more animals

FIRST OFF, AN EXPLANATION IS IN ORDER FOR WHY IT WAS THAT I WAS UNABLE TO POST MATERIAL YESTERDAY UNTIL LATER IN THE DAY: Some hardware on Blogdrive's end failed, forcing them offline for some while.

(Which, however, did not affect member blogs like this one, which were still up and running.)

Please understand that the problem is being rectified @ this time, so expect some delays in seeing these items posted in real time.

*************

HARD TO SAY IF THIS COULD BE THE END OF THE NOTORIOUS TONY ALAMO MINISTRIES, but their compound in Fouke, AR was raided last evening by Federal and State authorities in response to rumours that Tony Alamo Ministries was dabbling in the old kinderporn.

Charges which Rev. Alamo denies, claiming his "deeply-held beliefs" are "under attack" by what he called "the Anti-Christ Government," never mind where Alamo's pseudoministry has been described as an Evil Cult preying upon children and Other Vulnerable Elements of Society.

(Some further interesting insight into Tony Alamo Ministries was had last fall by the Southern Poverty Law Centre in their Intelligence Report; the article itself is worth reading in the wake of these new developments.)

=============

AND SPEAKING OF SO-CALLED "DEEPLY-HELD BELIEFS" AS A PATSY OF THE RELIGIOPOLITICAL RIGHT WHICH CAN SERVE AS A LEGAL DEFENCE if and when required--Right Wing Watch takes note on how same is being deployed in their propaganda for Indecision 2008:

The Religious Right has spent the last several months savaging Barack Obama and his Christian faith, calling it everything from “deceitful,” to “woefully deficient,” to outright "phony." They have gone over the tenets of his faith with a fine-toothed comb and demanded that he sit down with them and explain, in depth, his Christian beliefs and how they influence his political positions. 

But now that Sarah Palin has emerged on the scene, they have suddenly dusted off their age-old complaint that questions about a candidate's faith and "deeply held beliefs" are off-limits and that any such inquiry is a sign of anti-Christian bigotry: 

Governor Sarah Palin is undergoing increasing scrutiny by those aiming to use her church and religious beliefs as a weapon against her. Over the weekend, a biased Associated Press article attacked her church for promoting Focus on the Family's "Love Won Out" conference which will be held this Saturday in Anchorage. The conference will teach a biblical message on sexuality and assist those seeking to overcome same-sex attractions. We can probably expect more attacks of this nature. How the McCain campaign responds is critical in maintaining the intensity and enthusiasm that swept through social conservatives after Gov. Palin's selection as the VP nominee. In the past, there has been an overwhelming public backlash against those seeking to impose a religious litmus test on candidates and judicial nominees. Several years ago, Senator Schumer (D-NY) experienced this backlash when he attacked judicial nominees for holding "deeply held personal beliefs." The McCain campaign must stand firmly against efforts to make Gov. Palin's faith a disqualifier. There should be no reluctance in any party to be identified as someone who holds "deeply held personal beliefs."

If FRC really is so upset about people trying to use a candidate's "church and religious beliefs as a weapon" against them, maybe they should take it up with James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

Next thing you know, expect the Religiopolitical Right to start using "dearly-held beliefs"--or, even better yet, "deeply- and dearly-held beliefs"--as a patsy crossing on canard to suggest that the defence of a mythological White Male Christian Power Structure is one with the defence of Our Traditional Christian Heritage and Identity. Especially when delivered in a condescendingly-sarcastic tone and nuance which may conceal psychopathic intentions.

*************

WITH BANKERS AND LENDERS ALL THE MORE LIKELY TO START TIGHTENING LOAN AND CREDIT STANDARDS IN THE FACE OF A SERIOUS SOCIOFINANCIAL MELTDOWN caused, no doubt, by the Grand Delusions of His Fraudulency's Great Within suggesting that a combination of "stay-the-course" socioeconomic policies, low taxes and regulatory relief will help ensure Complete and Final Victory in the ur-RAHOWA Agains Terrorism, it was only a matter of time before "spam" e-mails began surfacing from what can best be regarded as disreputable channels claiming to offer "cheap loans" @ low rates of usury without regards to credit history.

Typical of which was the following, as received by Your Correspondent (with necessary redactions):

FRED FINANCIAL HOME is the leading provider of Loans any where any time
.
Get a loan for bills, car repairs, travel or vacation, credit repair, PCS
expenses, furniture, home repair, and all your other needs Loans are available from $2,000 USD to $5,000,000 USD,Personalize your loan with Flexible terms at competitive rates.

If for any reason you are not completely satisfied, return your loan
within 15 days at no cost to you.
Contact us today on our email [redacted] with the following
details:

Names:
Monthly Income:
Home Address:
Phone No:
Fax No:
Country:
Loan Amount ($):
Loan Period:

Regards,
Mr Fred Duke
Chairman / F.F.H.

N.B
All Interested Applicant are to Contact the Company Email below
[redacted]

And it makes you wonder just how these "loans" (if @ all extant) are financed; methinks one likely possibility is that such "lenders" are really using such as a front for Laundering the Proceeds of Crime or Terrorism @ the expense of vulnerable persons needing consumer finance, but unlikely to know where to turn for fear of "not meeting current lending standards."

In turn bringing up the following item per Media Matters for America offered in the interest of insight:

Neil Cavuto, host of Fox News' Your World, conflated giving home mortgages to minorities with risky lending practices, suggesting that efforts to increase homeownership among minority borrowers contributed to financial problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Discussing the decision by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, Cavuto asked Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) on September 18, "[W]hen you and many of your colleagues were pushing for more minority lending and more expanded lending to folks who heretofore couldn't get mortgages, when you were pushing homeownership ... Are you totally without culpability here? Are you totally blameless? Are you totally irresponsible of anything that happened?" Cavuto later said, "I'm just saying, I don't remember a clarion call that said, 'Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster.'"

Previously, on the September 16 edition of Your World, Cavuto said to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD): "[Y]ou wanted to encourage minority lending -- obviously, a lot of Republicans did as well. There was a lot of -- expand lending to those to get a home," Cavuto went on to ask, "Do you think, intrinsically, it was a mistake, on both parties' part, to push -- to push for homeownership for everybody?"

Besides, it's my understanding that Fox Prolefeed has this nasty repute for being a paid shill for the articles of faith of His Fraudulency's Great Within, in particular the empowerment of the Lower Classes out of "chronic and habitual" dependency on renting in "the projects" and into a "healthy and nutritious" respect for owner-occupancy housing as one with True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command.

Enough to make you wonder if what Fox Prolefeed wants out of "the projects" is essentially conversion, Singapore-stylee, of rental units therein into owner-occupied housing, provided the tenants were of Good Moral Character--in other words, unwed mothers, those with past-due traffic tickets or other criminal fines, tax evaders and others deemed "parasites of the state" need not apply.

more the engrish!

THIS PARTICULAR SPECIMEN OF ENGRISH PROMPTS ME TO ASK WHAT YOU VISITORS THINK OF THE EXAGGERATOR almost nine months on in its existance.

Comments graciously welcomed, so long as they refrain from obscenity, indecency or profanity (especially so the "Seven Dirty Words" and their variants); avoid ethno-racial and ethno-religious slurs and epithets; avoid appeals to latent bigotry and hate--in short, keep it clean and all will be right with the world.

more animals

FIRST OFF, READERS, AN APPY POLLY OGGY IS IN ORDER FOR THE DELAY IN POSTING THIS ITEM: Blogdrive.com, as hosts The Exaggerator, was offline for much of today without prior timely advice issued to members explaining what was going on all the while. (As seems the case with them, unfortunately.)

Not to mention my attendance @ Winona State University's Homecoming parade this morning and some time crushing down aluminum cans for recycling @ the motel that I do for in Winona after lunch. The former does tend to get rather excitable, what with students having a drink or two while enjoying the same.

*************

SO MUCH FOR THE GOP BEING THE PARTY OF SELF-RELIANCE, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND A CLASSLESS OWNERSHIP SOCIETY: Melissa McEwan, who writes for the British gazetta The Guardian, observes thus on the GOP's failing to see the errors of their own ways all along in pushing the argument that "complete, final and binding" regulatory relief, as well as a "healthy and nutritious respect" for free-market capitalism, would be the keys to a new Classless Ownership Society as would, for one, "empower" the Lower Classes after years of "chronic and habitual welfare dependency:"

What a difference four years makes. In August of 2004, when he was running for re-election, George Bush turned what had been a nebulous idea encompassing various privatisation and investment ideas into a formal objective, releasing a "fact sheet" detailing his policies that would promote this capitalist utopia known as the "ownership society".

More access and choices in healthcare! More home ownership! More tax relief! It was all about getting the American taxpayers' tax dollars back into their pockets where they belonged so they could buy stuff - because, as Bush explained: "If you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country."

Four years later, millions of Americans are now without healthcare, home foreclosures are skyrocketing, bankruptcy is epidemic and the headlines blare "Nightmare on Wall Street" as the country faces the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. The people who were supposed to own a vital stake in America's future by now are lucky if they still own the shirts on their backs.

The ownership society – built on the shoddy foundation of corporate deregulation, unchecked lending, massive deficits and tax cuts during a time of war – has failed.

And its failure is owned by precisely no one.

Bush, once the golden boy of modern conservatism, has now been disowned by the entire Republican party, who are seemingly just as eager to disown the name of the party itself: The words "Bush" and "Republican" were hardly spoken at the Republican National Convention earlier this month. And the bloody scene on MSNBC's Hardball yesterday – in which host Chris Matthews went after Republican congressman Eric Cantor like a starving dog on a steak, tenaciously exhorting him to take political responsibility for his party's economic policies – was a slaughter, with Matthews declaring at one point: "I have never in my life seen a party run from its own record like the Republicans have."

Matthews: The problem you have is that your colleague from Virginia, Tom Davis, who once ran your campaign committee, said that if the Republican party was dog food, they'd take it off the shelves. And you haven't used the word "Republican" tonight; your party didn't use it in the acceptance speech; John McCain never said the word "Republican"; he never said the word "Bush"; you're trying to take off your uniforms and run from the field of political battle and claim you're not Republicans. You're claiming - you're running against this administration! And I'm not going to let anybody get away with that kind of foolery! You have to take responsibility, sir. The policies of this administration that has gotten us into this mess - you can't walk away and say, "Oh, we had nothing to do with this".

But that is, of course, exactly what the Republicans are now trying to do. Bush is persona non grata. The ownership society? Never heard of it! Gee, it's a terrible situation we're in – how'd that happen? Well, never mind. Now is not the time to point fingers and lay blame! Let us tell you about a hot little commodity named John McCain.

What is, perhaps, most unrelentingly galling about their affected posture is that, even as they disown, disclaim and distance themselves from Bush's economic policies and promote McCain as some sort of saviour, they refuse to acknowledge that his proposals are just more of the same conservative überfail that got us into this morass in the first place.

Had he brilliant economic proposals, or even different ones, it might legitimately warrant their abandonment of Bush and his antiquated fiscal sensibilities. But McCain is merely a new face on the same old swill. They won't own it with Bush's name stamped on it, but they'll line up behind near-identical policies in droves, hoping no one will notice – hoping to help sell those policies again to the American people.

It's stunning, really.

The hypocrisy of the personal responsibility brigade brazenly, utterly refusing to take responsibility for this mess, and the irony of these great champions of the ownership society flatly refusing to own the economic policies which have resulted in massive losses among American families, would be positively hilarious if it all weren't so goddamned tragic.

And what of McCain in all this? Once upon a time, he was an honourable man – and, while it's debatable how kinda sorta mavericky he ever really was during the first part of his career in the Senate, it seems fair to suggest there was probably a time when he would have refused to play the role of new-and-improved packaging on economic policies that had been comprehensively disastrous for America.

But the 2000 election left the taste of presidency in his mouth and Karl Rove's bootprint on his back. Whatever decency and integrity there had ever been in the man disappeared in a moment, as he infused with new meaning that dear old chestnut: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. He once said he wouldn't want to lose a war to win an election. His position on losing his soul seems more flexible.

He now stands at the front of the Republican party, poised to lead them back into the White House, given the right number of electoral votes, and he refuses, like all the rest, to accept any responsibility for the current economic crisis, or to own up to the reality that he's got nothing new up his sleeve, nothing that will effectively and significantly alter the course we are already on – a dearth of ideas that, comically, is owed to the unwavering fealty to partisan doctrine he had to affect in order to become his party's nominee, genuflecting to the precious tax cuts that no one wants to own. Not anymore.

So much for the ownership society.

Which, essentially, is conditioned on an idealised "pure" form of free-market capitalism being the Great White Father. "Pure," as in based solely on Self-Regulatory Codes of Good Practice as contain subtle "outs" which can excuse cartel behaviour and its excesses, with major detrius to both consumers and businesses in equal measure.

In effect, handing over The United States of America to RAMJAC, who would reorganise same as a Limited Liability Corporation (The United States of America, LLC, as it were) based on the belief that taxes were one with "share capital."

=============

AS IF THE NOTION OF A "CLASSLESS OWNERSHIP SOCIETY" IN DISINTEGRATION WASN'T AWFUL ENOUGH FOR THE GOP TO RELISH, think of what Amy Goodman has to say from the new, virtual version of The Capital Times (Madison, WI) about, as it were, taxpayers bailing out tax foes:

The financial crisis gripping the U.S. has the largest banks and insurance companies begging for massive government bailouts. The banking, investment, finance and insurance industries, long the foes of taxation, now need money from working-class taxpayers to stay alive. Taxpayers should be in the driver's seat now. Instead, decisions that will cost people for decades are being made behind closed doors, by the wealthy, by the regulators and by those they have failed to regulate.

Tuesday, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department agreed to a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, the insurance giant. This follows the abrupt bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the 158-year-old investment bank; the distressed sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America; the bailout of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the collapse of retail bank IndyMac; and the federally guaranteed buyout of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase.

AIG was deemed "too big to fail," with 103,000 employees and more than $1 trillion in assets. According to regulators, an unruly collapse could cause global financial turmoil. U.S. taxpayers now own close to 80 percent of AIG, so the orderly sale of AIG will allow the taxpayers to recoup their money, the theory goes.

It's not so easy.

The financial crisis will most likely deepen. More banks and giant financial institutions could collapse. Millions of people bought houses with shady subprime mortgages and have already lost or will soon lose their homes. The financiers packaged these mortgages into complex "mortgage-backed securities" and other derivative investment schemes. Investors went hog-wild, buying these derivatives with more and more borrowed money.

Nomi Prins used to run the European analytics group at Bear Stearns and also worked at Lehman Brothers. "AIG was acting not simply as an insurance company," she told me. "It was acting as a speculative investment bank/hedge fund, as was Bear Stearns, as was Lehman Brothers, as is what will become Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. So you have a situation where it's (the U.S. government) ... taking on the risk of items it cannot even begin to understand."

She went on: "It's about taking on too much leverage and borrowing to take on the risk and borrowing again and borrowing again, 25 to 30 times the amount of capital. ... They had to basically back the borrowing that they were doing. ... There was no transparency to the Fed, to the SEC, to the Treasury, to anyone who would have even bothered to look as to how much of a catastrophe was being created, so that when anything fell, whether it was the subprime mortgage or whether it was a credit complex security, it was all below a pile of immense interlocked, incestuous borrowing, and that's what is bringing down the entire banking system."

As these high-rolling gamblers are losing all their banks' money, it comes to the taxpayer to bail them out. A better use of the money, says Michael Hudson, professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and an economic adviser to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, would be to "save these 4 million homeowners from defaulting and being kicked out of their houses. Now they're going to be kicked out of the houses. The houses will be vacant. The cities are going to (lose) property taxes, they're going to have to cut back local expenditures, local infrastructure. The economy is being sacrificed to pay the gamblers."

Prins elaborated: "You're nationalizing the worst portion of the banking system. ... You're taking on risk you won't be able to understand. So it's even more dangerous." I asked Prins, in light of all this nationalization, to comment on the prospect of nationalizing health care into a single-payer system. She responded, "You could actually put some money into something that pre-empts a problem happening and helps people get health care."

The meltdown is a bipartisan affair. Presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama each have received millions of dollars from these very companies that are collapsing and are receiving the corporate welfare. President Clinton and his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (now an Obama economic adviser) presided over the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, passed after the Great Depression of 1929 to curb speculation that caused that calamity. The repeal was pushed through by former Republican Sen. Phil Gramm, one of McCain's former top advisers.

Politicians are too dependent on Wall Street to do anything. The people who vote for them, and whose taxes are being handed over to these failed financiers, are the ones who need to show their outrage and demand their leaders truly put "country first" and bring about "change."

Spread the word.

Your Pirate Name Is...

Black Sheik of Rumps

Government health insurance, like large employer health insurance, is based on a simple concept: Risk pooling. The more of us in this together, the more our health risks will average out among the population. When I'm sick, many more will be well, and so the group will be able to bear the costs of my illness. Moreover, the greater the size of the pool, the greater our ability to negotiate better deals, demand fairer treatment, and generally find market strength in numbers. This is true, in a maximal sense, for Medicare, with its tens of millions of members and ability to set doctor-payment rates. And it's relatively true for large employers. Democrats, in general, want to expand this model, bringing more people into government and employer options, and ensuring that ever fewer individuals are forced to face the health system on their lonesome.

In contrast, McCain would like to take the health-care system in the opposite direction, toward an individual market where individuals seek coverage without the protection of large insurers or the government. Thus, the core of McCain's health-care proposal is a tax credit designed to ease people out of employer insurance and help employers pull away from offering coverage. McCain would give individuals a $2,500 tax credit and families a $5,000 tax credit meant to help them seek cheaper coverage options, such as health savings accounts, in the private market. And it is this cheaper coverage that is truly the point of McCain's health plan. "I would seek to encourage and expand the benefits of [health savings] accounts to more American families."

The benefits of those accounts are simple: low monthly premiums. The drawbacks are similarly clear: very high deductibles, lots of personal financial risk, and relatively sparse coverage. "These accounts put the family in charge of what they pay for," enthuses McCain. But that's not quite accurate. Individuals have no more autonomy under these accounts than in a traditional sense. They are just more acutely sensitive to the price of their care, which means they'll purchase less of it, and overall health spending will fall.

[***]

Give McCain this: His philosophy is clear. McCain believes that Americans use too much health care, and he has created a plan that will make care less affordable so millions of Americans will use less. He even has a euphemistic description for this approach: "The key to real reform," he says, "is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves … These accounts put the family in charge of what they pay for."

That's undoubtedly true. Parents weighing an emergency room visit they can't afford no doubt realize that they are in charge of what they are paying for. They are certainly more "price sensitive." They are certainly not acting with the wanton disregard of an insured family who seeks care for their feverish child without a second thought. The question, of course, is whether this sort of cost sensitivity is desirable.

So ask yourself this question: It's 3 a.m. one December night in 2010 -- one year after health reform was passed. Whose signature do you wish were on that bill? The president who believed you needed health insurance, and the peace of mind to seek medical care? Or the president who believed you needed more "price sensitivity," and left you to the tender mercy of the insurers? Are we in this together, or are we better off alone?

But where would this leave the Lower Classes traditionally reliant on Medicaid or state-equivalent programmes--subjected to high-pressure sales campaigns from private-sector health plans to the point of causing deliberate bedlam and confusion?

more animals

AS YOU'VE NO DOUBT HEARD ON THE NEWS, HURRICANE IKE'S WRATH AND FURY HAVE LEFT GALVESTON ISLAND A VIRTUAL "NO-GO" AREA save for one house standing.

In consequence thereof, "look-and-leave" for Galveston residents, even with proper identification, has been suspended Until Further Notice, with access essentially limited to:

• emergency services;
• utility crews restoring power, gas, telephonic and CATV services;
• government agencies; and
• relief agencies such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, both of which would appreciate cash (as opposed to "in-kind") donations.

And there are probably going to be some who will insist that the Lower Classes (especially such deemed "chronic and habitual welfare cases") from Galveston Island and Houston essentially resettle themselves in the name of "social improvement" based on Lystenkian models which have been formally discredited--preferably in what are essentially travesties of Euro-model "new towns" based on the "agro-industrial complex" concept of the last few years of the Nicolæ Ceauçescu regime in Romania (i.e., nothing more than concrete-and-cinderblock high-rise apartment towers surrounded by a Community Centre whose only shopping option is Wally World and little else).

*************

MEANWHILE, THE "PATRIOTIC" HATEMONGERS AND XENOPHBES OF ANTI-SEMITIC NATURE IN PARTICULAR are probably all over themselves trying to explain the current and ongoing state of socioeconomic turmoil in simple, easily-understood contexts for the benefit of the Great Unwashed as include John McCain's so-called "fundamentals of the economy--the workers."

Which, when all is said and done, amounts to nothing more than sugarcoated "dog-whistle" anti-Semitism such as is common during major periods of socioeconomic upheval or uncertainty, reinforced with appeals to the "Dominionist" movement as expects salvation to come only through theocratic rule and control of the means of production and distribution "based on Christian Principles."

Dominated, unfortunately, by the worst sort of inebriates, drug addicts, paranoid schizophrenics, sex maniacs and others weird and unwholesome using His Name for potentially blasphemous effect. Whose ranks, or so Dame Rumour hath it, includes one Sarah Palin.

*************

WITH ANOTHER SEASON IN WISCONSIN DELLS HAVING ENDED FOR THEIR OUTDOOR WATERPARKS, let's just hope that the 2009 season doesn't see brochures such as the following (an actual waterpark brochure from Turkey, IIBC):

more the engrish!

*************

IS IT JUST ME ... OR IS THE GOP'S FREQUENT RESORT TO TERRORISM-RELATED ATROCITY PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS a deliberate scaremongering such, one which hopes to see Responsibility for Law and Order returned to the people?

(For which, methinks, read nothing short of sadisto excesses of the old tolchocking and rozzrezzing, among other examples of "whatever means necessary" towards racially-selective Law and Order, carried out in camera by the likes of Black Legion types who are, for the most part, weird and unwholesome. Not to mention expected to show no remorse or guilt, expected all the while to believe that they are acting for the Peace, Safety and Good Order of the Community, expected to deny the real motives therefor if and when asked by their superiors.

(And let's not forget where the Oklahoma City Incident occured under a Democratic President.)

*************

MEANWHILE, IN CHINA, THE DESIRE TO "DEVELOP SOCIALISM WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS" "BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY" shows nothing but a reckless and utter disregard for public health, safety or welfare.

Witness an emerging scandal where dairy products found to have contained melamine, a compound used in plastics manufacture, have caused the deaths of four infants and sickened hundreds of others who consumed infant formula thus contaminate.

And it's not confined to infant formula or powdered milk anymore: Food-safety inspectors have discovered where fluid milk and yoghurt products from three dairies were likewise contaminate with melamine.

The likely patsy for all this: The need to stretch out limited supplies.

(The same excuse, it turns out, that dairy farmers and milk suppliers used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to excuse watering down milk, or otherwise padding out low production with adulterants like chalk, molasses or even plaster of Paris, inspiring some to comment that "dairymen cheat as meanly as faro dealers.")

*************

AND WITH THE NEWS THAT GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS OF TROUBLED BANKS AND LOAN COMPANIES COULD REACH INTO THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, as announced by the Treasury and five other central banks overseas, here's something to think about:

"Money is the root of all evil."
Why not invest yours in United States Savings Bonds?

Or what otherwise precludes your doing so? (Leave any logical-sounding explanations you may have in the comments section for preferring material consumption goods over investing in the United States Government's day-to-day requirements.)

*************

NOT MANY OF YOU KNOW THIS, BUT WALLY WORLD HAS A MAJOR STAKE IN THE BRITISH SUPERMARKET CHAIN ASDA, as explains why it seems like many of the same deceptively-suggestive advertising tricks Wally World deploys to create the aura of consumers getting value for money while so shopping also applies with ASDA.

Case in point: The following recent Advrtising Standards Authority (ASA) adjudication involving ASDA claims of low prices:

Ad
a. A national press ad for Asda showed a large arrow pointing to a smaller arrow.  Text inside the large arrow stated "Asda 2916 products cheaper."  Text inside the smaller arrow stated "Tesco 962 products cheaper."  A large box below the arrows stated "Yep, we've done it again.  The independent price checker says so.  ASDA."  Smaller text underneath the large box stated "This week, independent comparison site mySupermarket.co.uk checked prices for all 7564 same brand/size products on both Tesco and Asda websites - there's no place like ASDA."

b. A TV ad began with a caption at the bottom of the screen that stated "mySupermarket.co.uk.  PRICES CHECKED 18/02/08."  The ad then showed large and small arrows similar to those in the press ad.  Text inside the smaller arrow stated "Tesco 962 products cheaper."  Text inside the larger arrow stated "Asda 2916 products cheaper."  Voice-over stated "This week, independent price checker mySupermarket.co.uk found that Tesco were cheaper on 962 products.  Not bad until you discover that the same independent price checker found Asda were cheaper on more than three times as many.  Asda.  Why pay more?"  Large text in the centre of the screen stated "ASDA.  WHY PAY MORE?"

Issue
Tesco challenged whether:

1. the press ad and

2. the TV ad were misleading because they believed the prices mySupermarket.co.uk had used for the purposes of the comparison were lower in many cases than the prices charged in Asda stores or to online shoppers.

Tesco also challenged whether:

3.  the press ad and

4.  the TV ad were misleading for suggesting that the comparative figures were accurate for an entire week when that was not the case.

Response
1. & 2. Asda said mysupermarket.co.uk were an independent company who took online pricing data from all of the four major supermarkets and produced pricing information on identical branded products. They understood that information was then independently verified and formed the basis of price comparison claims made by the major supermarkets. Asda stated that they operated a national pricing policy and that prices on their website were identical to in-store prices. They said that, although the investigated ad did not state a disclaimer, other ads before and after it had stated "online prices may vary from in-store." They said that was a standard disclaimer in case errors occurred. Asda supplied a copy of the price comparison data mysupermarket had provided on which their price comparison claim was based. Asda believed the data mysupermarket published on 18 February was collated over the weekend of 16 February. They said as many as 3,000 price reductions were actioned over a weekend on their website and in store in time for when stores opened on Monday. They said it was possible that some shelf-edge labels might continue to show the previous, higher price but customers at the till would always be charged the new, lower price.

Regarding the TV ad, Clearcast said they were satisfied that the comparison was a fair and genuine one of the pricing of both Asda and Tesco; that mysupermarket's methodology was sound and that the ad was not misleading. Clearcast supplied the price comparison information they had seen to support the claim. They said they had also received the pricing information referred to by Asda above. They said the ad was one of several similar ones for Asda that they had approved over consecutive weeks. They said their understanding was that Asda's online and in-store prices were identical to those in the comparison data and that there were no significant price changes after the comparison was made.

3. & 4. Asda said the price checks for the press ad were made on the same date as was stated in the TV ad. They said the date the prices were checked was omitted from the press ad due to an error and that that error would be rectified in future press ads. They said that, although the price checks were made on one day only, Asda had since obtained similar data for the days that followed (Tuesday 19 to Thursday 21 February), which they believed showed Asda's prices were lower than Tesco's for those days also.

Regarding the TV ad, Clearcast believed the on-screen text "PRICES CHECKED 18/02/08" made clear to viewers when the checks were made and that there was a historical element to them. They believed the warning was sufficient to prevent the ad becoming misleading should, for instance, any slight, limited and unavoidable price variations occur or any items become de-listed while the ad was on air. Clearcast did not believe viewers expected prices to remain static for the entire time the ad was on air but considered that the broad principle that Asda had more cheaper, identical products than Tesco remained accurate. They said the ad was not transmitted for more than seven days.

Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA noted that the ads identified the name of the independent company that had made the price checks and stated that the company had checked Asda and Tescos' website prices and used them for the basis of the claim. We noted Asda's statement that they operated a national pricing policy; that prices on their website were identical to their in-store prices and that ads before and after the investigated ad contained what Asda described as a standard disclaimer that online prices might vary from those in-store in case of error. We also noted their response that it was possible some shelf-edge labels might continue to show the previous, higher price but customers at the till would be charged the new, lower price. We noted that neither Asda nor Tesco had provided till receipts or similarly definitive proof that showed the prices charged when the products were purchased in-store, but that Tesco had supplied data, also compiled by an independent company, that compared prices by scanning shelf bar codes. According to that data, approximately 100 products cited as being cheaper at Asda were cheaper at Tesco, and approximately 50 further products cited as being cheaper at Asda were priced equally at Tesco.

We considered that, although the ads made it clear that the claim was based on a comparison of website prices, customers were likely to expect to be able to obtain those savings whether shopping in-store or online. In light of the data Tesco supplied, and in the absence of till receipt evidence (or similar), we considered Asda's evidence did not conclusively prove the specific claim that 2,916 products were cheaper at Asda than they were at Tesco. We concluded that the claim was not substantiated and that the ads were misleading.

On point 1 the press ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparative claims) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

On point 2 the TV ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising).

3. Upheld
We noted that the date the prices were checked was omitted from the press ad due to an error and welcomed Asda's assurance that that error would be rectified in future press ads. We also noted that Asda had provided price comparison data for the three days that followed the price check, which they believed showed Asda's prices were lower than Tesco's for those days also. For the reasons stated in 1 and 2 above, however, we did not consider Asda had shown that the pricing information they had used for the comparison was accurate. In the absence of data to show when the price checks took place, we considered the ad suggested the claim was valid for the entire time it appeared, but that Asda had not demonstrated that was the case. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point the press ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparative claims) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

4. Not upheld
We noted that the TV ad stated "PRICES CHECKED 18/02/08." Although the voice-over stated "This week ..." we considered viewers were likely to understand that the price check was a snapshot taken on a single day and that prices in the competitive supermarket sector might not remain static. Notwithstanding our concerns that the data did not support the claim about the number of products that were cheaper at Asda than they were at Tesco, we considered the statement "PRICES CHECKED 18/02/08" made the date of the price check clear and did not consider that any other element of the ad suggested the price comparison claim was necessarily valid for the entire week the ad was shown.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 5.1 (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.

Action
The press ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Asda to remove it and to ensure they held suitable evidence before making price comparisons in future. We told them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing any future comparative ads.

The TV ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

So much for Wally World's current slogan of "Save money. Live better."