandal" that was occurring in our country's automotive finance industry. The piece was all about how auto dealers everywhere were engaged in the practice of "rate participation," whereby consumers actually paid higher interest rates for financing loans with lenders in the showroom than they (consumers) did if they went directly to the respective banks' offices, instead. So, a car loan with "Bank X" which was originated in the auto dealer's showroom, could easily be 2%-4% higher, in terms of its annual percentage rate (i.e.: "APR"), than that same loan would be if the consumer simply walked down the street to Bank X's offices, and originated the same loan at the source (i.e.: the bank). The banks, in turn, commission(ed) the auto retailer to originate the bank's auto loans at the dealership.
There was significant outrage about this piece immediately after the story ran. Consumer groups were up in arms. Politicians started speaking up.
But, nothing happened.
You see, this was a practice that had been commonplace, for at least a decade or more, and it's still very much the way things work in auto finance, today. In fact, it's common knowledge in the retail auto industry--although, perhaps, not very common knowledge outside of that sector--that car dealers make more money financing loans for cars than they do from the sale of the car, itself. But, the problem with the story was that Dateline handled the piece as if it was some major piece of breaking news. It wasn't. It was merely "business history"--and a perfectly legal business reality, as well--albeit a reality of which the media and the general public were, basically, unaware. (And, yes, the fact is that there are many morally bankrupt realities that may be directly attributed to how banks--and the status quo, in general--operate in our society, today. I posted a diary about this just yesterday, in fact.)
Was the NBC Dateline story outrageous (and, is it still outrageous, because many consumers aren't aware of this truth, even now)? Or, was the real outrage (i.e.: the real story) that this was a major consumer story that had been, basically, overlooked by the national MSM and governmental regulators for over a decade? I would argue it is the latter truths which are most notable. But, the facts remain that this practice was--and still is--an everyday reality in the retail automotive industry, as I speak.
It is business as usual, even now; and, perhaps, that is the biggest outrage of all.
This brings us to Friday's Glenn Greenwald piece in Salon regarding Cass Sunstein: "Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal."
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal
By Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com
Friday, Jan 15, 2010 08:16 EST
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role." Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.
There's no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program exactly of the type advocated by Sunstein, though in light of this paper and the fact that Sunstein's position would include exactly such policies, that question certainly ought to be asked. Regardless, Sunstein's closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he wrote. This isn't an instance where some government official wrote a bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly the area he now oversees. Additionally, the government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade, including in some recently revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class. All of that makes Sunstein's paper worth examining in greater detail.
Bold type is diarist's emphasis.
IMHO, and in my professional (and, arguably, quite jaded) opinion, Greenwald's headline is both sensationalist and just way off-base; and legal eagle Cass Sunstein's advocating usage of intermediate- to advanced-level, unethical public relations strategies that have been practiced throughout our society for many decades. However, I would humbly suggest, that Sunstein should stick to lawyering, another profession noted for its questionable ethics.
IMHO, it is the public relations industry's moral equivalent to what's happening in auto finance. Little more than that. Truth be told, on a higher level, it's all about the extent of moral bankruptcy in our society. (More about that in a moment.)
NEWS FLASH: DESPITE QUESTIONABLE ETHICS AND HIDDEN AGENDAS THAT RUN RAMPANT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE."
Then again, upon closer look: It's 2010, and many have not-so-hidden agendas, and it's incumbent upon all of us to dig, dig, dig for truths that become ever more elusive by the day. One overarching truth is that we are only as strong as the moral/ethical foundations that guide us in our everyday lives. Some would say it's this moral bankruptcy (others call it: moral hazard) that has brought us to where we are, today.
Yet, others reference our current state of highly-questionable, quasi-journalistic ethics as a lame excuse for fighting (media) fire with fire. I would posit that it's more like fighting (media) arson with arson.
The day we succumb to the meme that the ends justify the means, IMHO, we lose. (We become as morally bankrupt as those we accuse of same.)
With the advent of the widespread use of the Internet over the past 17-plus years (stating the obvious, including bloggers, journalists-turned-bloggers, and bloggers-turned-journalists--pretenders all--many of whom don't even relinquish their real names, let alone their true agendas) concurrent with the subsequent audience erosion of an MSM that's primarily owned by just a handful of corporations--but still drives a good portion of the overall narrative--it's more important than ever that we question everything we read. (And, nobody's exempt from this over-arching truth. Not even Glenn Greenwald nor Ballon-Juice.com.)
Yes. It's 2010, and the old line about "...believing nothing that you read and only half of what you see and hear..." rings more true than ever.
Quantitatively, last I checked, one plus one still equals two, so true statistical facts are finite. Getting at the truth, however, appears to be a more difficult exercise with every passing day. (That includes the truth that understanding statistical "facts" requires one to discount all survey-driven data, as well. The term, "consider the source," and all that those considerations encompass, applies. Always! Whether it's internal-/ campaign-/ media-driven political polls or government-provided economic data (most of which is also survey-driven), or everything in-between; the same rules apply.
Qualitatatively, the same truths also rule the day, whether it's a loan from a used car salesperson or a political story from a "trusted source." Take the tinfoil hats off, but, still, question everything.
Today, perhaps moreso than ever, whether we're buying a car or buying into a political meme, it's truly all about: CAVEAT EMPTOR.
# # #
As promised, a link to my bio/disclosure: RIGHT HERE.