You have to hand it to Glenn Beck- he's more farsighted than even Ophrah Winfrey.
The talk show host who William F. Buckley used to describe as "that woman who is large, gets thin, then large again," recently created her own cable network, leaving one of the major broadcasters poorer as she consolidated her financial resources.
But, listening to the after-show hour-long infomercial on GBTV last night, I think Beck went her one better.
I'll probably write a longer post about this on my business blog in the next week or so. Over the past few years, I've argued in several posts (which I don't have time to find and link this morning) there that there's no reason for a well-known, talented person like, say, Larry David, to run his new programs on cable television. By using YouTube, his own funds, bank loans, a website and PayPal, he could easily self-distribute his next project and keep all the distribution fees.
Glenn Beck is doing just that.
He evidently became clued in a year or so ago when an interviewer asked when Beck would just move to the web?
Well, Beck told everyone to go to his website to see where he's going. The website announced GBTV. When you clicked on the button, it brought you to a page on which the paid membership options were presented, along with a one-hour infomercial describing Beck's new array of businesses- publishing, clothing, news, opinion, and more.
His streaming website is available on all platforms, with the display technology managed, literally, by the same outfit that does it for MLB.
I saw something like this peaking through Beck's various initiatives of the past few years. A sort of combination of John Doe clubs, new media and the web.
Beck will now stream his record-shattering 5-6PM Fox News program format from his own website from 5-7PM. The rest of the day will feature other programs with varying formats. He's bringing a clothing line out which will be produced in selected down-at-the-heels American towns. For that, he's borrowing a page from Paul Newman's businesses and using the proceeds as charity to fund some of his other activities.
I think in some sense, Beck decided to regain total control of his empire, originally centered on his radio program, and become less-dependent upon advertisers and network foibles. This will coincidentally allow Beck to become a sprawling, many-tentacled conservative counterweight to his liberal nemesis, mega-rich progressive George Soros.
More later on this topic.....
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Friday, July 1, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Debt Limit Talks
For me, the best line of the entire debt limit situation came last week when former Senator, now presidential candidate Rick Santorum, replied to a question from Glenn Beck about the Biden-led talks, to paraphrase,
'If Joe Biden's involved, then you know they're going to fail.'
I notice that all of the CNBC coverage involves earnest-sounding liberal Democrats claiming,
'There has to be compromise. Sure, we'll cut spending. But the Republicans refuse to raise revenues. They have to agree to more taxes- it's only fair.'
Really?
How about this- the Democrats and Republicans have been spending far above the long-term federal tax/GDP rate of 18% for decades. No matter what the tax rates, only about 18% of GDP will find its way to federal coffers.
The only real issue now remaining, as global investors begin to doubt America's government's ability to ever live within its means, is to cut spending.
Wasting time on tax hikes or new taxes will only distort and affect consumer behavior to once more lower tax collections to 18% of GDP.
Democrats don't seem to be able, or want to, acknowledge that tax policy is not arithmetic in a static environment, but government policy which provokes changes in consumer and investor behaviors which lower tax collections back to a surprisingly stable long-term rate of 18% of GDP.
Are the Congressional Democrats- and Wonderboy- really so blind and stupid as to not understand this?
I think some are, and the others are simply choosing not to acknowledge, hoping to just keep raising taxes at every opportunity. The liberal mainstream media backs this play by pretending that 'it's only fair' to raise taxes if spending is being cut, ignoring decades of spending excess by both parties. It's a very Russian negotiating tactic- what's yours is on the table, but what's mine is not, ergo, grudgingly giving way on spending cuts, but only if taxes are raised.
Personally, I am at the point where I am okay with no debt limit raise if the Democrats don't agree to spending cuts in excess of the raise within the next year or two.
Economist John B. Taylor offered an excellent compromise solution on Tom Keene's noontime Bloomberg program yesterday. Taylor suggested that Republicans extract half of the $6-7T in required spending cuts this time around, then go for the remaining $3T next year, with no tax hikes ever mentioned.
Sounds good to me.
'If Joe Biden's involved, then you know they're going to fail.'
I notice that all of the CNBC coverage involves earnest-sounding liberal Democrats claiming,
'There has to be compromise. Sure, we'll cut spending. But the Republicans refuse to raise revenues. They have to agree to more taxes- it's only fair.'
Really?
How about this- the Democrats and Republicans have been spending far above the long-term federal tax/GDP rate of 18% for decades. No matter what the tax rates, only about 18% of GDP will find its way to federal coffers.
The only real issue now remaining, as global investors begin to doubt America's government's ability to ever live within its means, is to cut spending.
Wasting time on tax hikes or new taxes will only distort and affect consumer behavior to once more lower tax collections to 18% of GDP.
Democrats don't seem to be able, or want to, acknowledge that tax policy is not arithmetic in a static environment, but government policy which provokes changes in consumer and investor behaviors which lower tax collections back to a surprisingly stable long-term rate of 18% of GDP.
Are the Congressional Democrats- and Wonderboy- really so blind and stupid as to not understand this?
I think some are, and the others are simply choosing not to acknowledge, hoping to just keep raising taxes at every opportunity. The liberal mainstream media backs this play by pretending that 'it's only fair' to raise taxes if spending is being cut, ignoring decades of spending excess by both parties. It's a very Russian negotiating tactic- what's yours is on the table, but what's mine is not, ergo, grudgingly giving way on spending cuts, but only if taxes are raised.
Personally, I am at the point where I am okay with no debt limit raise if the Democrats don't agree to spending cuts in excess of the raise within the next year or two.
Economist John B. Taylor offered an excellent compromise solution on Tom Keene's noontime Bloomberg program yesterday. Taylor suggested that Republicans extract half of the $6-7T in required spending cuts this time around, then go for the remaining $3T next year, with no tax hikes ever mentioned.
Sounds good to me.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Regarding The Movie Atlas Shrugged
I have yet to review the recently-released movie of the quintessential conservative tome, Atlas Shrugged (Part One).
Let me get my thumbs up/down read on the film out of the way. Don't bother to see it.
Personally, I'll be surprised if Part Two is ever produced.
As I said several times to the friend with whom I saw the movie, the failure of the screenwriter to provide better dialogue than Rand's stilted, simplistic lines, doomed the movie.
The acting isn't terrific, either. All of the major roles- Dagney Taggart, her brother and Hank Reardon, are played by unknown actors. A few familiar character actors appear as Wesley Mouche and Wyatt, the oil baron. And Michael O'Keefe makes a 10 second appearance outside the famous diner in the hills of the American west.
If better talent had played some of the roles, the characters may have been a bit more interesting to those who haven't read the book. Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman would have made a better Wesley Mouche. But the lack of a better script would limit any actor.
As I reminded my friend, who hadn't read the book since she was in high school some 30 years ago, Rand's dialogue, especially in what passed for romantic scenes, was dull and stilted. I vividly recall skimming over those parts, concentrating instead on the message in the prose describing the financial actions, as well as the occasional important free market capitalism speech by a character.
My friend was disappointed that the novel, originally set in what appeared to be the 1930s or '40s, was updated to the present, featuring smartphones and laptops. I opined that it was a pity they didn't update the dialogue to something worth listening to.
I was heartened that half of the movie theater was full for the afternoon showing. On the other hand, there were only four theaters within 30 miles of us showing the film. We had to drive about 45 minutes to see it.
My advice is to simply reread the book. That way, you can skip over the bad writing and focus on the more meaty philosophical parts of the book.
Let me get my thumbs up/down read on the film out of the way. Don't bother to see it.
Personally, I'll be surprised if Part Two is ever produced.
As I said several times to the friend with whom I saw the movie, the failure of the screenwriter to provide better dialogue than Rand's stilted, simplistic lines, doomed the movie.
The acting isn't terrific, either. All of the major roles- Dagney Taggart, her brother and Hank Reardon, are played by unknown actors. A few familiar character actors appear as Wesley Mouche and Wyatt, the oil baron. And Michael O'Keefe makes a 10 second appearance outside the famous diner in the hills of the American west.
If better talent had played some of the roles, the characters may have been a bit more interesting to those who haven't read the book. Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman would have made a better Wesley Mouche. But the lack of a better script would limit any actor.
As I reminded my friend, who hadn't read the book since she was in high school some 30 years ago, Rand's dialogue, especially in what passed for romantic scenes, was dull and stilted. I vividly recall skimming over those parts, concentrating instead on the message in the prose describing the financial actions, as well as the occasional important free market capitalism speech by a character.
My friend was disappointed that the novel, originally set in what appeared to be the 1930s or '40s, was updated to the present, featuring smartphones and laptops. I opined that it was a pity they didn't update the dialogue to something worth listening to.
I was heartened that half of the movie theater was full for the afternoon showing. On the other hand, there were only four theaters within 30 miles of us showing the film. We had to drive about 45 minutes to see it.
My advice is to simply reread the book. That way, you can skip over the bad writing and focus on the more meaty philosophical parts of the book.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Is Glenn Beck A Real Howard Beale?
Some time ago, Glenn Beck related a meeting he had with a key aide to George Soros. I don't recall all of the details, but I do remember that, as a parting gift, Soros' guy gave Beck a DVD of Andy Griffith's breakthrough movie, A Face In The Crowd. Soros, Beck noted, was suggesting that Beck was simply a recovering alcoholic who was shallow, manipulative, and destined to be out of the spotlight very soon.
Recently, I believe about a month or so, perhaps a little longer, Beck announced that he'll end his daily 5PM program on Fox News Channel. The article which I read alluded to Beck having lost advertisers due to some of his positions and topics. If so, it's not noticeable. Perhaps Beck is simply tiring of the format, and moving on, on his own schedule, to other ventures.
Never the less, I happened to see an old movie a few weeks ago that brought Beck to mind. It was Network, the 1976 hit movie starring Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, Robert Duval and William Holden.
I'd never actually seen the entire picture at once. But I was familiar with the iconic trademark phrase uttered by Finch's character, Howard Beale,
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
But, after Beale is reincarnated as a somewhat crazed evening program host of what is no longer a news show, he more routinely proclaims that he's going to tell the truth about various forces in society arrayed against his viewers.
That's the part that made me think of Glenn Beck. I doubt Beck will be shot on air as an end to his program's run. He also doesn't claim to have received a spiritual vision.
But that unvarnished sense of hostility with the predominant media which won't cover or investigate obvious conflicts of interest, cronyism and lies of omission by government, academia and industry does seem to echo Howard Beale's sentiments.
I wonder where that attitude, and Beck's energy and money will next appear?
Recently, I believe about a month or so, perhaps a little longer, Beck announced that he'll end his daily 5PM program on Fox News Channel. The article which I read alluded to Beck having lost advertisers due to some of his positions and topics. If so, it's not noticeable. Perhaps Beck is simply tiring of the format, and moving on, on his own schedule, to other ventures.
Never the less, I happened to see an old movie a few weeks ago that brought Beck to mind. It was Network, the 1976 hit movie starring Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, Robert Duval and William Holden.
I'd never actually seen the entire picture at once. But I was familiar with the iconic trademark phrase uttered by Finch's character, Howard Beale,
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
But, after Beale is reincarnated as a somewhat crazed evening program host of what is no longer a news show, he more routinely proclaims that he's going to tell the truth about various forces in society arrayed against his viewers.
That's the part that made me think of Glenn Beck. I doubt Beck will be shot on air as an end to his program's run. He also doesn't claim to have received a spiritual vision.
But that unvarnished sense of hostility with the predominant media which won't cover or investigate obvious conflicts of interest, cronyism and lies of omission by government, academia and industry does seem to echo Howard Beale's sentiments.
I wonder where that attitude, and Beck's energy and money will next appear?
Friday, March 18, 2011
The NPR Sting
You have to marvel at how NPR's Ron Schiller's unguarded lunch comments prematurely ended his stint there, and took down the firm's CEO, Vivian Schiller (no relation), as well.
Here's the long version of the lunch video that did the trick. The scheme was concocted by the conservative ambush artist who outed Planned Parenthood last year for helping self-identified pimps of under-aged teen girls.
Here's the long version of the lunch video that did the trick. The scheme was concocted by the conservative ambush artist who outed Planned Parenthood last year for helping self-identified pimps of under-aged teen girls.
This video, following on the heels of the Juan Williams fiasco, evidently rendered CEO Schiller's position untenable.
But what really ought to be clear to anyone with any amount of intelligence is how vulnerable all people in positions of influence and power now are. No lunch is a private lunch any longer. Effectively, everyone wears a wire.
If you are the leader or a senior executive of a company or well-known non-profit, any meeting with anyone other than a close friend could be a trap. The video and audio transmitters which could be entrapping you would not be obvious.
Every little aside or casual remark by your guest could be calculated to elicit or provoke your embarrassing rejoinder, to be preserved, then blasted out on YouTube the next day or week.
Good or bad, it's true.
Ever since Virginia Senator George Allen was caught on video uttering an ethnically-questionable term to a heckler at a campaign rally, we've been living in this world of secret video entrapment.
How about Jesse Jackson's open mike remarks about Wonderboy a few years ago?
The NPR escapade is just the latest example of the new world in which we live. A world in which anybody with a public image is vulnerable to being lured into candid, embarrassing private remarks that could end up on the internet within days.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Keith Olbermann's Departure
Bret Stephens wrote a refreshing editorial in the Wall Street Journal last week commenting on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's imminent departure. Like me, Stephens expressed support for explicit political purity in media.
Stephens wrote of Olbermann,
"He put MSNBC on the map. He pushed CNN into third place. He earned his $30 million contract.
Nor was Mr. Olbermann only good for capitalism. For a long time, the dominant mode of liberal argument was to ironize, or tut-tut, or dissemble, or manipulate the terms of discourse, or stack the deck in debates that are supposed to be balanced. The "Countdown" host did away with the old-fashioned liberal snigger and replaced it with a full-frontal snarl.
Put simply, Mr. Olbermann had a genuine faith in populism, something liberals more often preach than practice."
Contrary to the incumbent mentality which, at the FCC, now seeks to mandate balance within either networks or programs- I'm not sure which- I agree with Stephens in preferring that programs simply espouse what they wish, and let consumers choose.
I don't personally find Olbermann's views sensible nor attractive. Nor am I fond of his manner, what little I've seen of it. But I do think it's best to let him have whatever pulpit the market will offer, on mutually-agreeable terms.
He'll probably land somewhere with his trademark narrow-minded, wrong-headed liberalism. But, so be it. Better he gives an unvarnished view of ultra-liberal zaniness and insensibility than that he be muzzled or governmentally 'balanced.'
Stephens wrote of Olbermann,
"He put MSNBC on the map. He pushed CNN into third place. He earned his $30 million contract.
Nor was Mr. Olbermann only good for capitalism. For a long time, the dominant mode of liberal argument was to ironize, or tut-tut, or dissemble, or manipulate the terms of discourse, or stack the deck in debates that are supposed to be balanced. The "Countdown" host did away with the old-fashioned liberal snigger and replaced it with a full-frontal snarl.
Put simply, Mr. Olbermann had a genuine faith in populism, something liberals more often preach than practice."
Contrary to the incumbent mentality which, at the FCC, now seeks to mandate balance within either networks or programs- I'm not sure which- I agree with Stephens in preferring that programs simply espouse what they wish, and let consumers choose.
I don't personally find Olbermann's views sensible nor attractive. Nor am I fond of his manner, what little I've seen of it. But I do think it's best to let him have whatever pulpit the market will offer, on mutually-agreeable terms.
He'll probably land somewhere with his trademark narrow-minded, wrong-headed liberalism. But, so be it. Better he gives an unvarnished view of ultra-liberal zaniness and insensibility than that he be muzzled or governmentally 'balanced.'
Friday, January 14, 2011
CNN Looks To Remove Kathleen Parker
I noticed an article this past week suggesting that CNN may swap out conservative journalist Kathleen Parker of 'Parker Spitzer.'
According to the piece, CNN's ratings trail even those of the hapless MSNBC on weekday evenings. Moreover, Parker Spitzer had an average of 468,000 viewers in December, while Fox News' O'Reilly Factor had 2.6MM and MSNBC had 874,000. How bad to you have to be to lose to MSNBC in an evening slot?
I couldn't discern from the Journal article whether or not CNN had done viewer, or non-viewer research as to why the program is failing. But what struck me as odd is that Parker is the one being rumored as gone, rather than the bad-boy of governors, Eliot Spitzer.
From misbehaving as a barely-legal goon when AG of New York, to cheating on his wife and embarrassing himself, her, and the state of New York as governor, you'd think maybe the CNN management would reconsider using this tainted liberal.
However, ever in keeping with liberal mindsets everywhere, they're going with their gut and canning the conservative.
Talk about denial....
According to the piece, CNN's ratings trail even those of the hapless MSNBC on weekday evenings. Moreover, Parker Spitzer had an average of 468,000 viewers in December, while Fox News' O'Reilly Factor had 2.6MM and MSNBC had 874,000. How bad to you have to be to lose to MSNBC in an evening slot?
I couldn't discern from the Journal article whether or not CNN had done viewer, or non-viewer research as to why the program is failing. But what struck me as odd is that Parker is the one being rumored as gone, rather than the bad-boy of governors, Eliot Spitzer.
From misbehaving as a barely-legal goon when AG of New York, to cheating on his wife and embarrassing himself, her, and the state of New York as governor, you'd think maybe the CNN management would reconsider using this tainted liberal.
However, ever in keeping with liberal mindsets everywhere, they're going with their gut and canning the conservative.
Talk about denial....
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Liberal Media Attacks On Conservatives Regarding Arizona Shootings
It's an unfortunate, and expected, outcome of the tragic shooting deaths and woundings in Tucson over the weekend that liberal media pundits have immediately blamed conservative politicians and media personalities.
I actually watched some of Monday night's MSNBC program featuring Keith Olberman. This was after I saw part of Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program. O'Reilly aggressively responded to Paul Krugman's New York Times editorial. Part of that text, which I found here, reads,
"We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list. [...]
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers."
Right now, I'm listening to Glenn Beck's Monday evening program. I missed the live telecast, but correctly figured he would focus on Krugman et.al. using the shootings as an excuse to politicize free speech. I was correct.
For his part, Olberman, when I tuned in, was interviewing some minor liberal at an outfit called, I believe, the Southern Poverty Law Project. Olberman quizzed the guy on whether right wing pundits and the GOP were inciting violence, which, of course, the interviewee confirmed. Without any evidential cites, of course. Then Olberman's stentorian voice solemnly declared that Sarah Palin's website had put the Arizona Congresswoman who was shot, in 'crosshairs' for electoral defeat. Nevermind that the webpage to which I provided the link above reproduced a DailyKos page also targeting the Representative in its own crosshairs.
By now, you, as have I, have probably learned that the shooter was, sadly, an unstable, mentally ill person whose political leanings, whatever they were, didn't have any obvious connection to his violent acts.
Beck coolly reminded his viewers of how the liberal media got the recent case of the black female HUD(?) employee all wrong by jumping to conclusions in advance of having the facts. And on Monday evening, one of O'Reilly's guests reminded his viewers that when the Muslim Army colonel shot up Fort Hood, the liberal media reprimanded the public not to assign any causality to his religious beliefs. Now, however, they are all over conservatives for alleged responsibility for the Arizona violence.
Need you know more to see how one-sided the liberal media forces are? How they look for the potential in any situation to muzzle conservatives and restrict free speech?
I actually watched some of Monday night's MSNBC program featuring Keith Olberman. This was after I saw part of Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program. O'Reilly aggressively responded to Paul Krugman's New York Times editorial. Part of that text, which I found here, reads,
"We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list. [...]
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers."
Right now, I'm listening to Glenn Beck's Monday evening program. I missed the live telecast, but correctly figured he would focus on Krugman et.al. using the shootings as an excuse to politicize free speech. I was correct.
For his part, Olberman, when I tuned in, was interviewing some minor liberal at an outfit called, I believe, the Southern Poverty Law Project. Olberman quizzed the guy on whether right wing pundits and the GOP were inciting violence, which, of course, the interviewee confirmed. Without any evidential cites, of course. Then Olberman's stentorian voice solemnly declared that Sarah Palin's website had put the Arizona Congresswoman who was shot, in 'crosshairs' for electoral defeat. Nevermind that the webpage to which I provided the link above reproduced a DailyKos page also targeting the Representative in its own crosshairs.
By now, you, as have I, have probably learned that the shooter was, sadly, an unstable, mentally ill person whose political leanings, whatever they were, didn't have any obvious connection to his violent acts.
Beck coolly reminded his viewers of how the liberal media got the recent case of the black female HUD(?) employee all wrong by jumping to conclusions in advance of having the facts. And on Monday evening, one of O'Reilly's guests reminded his viewers that when the Muslim Army colonel shot up Fort Hood, the liberal media reprimanded the public not to assign any causality to his religious beliefs. Now, however, they are all over conservatives for alleged responsibility for the Arizona violence.
Need you know more to see how one-sided the liberal media forces are? How they look for the potential in any situation to muzzle conservatives and restrict free speech?
Monday, December 6, 2010
The Grey Lady's Double Standard
The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto provided this undeniable example of the New York Times' indefensible double standard regarding leaks.
"The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."—New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009.
"The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."—New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents, Nov. 29, 2010. "
Some it likes, others it does not. No surprise which is which, is there? Just that there would appear to be no difference, apart from the political perspective so obvious in the Times' positions.
"The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."—New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009.
"The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."—New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents, Nov. 29, 2010. "
Some it likes, others it does not. No surprise which is which, is there? Just that there would appear to be no difference, apart from the political perspective so obvious in the Times' positions.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Juan Williams-NPR Flap
I realize I'm about a week late to this story. That should give you some idea of how trivial I think it is.
Basically, NPR canned liberal Juan Williams because he stated his feelings of anxiety when seeing people dressed in burkas on airplanes, when on a Fox News program.
The firestorm which erupted cast NPR in a bad light because it chose some innocuous little rule on which to base its firing of Williams. Critics trotted out Nina Totenberg's decade-old clip wishing Jessie Helms' grandchildren an unpleasant death from AIDS as proof that the network was playing favorites.
Okay. News flash- NPR is really liberal. Williams isn't the most liberal guy there. So they found a very public instance of his behavior that they felt they could attack and used it to fire him.
Now, for Christ sake, you'd think Williams was dead, gone to heaven, then rose from the dead and is a canonized Saint.
Honestly, this guy is nothing special. Like most liberals, he's not too bright. If he were, well, he'd be conservative, wouldn't he?
Like most liberals, he has no sense of how real people behave in society. He, too, seemed to be missing in action the day God handed out the common sense about people's economic and general social motivating behaviors.
Some liberals are just plain stupid. That would be, say, Alan Combs. Others are smart, but missing that ability to understand how most real people behave. That would be Williams.
If you've seen Williams on Fox, he typically gives a knee-jerk defense of any liberal elected official, like Wonderboy or Frisco Nan, in response to reasonable, informed remarks by people like Steven Hayes or Charles Krauthammer. No matter how inane he looks, he always comes to the defense of his ideological kin.
When I hear people like O'Reilly and Krauthammer say what a great guy Williams is, and how they are friends, I wonder what they are smoking. Maybe they're just spouting a Fox News line to keep Williams on board.
After all, let's face it, Williams is a two-for. Not simply liberal, but a black liberal. Even Colmes isn't that valuable.
And how much richer can it get than for Fox to rush to Williams' defense, then give him a new contract as the networks official token in residence, at NPR's expense?
Sure, let's defund NPR. It's way past time. And, yes, NPR is now basically on Soros' payroll. Williams' firing at an inopportune time, right before the mid-term elections, probably won't help Democrats, either.
But c'mon. Let's not go overboard. Juan Williams is hardly God's gift to journalism or cable news and opinion programs. What he is is a tolerable liberal who serves a purpose of providing Fox with more balance than their rivals.
Basically, NPR canned liberal Juan Williams because he stated his feelings of anxiety when seeing people dressed in burkas on airplanes, when on a Fox News program.
The firestorm which erupted cast NPR in a bad light because it chose some innocuous little rule on which to base its firing of Williams. Critics trotted out Nina Totenberg's decade-old clip wishing Jessie Helms' grandchildren an unpleasant death from AIDS as proof that the network was playing favorites.
Okay. News flash- NPR is really liberal. Williams isn't the most liberal guy there. So they found a very public instance of his behavior that they felt they could attack and used it to fire him.
Now, for Christ sake, you'd think Williams was dead, gone to heaven, then rose from the dead and is a canonized Saint.
Honestly, this guy is nothing special. Like most liberals, he's not too bright. If he were, well, he'd be conservative, wouldn't he?
Like most liberals, he has no sense of how real people behave in society. He, too, seemed to be missing in action the day God handed out the common sense about people's economic and general social motivating behaviors.
Some liberals are just plain stupid. That would be, say, Alan Combs. Others are smart, but missing that ability to understand how most real people behave. That would be Williams.
If you've seen Williams on Fox, he typically gives a knee-jerk defense of any liberal elected official, like Wonderboy or Frisco Nan, in response to reasonable, informed remarks by people like Steven Hayes or Charles Krauthammer. No matter how inane he looks, he always comes to the defense of his ideological kin.
When I hear people like O'Reilly and Krauthammer say what a great guy Williams is, and how they are friends, I wonder what they are smoking. Maybe they're just spouting a Fox News line to keep Williams on board.
After all, let's face it, Williams is a two-for. Not simply liberal, but a black liberal. Even Colmes isn't that valuable.
And how much richer can it get than for Fox to rush to Williams' defense, then give him a new contract as the networks official token in residence, at NPR's expense?
Sure, let's defund NPR. It's way past time. And, yes, NPR is now basically on Soros' payroll. Williams' firing at an inopportune time, right before the mid-term elections, probably won't help Democrats, either.
But c'mon. Let's not go overboard. Juan Williams is hardly God's gift to journalism or cable news and opinion programs. What he is is a tolerable liberal who serves a purpose of providing Fox with more balance than their rivals.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Andy Griffith's Shameless Misleading Ads for ObamaCare
[Reposted with working video links.]
I couldn't believe it, at first, when I saw this recent pro-ObamaCare ad by Andy Griffith.
Aside from looking like a stroke victim, Griffith, or, more accurately, the Democratic administration using him, are trading on his folksy, trustworthy image. Here, honestly, I think he looks senile. The stupid grin and misinformation about just what ObamaCare will do to the country. It's truly shameful what our government is doing, creating and running ads to confuse and mislead seniors, claiming that there's a free lunch to be had in the new, expensive health care laws.
Here's what I think of when I see that ad....Andy Griffith as Lonesome Rhodes in Elia Kazan's 1957 classic A Face in the Crowd.
Scary clips, aren't they? Reminding us of Cass Sunstein's remarks about people being like Homer Simpson, needing help making choices.
And to help you let government make those choices for you, we see a new face of propaganda- ol' Andy drawling about how great ObamaCare is going to be. Do you think he even understands what it is?
I couldn't believe it, at first, when I saw this recent pro-ObamaCare ad by Andy Griffith.
Aside from looking like a stroke victim, Griffith, or, more accurately, the Democratic administration using him, are trading on his folksy, trustworthy image. Here, honestly, I think he looks senile. The stupid grin and misinformation about just what ObamaCare will do to the country. It's truly shameful what our government is doing, creating and running ads to confuse and mislead seniors, claiming that there's a free lunch to be had in the new, expensive health care laws.
Here's what I think of when I see that ad....Andy Griffith as Lonesome Rhodes in Elia Kazan's 1957 classic A Face in the Crowd.
Scary clips, aren't they? Reminding us of Cass Sunstein's remarks about people being like Homer Simpson, needing help making choices.
And to help you let government make those choices for you, we see a new face of propaganda- ol' Andy drawling about how great ObamaCare is going to be. Do you think he even understands what it is?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sharron Angel & Christine O'Donnell Move The Tea Party To The Center
A curious thing has happened as Tea Party-supported candidates for the Senate in several GOP races have won their nominations.
The victors, including Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Sharron Angel of Nevada, have corrected the mainstream media's depiction of the Tea Party as a right-wing fringe group of nutcases.
Instead, both candidates, and, I'm sure, others, have correctly described their Tea Party supporters as simply mainstream, independent voters who are fed up with the same ever-expanding federalism they get from professional politicians and federal office-holders of both parties.
As much as I admired and liked George W. Bush, and, for that matter, his father, for several things they did, and for what they supported, they both helped expand the federal welfare state. So has the Republican-controlled Senate and House in recent years.
Tea Party activists aren't a splinter group of crazy idealogues. Rather, their- our- ideas are currently popular and credible: shrink the size, scope, taxes, borrowing and spending of our federal government. Restore the federal government back to its minimalist role as a jointly-agreed upon single entity, by vote of the states, which implements the necessary- and only the necessary- federal actions which are required by the United States.
Many of us who have attended Tea Party events and donated time or money to candidates voicing these views see the federal government as having been improperly become an entity unto itself. Perhaps the best example of how this has perverted the Constitution is the so-called Supremacy Doctrine, whereby, whenever the federal government chooses to weigh in on an issue, it automatically supercedes states rights.
Somewhere in the past century, the limits of federal power were conveniently ignored, so that the federal officials insert themselves in matters of dubious legitimacy.
It's sufficiently noxious to merit its own amendment. And, with a little luck, may bring that about in reaction.
But back to the main point. This sort of federal overreach is why Tea Partiers aren't a fringe. Most Americans are appalled at the last 19 months of federal autocracy, and want their country and government back.
O'Donnell and Angel are merely two Senate candidates who understand that their views and those of the Tea Party activists are far more prevalent than mainstream media outlets, and, sadly, even the GOP, dare acknowledge.
The victors, including Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Sharron Angel of Nevada, have corrected the mainstream media's depiction of the Tea Party as a right-wing fringe group of nutcases.
Instead, both candidates, and, I'm sure, others, have correctly described their Tea Party supporters as simply mainstream, independent voters who are fed up with the same ever-expanding federalism they get from professional politicians and federal office-holders of both parties.
As much as I admired and liked George W. Bush, and, for that matter, his father, for several things they did, and for what they supported, they both helped expand the federal welfare state. So has the Republican-controlled Senate and House in recent years.
Tea Party activists aren't a splinter group of crazy idealogues. Rather, their- our- ideas are currently popular and credible: shrink the size, scope, taxes, borrowing and spending of our federal government. Restore the federal government back to its minimalist role as a jointly-agreed upon single entity, by vote of the states, which implements the necessary- and only the necessary- federal actions which are required by the United States.
Many of us who have attended Tea Party events and donated time or money to candidates voicing these views see the federal government as having been improperly become an entity unto itself. Perhaps the best example of how this has perverted the Constitution is the so-called Supremacy Doctrine, whereby, whenever the federal government chooses to weigh in on an issue, it automatically supercedes states rights.
Somewhere in the past century, the limits of federal power were conveniently ignored, so that the federal officials insert themselves in matters of dubious legitimacy.
It's sufficiently noxious to merit its own amendment. And, with a little luck, may bring that about in reaction.
But back to the main point. This sort of federal overreach is why Tea Partiers aren't a fringe. Most Americans are appalled at the last 19 months of federal autocracy, and want their country and government back.
O'Donnell and Angel are merely two Senate candidates who understand that their views and those of the Tea Party activists are far more prevalent than mainstream media outlets, and, sadly, even the GOP, dare acknowledge.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Why Bungling Boehner Can't Be The GOP's Next Speaker
I wrote this recent post concerning Ohio Republican and House Minority Leader John Boehner's presumptuous media tour last week.
In it, I contended,
"Boehner is still tarred with the GOP House antics of 6 and 4 years ago. He has that surreal tan that so many others also notice and rarely fail to mention. And the apparently endless rounds of golf.
Seeing Boehner behaving like he will simply be crowned Speaker is disgusting to me. It demonstrates that Boehner, as presumptive Speaker for the GOP, and his party, is little different than Frisco Nan, and hers, when it comes to wanting power before working for the people who elected the House members.
If there were ever an instance to show people that the power game in Congress is rigged, it surely is Boehner counting votes of new members not yet elected, and simply taking on the role of Speaker in Waiting."
Now we have Boehner admitting, on Face The Nation this past Sunday, that he and, presumably, his fellow Republicans in the House, would take half a loaf, rather than fight for a full one. That is, they will cave and vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for some taxpayers, but not those with the highest incomes.
So much for principle. Or Boehner's intelligence and agility, for that matter.
Eric Cantor tried desperately to repair the damage this week, but it's not clear that is now possible.
The Wall Street Journal's staff editorial about this yesterday wondered if Boehner is "ready for prime time."
No, he's clearly not.
Which is why he shouldn't even pretend to be the next Speaker.
Here's how I see it. John Boehner is a GOP political hack who doesn't behave very intelligently. Eric Cantor is an extremely intelligent man who is in the GOP's current leadership cadre, and, for now, a politician.
See the difference? We know Boehner's a career pol, and that he's not very bright. However, we know Cantor is bright, but we don't yet know that he's a careerist in the federal government. Or politics generally, for that matter.
Shouldn't that make a potential GOP Speakership far more likely for Cantor, not Boehner?
I think so. Boehner's recent gaffe on CBS's Sunday morning talk show only reinforces that point.
In it, I contended,
"Boehner is still tarred with the GOP House antics of 6 and 4 years ago. He has that surreal tan that so many others also notice and rarely fail to mention. And the apparently endless rounds of golf.
Seeing Boehner behaving like he will simply be crowned Speaker is disgusting to me. It demonstrates that Boehner, as presumptive Speaker for the GOP, and his party, is little different than Frisco Nan, and hers, when it comes to wanting power before working for the people who elected the House members.
If there were ever an instance to show people that the power game in Congress is rigged, it surely is Boehner counting votes of new members not yet elected, and simply taking on the role of Speaker in Waiting."
Now we have Boehner admitting, on Face The Nation this past Sunday, that he and, presumably, his fellow Republicans in the House, would take half a loaf, rather than fight for a full one. That is, they will cave and vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for some taxpayers, but not those with the highest incomes.
So much for principle. Or Boehner's intelligence and agility, for that matter.
Eric Cantor tried desperately to repair the damage this week, but it's not clear that is now possible.
The Wall Street Journal's staff editorial about this yesterday wondered if Boehner is "ready for prime time."
No, he's clearly not.
Which is why he shouldn't even pretend to be the next Speaker.
Here's how I see it. John Boehner is a GOP political hack who doesn't behave very intelligently. Eric Cantor is an extremely intelligent man who is in the GOP's current leadership cadre, and, for now, a politician.
See the difference? We know Boehner's a career pol, and that he's not very bright. However, we know Cantor is bright, but we don't yet know that he's a careerist in the federal government. Or politics generally, for that matter.
Shouldn't that make a potential GOP Speakership far more likely for Cantor, not Boehner?
I think so. Boehner's recent gaffe on CBS's Sunday morning talk show only reinforces that point.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Rick Santelli On Meet The Press 25 July 2010
Thanks to an off the cuff remark by Joe Kernen on CNBC the other morning, I belatedly learned of Rick Santelli's appearance on the network's Meet The Press program this past Sunday.
It wasn't hard to find a video of the segment on YouTube.
I found Santelli to be particularly spot on about what seems to motivate Tea Party activists. I'm one, and I've met others at rallies on Capitol Hill.
He's right that the motivating forces to control spending and reduce taxes cut across otherwise-diverse groups of people.
For real insight into the inability of mainstream liberals to understand Tea Party concerns, listen carefully (again?) to the black guest espousing more social spending, rather than spending on military matters, then Santelli's response, and, lastly, the host's clueless rejoinder.
When Santelli notes that the interest rate on Greek debt doubled in a year, the host replies,
"We're not Greece. We can print money."
My God! That man's an imbecile!
Of course "we can print money." So could, and did, the Wiemar Republic. And we all know what the led to. Wheelbarrows full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
Doesn't that Meet The Press host know that money is a medium of exchange of value? It doesn't just come off of a printing press without a consequence.
Thus, the stupid notion that we can just "print more money," or, equally dangerous, as Santelli noted, borrow it, completely overlooks the fact that we have to create value in order to make the money worth something.
Finally, I realized something in Santelli's comments that had totally escaped me before I viewed this clip. For background, here's the full CNBC Santelli Tea Party call from last summer.
The host asked him a question about the Tea Party, as if it were an actual political party. Since Santelli's original reference to holding Tea Parties last year, many evidently believed that "Party" in "Tea Party" stands for, well, a political party.
If you listened closely to the second clip in the video, presenting Santelli's original call, on CNBC, for a Tea Party to be held in Chicago, you will note that he refers to the event, a tea party, along the lines of the original one in colonial Boston. Not the birth of a political party.
I've been to a couple of events in Washington, D.C., organized as Tea Party rallies, but never have I felt I was part of a political party of any organized sort.
Until Santelli replied to this question, I didn't really understand how or why others believed that people attending Tea Party events saw themselves as members of a political party.
Good job, Rick.
It wasn't hard to find a video of the segment on YouTube.
I found Santelli to be particularly spot on about what seems to motivate Tea Party activists. I'm one, and I've met others at rallies on Capitol Hill.
He's right that the motivating forces to control spending and reduce taxes cut across otherwise-diverse groups of people.
For real insight into the inability of mainstream liberals to understand Tea Party concerns, listen carefully (again?) to the black guest espousing more social spending, rather than spending on military matters, then Santelli's response, and, lastly, the host's clueless rejoinder.
When Santelli notes that the interest rate on Greek debt doubled in a year, the host replies,
"We're not Greece. We can print money."
My God! That man's an imbecile!
Of course "we can print money." So could, and did, the Wiemar Republic. And we all know what the led to. Wheelbarrows full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
Doesn't that Meet The Press host know that money is a medium of exchange of value? It doesn't just come off of a printing press without a consequence.
Thus, the stupid notion that we can just "print more money," or, equally dangerous, as Santelli noted, borrow it, completely overlooks the fact that we have to create value in order to make the money worth something.
Finally, I realized something in Santelli's comments that had totally escaped me before I viewed this clip. For background, here's the full CNBC Santelli Tea Party call from last summer.
The host asked him a question about the Tea Party, as if it were an actual political party. Since Santelli's original reference to holding Tea Parties last year, many evidently believed that "Party" in "Tea Party" stands for, well, a political party.
If you listened closely to the second clip in the video, presenting Santelli's original call, on CNBC, for a Tea Party to be held in Chicago, you will note that he refers to the event, a tea party, along the lines of the original one in colonial Boston. Not the birth of a political party.
I've been to a couple of events in Washington, D.C., organized as Tea Party rallies, but never have I felt I was part of a political party of any organized sort.
Until Santelli replied to this question, I didn't really understand how or why others believed that people attending Tea Party events saw themselves as members of a political party.
Good job, Rick.
Friday, July 23, 2010
New Evidence of Liberal News Reporting Bias for Wonderboy
During the last presidential campaign, there was unquestionably a bias in the conventional broadcast and print, and most online media, in favor of Obama. Certainly editorials favored him, but many suspected that news coverage was also slanted in his direction. But evidence was lacking of explicit intent and perhaps even collaboration.
Then came the leaked Journolist blog information earlier this week. John Fund wrote about it in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal's Notable & Quotable,
"From 2007 until last month, some 300 liberal journalists and policy wonks exchanged ideas and commentary on a secret, off-the-record Internet email group called JournoList. It was shut down after portions leaked, leading to the resignation of Washington Post writer David Weigel last month over his intemperate criticism of conservatives he was covering.
But someone who belonged to JournoList continues to leak information from its archives, providing a fascinating glimpse into how some liberal journalists coordinate their story lines to protect their favorite politicians and ideas. The Daily Caller website reports that at several times during the 2008 presidential race, "employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how [Barack] Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage."
Some of the comments will no doubt revive conservative allegations of a liberal news media conspiracy. Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent, now at Wired, urged fellow journalists to kill the story of Mr. Obama's ties to the controversial Revered Jeremiah Wright by going after some of his critics. "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists," he urged. "What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically."
Chris Hayes of the Nation magazine urged "those in the ostensible mainstream media" who were on the list to ignore the Rev. Wright story. He insisted the real issue had nothing to do with Mr. Obama's pastor and instead "has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country."
Apparently, many on JournoList had an agenda that had little to do with covering legitimate news stories, but instead were concerned with protecting their friends and trying to ensure they had "control of the country."
So much for Thomas Jefferson's preference for newspapers without a government, rather than the converse.
Then came the leaked Journolist blog information earlier this week. John Fund wrote about it in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal's Notable & Quotable,
"From 2007 until last month, some 300 liberal journalists and policy wonks exchanged ideas and commentary on a secret, off-the-record Internet email group called JournoList. It was shut down after portions leaked, leading to the resignation of Washington Post writer David Weigel last month over his intemperate criticism of conservatives he was covering.
But someone who belonged to JournoList continues to leak information from its archives, providing a fascinating glimpse into how some liberal journalists coordinate their story lines to protect their favorite politicians and ideas. The Daily Caller website reports that at several times during the 2008 presidential race, "employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how [Barack] Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage."
Some of the comments will no doubt revive conservative allegations of a liberal news media conspiracy. Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent, now at Wired, urged fellow journalists to kill the story of Mr. Obama's ties to the controversial Revered Jeremiah Wright by going after some of his critics. "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists," he urged. "What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically."
Chris Hayes of the Nation magazine urged "those in the ostensible mainstream media" who were on the list to ignore the Rev. Wright story. He insisted the real issue had nothing to do with Mr. Obama's pastor and instead "has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country."
Apparently, many on JournoList had an agenda that had little to do with covering legitimate news stories, but instead were concerned with protecting their friends and trying to ensure they had "control of the country."
So much for Thomas Jefferson's preference for newspapers without a government, rather than the converse.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
CNBC's Blatant Liberal Bias
I happened to catch a blatant example of CNBC's uber-liberal bias last week. It was the day after Tuesday's primary elections across the nation.
Speaking of Blanch Lincoln's narrow escape from defeat by her more liberal challenger in Arkansas, "Red" John Harwood, NY Times political columnist and CNBC political reporter, solemnly gave Lincoln's re-election prospects.
On a day when Fox News featured guest pundits giving Lincoln's Republican opponent a 25 point lead in the polls, Harwood pronounced Lincoln as having "a 50-50 chance" of re-election.
How blatant and misleading can you get?
But that's what passes for political coverage on CNBC, the business cable news network owned by GE. The ailing, diversified conglomerate mis-led by Jeff Immelt reflects his politics all down the network lineup- MSNBC, NBC, and CNBC. All displaying a massive liberal tilt in political coverage and commentary.
That's why, when I watch CNBC in the morning, I mute the channel whenever Harwood has a segment, or frequent liberal guests Howard Dean or Ed Rendell appear.
Speaking of Blanch Lincoln's narrow escape from defeat by her more liberal challenger in Arkansas, "Red" John Harwood, NY Times political columnist and CNBC political reporter, solemnly gave Lincoln's re-election prospects.
On a day when Fox News featured guest pundits giving Lincoln's Republican opponent a 25 point lead in the polls, Harwood pronounced Lincoln as having "a 50-50 chance" of re-election.
How blatant and misleading can you get?
But that's what passes for political coverage on CNBC, the business cable news network owned by GE. The ailing, diversified conglomerate mis-led by Jeff Immelt reflects his politics all down the network lineup- MSNBC, NBC, and CNBC. All displaying a massive liberal tilt in political coverage and commentary.
That's why, when I watch CNBC in the morning, I mute the channel whenever Harwood has a segment, or frequent liberal guests Howard Dean or Ed Rendell appear.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Helen Thomas' Anti-Semitism Gets Her Fired
Helen Thomas evidently has disastrous timing. Unlike all of the other people openly voicing anti-Semitic views last week, Thomas' airing of her very candid opinions on Israel and Israelis got her fired from the Hearst organization.
Offered in reply to an almost throwaway question from an interviewer about Israel, Thomas spat back that they should give it back to the Palestinians, get the hell out and go back to Germany and Poland.
Thomas, if you aren't acquainted with her, is a very old newspaperwoman who's beat has been to cover the White House for more years than any other current correspondent.
She was, if memory serves, originally embedded with Washington's troops at Valley Forge, traveled with the Army of the Potomac, and accompanied TR up San Juan Hill.
The old bat has been a ditsy piece of comic relief at presidential press conferences for the last few decades, as her awareness of the world evidently began to slip.
The real wonder here is why Hearst kept her in the job so long, when their editors must have seen Thomas' judgement and overall grasp of the modern world slipping.
Offered in reply to an almost throwaway question from an interviewer about Israel, Thomas spat back that they should give it back to the Palestinians, get the hell out and go back to Germany and Poland.
Thomas, if you aren't acquainted with her, is a very old newspaperwoman who's beat has been to cover the White House for more years than any other current correspondent.
She was, if memory serves, originally embedded with Washington's troops at Valley Forge, traveled with the Army of the Potomac, and accompanied TR up San Juan Hill.
The old bat has been a ditsy piece of comic relief at presidential press conferences for the last few decades, as her awareness of the world evidently began to slip.
The real wonder here is why Hearst kept her in the job so long, when their editors must have seen Thomas' judgement and overall grasp of the modern world slipping.
Monday, March 15, 2010
More Liberal Bias On CNBC Last Week
CNBC's early morning Squawkbox program has a feature just before 7am called "The Chairs."
Periodically, the co-anchors, Becky Quick, Joe Kernen and Carlos whatshisname, repair to director's chairs to discuss ostensibly non-business issues.
Late last week, Kernen read from an editorial in the Washington Post, a paper he referred to as 'one of yours' to Carlos, by Carter pollster Pat Caddell. As he has explained on Sean Hannity's Fox program many times, Caddell expressed the view that Wonderboy is committing political suicide by pushing his flawed healthcare bill against an overwhelming, informed voter opposition. Caddell wrote, and has said, that he believes this effort will result in both Houses of Congress becoming Republican-led after November's elections.
In reply, Carlos, who is relatively young and, frankly, unbelievably naive, sputtered that health care is so important that his Democrats (he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) don't care about losing political power, so intent are they on doing 'the right thing.'
And that, he passionately declared, is to pass Barry's big health care changes and 'save money' over the next decade. Apparently this rube actually believes the currently-proposed monstrosity will do that.
At this point, even liberal, but thinking, co-anchor Becky Quick couldn't take any more of Carlos' drivel, and jumped in to pile on him with Kernen. She emphatically rejected the current bill, correctly noted it is front-end loaded with new taxes, back-end loaded with spending, and unwisely attempts to reorganize too much of our nation's competitive economy in one big gulp.
She then went on to reflect the views of many independent voters that the two parties really must work together to pass more restrained, realistic, genuine "reform," not simply either pass this proposal, or nothing.
It was quite a few minutes of live political theatre. Carlos portrayed himself as a total idiot. Completely naive, believing federal government social program spending projections, and unwaveringly believing that Wonderboy is only trying to save the US money and restore business competition through reduced, albeit government-controlled, health insurance and care spending.
You just couldn't write comedy as good as Carlos' loony behavior that morning.
Periodically, the co-anchors, Becky Quick, Joe Kernen and Carlos whatshisname, repair to director's chairs to discuss ostensibly non-business issues.
Late last week, Kernen read from an editorial in the Washington Post, a paper he referred to as 'one of yours' to Carlos, by Carter pollster Pat Caddell. As he has explained on Sean Hannity's Fox program many times, Caddell expressed the view that Wonderboy is committing political suicide by pushing his flawed healthcare bill against an overwhelming, informed voter opposition. Caddell wrote, and has said, that he believes this effort will result in both Houses of Congress becoming Republican-led after November's elections.
In reply, Carlos, who is relatively young and, frankly, unbelievably naive, sputtered that health care is so important that his Democrats (he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) don't care about losing political power, so intent are they on doing 'the right thing.'
And that, he passionately declared, is to pass Barry's big health care changes and 'save money' over the next decade. Apparently this rube actually believes the currently-proposed monstrosity will do that.
At this point, even liberal, but thinking, co-anchor Becky Quick couldn't take any more of Carlos' drivel, and jumped in to pile on him with Kernen. She emphatically rejected the current bill, correctly noted it is front-end loaded with new taxes, back-end loaded with spending, and unwisely attempts to reorganize too much of our nation's competitive economy in one big gulp.
She then went on to reflect the views of many independent voters that the two parties really must work together to pass more restrained, realistic, genuine "reform," not simply either pass this proposal, or nothing.
It was quite a few minutes of live political theatre. Carlos portrayed himself as a total idiot. Completely naive, believing federal government social program spending projections, and unwaveringly believing that Wonderboy is only trying to save the US money and restore business competition through reduced, albeit government-controlled, health insurance and care spending.
You just couldn't write comedy as good as Carlos' loony behavior that morning.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Jim Bunning's Principled Stand Against Debt
The liberal media bias was in full view again this week as Kentucky GOP Senator Jim Bunning chose to publicly force Democrats to abide by their own 'pay-go' rule to fund the most recent set of jobless benefits extensions.
Nevermind that Bunning was focused merely on holding Democrats to their own rules. Media and Democratic Senators predictably portrayed Bunning as yet another heartless, cruel Republican trying to cut benefits for the unemployed.
This isn't simply a failure of our legislators to stick to their own rules and demonstrate some fiscal rectitude. It's a failure of our 'press' to report honestly on important matters.
And, of course, out of 40 other Republican Senators, including newly-arrived, ostensibly fiscally-concerned Scott Brown, only two actually went on record as standing with Bunning- Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The rest of the GOP cowards in the Senate just wanted Bunning to shut up and stop making them all look spineless. Sad to say, that includes such luminaries as New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, Bunning's fellow Kentuckian, Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, John McCain, and John Kyle.
All sunshine fiscal conservatives who hid when the going got tough.
We'll all be poorer, in many ways, for the way in which Jim Bunning's principled, correct stance was covered.
Nevermind that Bunning was focused merely on holding Democrats to their own rules. Media and Democratic Senators predictably portrayed Bunning as yet another heartless, cruel Republican trying to cut benefits for the unemployed.
This isn't simply a failure of our legislators to stick to their own rules and demonstrate some fiscal rectitude. It's a failure of our 'press' to report honestly on important matters.
And, of course, out of 40 other Republican Senators, including newly-arrived, ostensibly fiscally-concerned Scott Brown, only two actually went on record as standing with Bunning- Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The rest of the GOP cowards in the Senate just wanted Bunning to shut up and stop making them all look spineless. Sad to say, that includes such luminaries as New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, Bunning's fellow Kentuckian, Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, John McCain, and John Kyle.
All sunshine fiscal conservatives who hid when the going got tough.
We'll all be poorer, in many ways, for the way in which Jim Bunning's principled, correct stance was covered.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Dylan Ratigan's Rant On MSNBC
To give some idea of the anger and hatred of the independent Tea Party movement in the liberal-dominated media, consider this clip.
Dylan Ratigan is an ex-CNBC reporter and program anchor. Dissatisfied with bullying businessmen on his former network, he wrangled a political program on MSNBC.
I had the misfortune of being subjected to about 20 minutes of his tirades recently when waiting in a doctor's office, captive to a television tuned to the largely unwatched channel. That afternoon, Ratigan was ranting about health care and bullying GOP legislators.
It was evident that his producer prodded him to attempt to become a liberal Glenn Beck. By that, I mean using lots of props and trying to be theatrical. Beck is a natural at it, plus he has valid points. Ratigan looks, and is, forced, while trying to sell tired, unbelievable liberal pablum.
In this clip, we see Ratigan shouting down his own guest with a 'have you stopped beating your wife' sort of question. When his guest replies by asking about similar racism at NBC, Ratigan lashes out with a non sequitor, then goes ballistic.
Apparently, it never occurred to Ratigan that a grassroots movement focused on smaller government, which doesn't require formal membership, can't control everyone who claims affiliation with it.
I was at the Tea Party 9-12 rally at the Capitol last September, and saw absolutely no anti-black nor anti-Jewish expressions. The attendees were very peaceful and focused. The most energy emanated from the speakers' podium.
So much for truth from the liberal media.
Dylan Ratigan is an ex-CNBC reporter and program anchor. Dissatisfied with bullying businessmen on his former network, he wrangled a political program on MSNBC.
I had the misfortune of being subjected to about 20 minutes of his tirades recently when waiting in a doctor's office, captive to a television tuned to the largely unwatched channel. That afternoon, Ratigan was ranting about health care and bullying GOP legislators.
It was evident that his producer prodded him to attempt to become a liberal Glenn Beck. By that, I mean using lots of props and trying to be theatrical. Beck is a natural at it, plus he has valid points. Ratigan looks, and is, forced, while trying to sell tired, unbelievable liberal pablum.
In this clip, we see Ratigan shouting down his own guest with a 'have you stopped beating your wife' sort of question. When his guest replies by asking about similar racism at NBC, Ratigan lashes out with a non sequitor, then goes ballistic.
Apparently, it never occurred to Ratigan that a grassroots movement focused on smaller government, which doesn't require formal membership, can't control everyone who claims affiliation with it.
I was at the Tea Party 9-12 rally at the Capitol last September, and saw absolutely no anti-black nor anti-Jewish expressions. The attendees were very peaceful and focused. The most energy emanated from the speakers' podium.
So much for truth from the liberal media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
