Disclaimer, the author of this post is not a member of, nor affiliated with the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick organization.
If a bunch of Irishmen host a dinner for men, then they want women to be wrongfully imprisoned, according to WILK's ponytail man.
Ponytail man is trying to allege that the same impetus that led the Friendly Sons to be a boys only club was behind the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, which were a cultural tragedy that ruined the lives of many women. This not true.
Magdalene Laundries Background
The documentary Sex in a Cold Climate covers the tragedy of the laundries. After Ireland won its independence from Great Britain in 1922, the new Irish government took over asylums formerly run by the British and converted them into partial laundries. But it wasn't just crazy people who filled them anymore. If a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, or was
found to have had sex out of wedlock, or even if she was raped through no fault of her own, she
could be sent to the laundries for life. A girl raised in an orphanage who did no wrong could even be sent to the laundries for the "offense" of being pretty. The only way out was either escape or emancipation by someone on the outside, since imprisonment in laundries was actually not bound by any law and was only held together by public shame. Of course, the nuns who ran the laundries worked the women extremely hard and were often shockingly cruel and abusive. Orphanages weren't much better as sometimes priests would abuse girls. A film based on true stories of the laundries is The Magdalene Sisters.
By the way, do the Friendly Sons do any of these things? Obviously no.
Why the Laundries and Friendly Sons are Unrelated
Pony tail man says the laundries and all male gatherings are caused by the patriarchal society. However, there are many things that would seem to play a larger role than male dominated societies.
One would be the strict Catholicism that pervaded Ireland during the 20th century. The idea of Catholic guilt was very strong. It wasn't Catholicism per se behind the laundries because Catholics elsewhere never founded any such laundries in the 20th century* but rather a particular brand of Irish Catholicism involving hyper self-shaming. This shame was practiced by both men and women. If it were exclusion based on sex that caused the laundries to come about,
then Why was Ireland the only country to have them? There were plenty of other nations throughout the 20th century where all-male groups abounded, and none of them had Magdalene laundries. Moreover, the Irish Catholic church was not nearly as powerful in the US as it was in Ireland, so this explains why nothing similar arose in America.
Furthermore, Ireland had been oppressed by the British for hundreds of years, and maybe they took it out on their women. Blacks' proclivity to use corporal punishment on their children is often explained as a reaction to having suffered oppression from slavemasters and Jim Crow. Granted, oppression does not necessarily cause people to oppress themselves, but it may dispose them to do so. In any case, Irish in America were never oppressed like they were in Ireland and formed no laundries.
Affirming solidarity between men is not the same as oppressing women. All other things being equal, a group consisting solely of men has more in common than a group consisting of both men and women. There is nothing wrong with a group of men getting together as men, and in fact, there is a healthy masculine camaraderie which helps bring them together as a group. How someone could say this is evil is puzzling. For being a collectivist, Ponytailman seems to exclude collectives of well-off Irishmen from the realm of legitimacy. But I'm sure he'd have no problem with wealthy Arab men meeting among themselves. Furthermore, he would probably have no problem with poor men dining together as men.
Feminists want Power not Equality
Feminists complain that there aren't enough female congressmen, CEOs, judges, etc. But you never hear them complain that there are too few female garbage collectors, sewage treatment plant workers, coal miners, telephone pole wire repairmen, or slaughterhouse workers. They never complain about women missing out on miserable things men have to do--only the things that carry with them prestige or power. So this is why Ponytail man would have no problem with, say, a group of poor factory workers having an all male dinner. The epithet that Mr Ponytail is a Marxist is dead on.
What you can do
If you would like to be a counter-Revolutionary and affirm the Friendly Sons' justification in having their dinner, write them at info@friendlysons.org
_____________________________________
* One might argue that convents were sort of prisons in the middle ages
where innocent women were usually sent against their will, but in many places, nuns of that time had slightly
more freedom than the nuns of today and enjoyed the privileges of
reading and writing which were denied to most men and women at the time.
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
Gun Grabbers Use Propaganda Not Reason
Gun grabbers such as the ponytail man waste no time in using recent news of mass shootings as propaganda to fit their preconceived agenda of taking people's guns. They justify exploiting news of murders for political gain by saying that "if this particular gun control law were in place, fewer or no people would have died," and then they act as though those people who would oppose such laws somehow endorse the murders. If gun grabbers are going to throw the first punch, pro-gun people have a right to respond.
First of all, the gun grabbers are selling snake oil. They do not know for sure that the laws they propose would prevent murders. If clip sizes are reduced, then a killer could bring additional clips. If quotas are put on clips, a killer could bring an additional weapon. Economics tells us that there are substitute goods that can be used in place of goods to fulfill the same purpose, so even if all guns are successfully banned, alternative weapons and methods of killing would be sought by killers. If a killer wants to kill a certain number of people, he can find ways to circumvent bans.
It'd be one thing to introduce statistics on gun deaths in the US and and to estimate how many lives a proposed law might save. But in that case, the law would be somewhat testable, and if it failed to reduce deaths, then the gun grabber would look bad. To escape potential statistical scrutiny, gun grabbers opt to play on people's emotions by using news events of mass shootings or shootings involving famous people. You get the idea from these media propagandists that ordinary people who are shot individually elicit no need for anti-gun laws, as if their deaths are less important. Indeed, they are less important to the gun grabber, because they are not as useful in drumming up support for anti-gun legislation.
To answer the question as to whether people "need" to own high powered guns, I quote Sidney Painter in his book on French Chivalry: "Until the non-noble class obtained wealth, leisure, or a cheap, easily used, and effective weapon, the position of the feudal aristocracy was perfectly secure" (page 3). Notice that maintaining feudal aristocracy is partly reliant on the rulers (or government) possessing far superior weaponry to the commoners. The founding fathers wanted to make sure common people could defend themselves against, say, indian raids instead of being helplessly reliant on the government to protect them. Thus, the power structure would be unlike a feudal system in which only rulers could offer sufficient protection. In a land of liberty, commoners deserve to have effective weapons. These weapons should be as potentially effective in defense as the most effective weapon possessed by government agents who deal with similar threats. But because gun grabbers promote government coercion and not liberty, they see no need to support the right to own high powered firearms for people without government-granted status.
First of all, the gun grabbers are selling snake oil. They do not know for sure that the laws they propose would prevent murders. If clip sizes are reduced, then a killer could bring additional clips. If quotas are put on clips, a killer could bring an additional weapon. Economics tells us that there are substitute goods that can be used in place of goods to fulfill the same purpose, so even if all guns are successfully banned, alternative weapons and methods of killing would be sought by killers. If a killer wants to kill a certain number of people, he can find ways to circumvent bans.
It'd be one thing to introduce statistics on gun deaths in the US and and to estimate how many lives a proposed law might save. But in that case, the law would be somewhat testable, and if it failed to reduce deaths, then the gun grabber would look bad. To escape potential statistical scrutiny, gun grabbers opt to play on people's emotions by using news events of mass shootings or shootings involving famous people. You get the idea from these media propagandists that ordinary people who are shot individually elicit no need for anti-gun laws, as if their deaths are less important. Indeed, they are less important to the gun grabber, because they are not as useful in drumming up support for anti-gun legislation.
To answer the question as to whether people "need" to own high powered guns, I quote Sidney Painter in his book on French Chivalry: "Until the non-noble class obtained wealth, leisure, or a cheap, easily used, and effective weapon, the position of the feudal aristocracy was perfectly secure" (page 3). Notice that maintaining feudal aristocracy is partly reliant on the rulers (or government) possessing far superior weaponry to the commoners. The founding fathers wanted to make sure common people could defend themselves against, say, indian raids instead of being helplessly reliant on the government to protect them. Thus, the power structure would be unlike a feudal system in which only rulers could offer sufficient protection. In a land of liberty, commoners deserve to have effective weapons. These weapons should be as potentially effective in defense as the most effective weapon possessed by government agents who deal with similar threats. But because gun grabbers promote government coercion and not liberty, they see no need to support the right to own high powered firearms for people without government-granted status.
Friday, November 23, 2012
How Rand Paul can Win in 2016
Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh will try their best to derail Rand's presidential candidacy just as they did to Ron Paul. They will never mention him unless he becomes a threat in the polls, and if he does, they'll call him a nut, say he's anti-American for opposing the military industrial complex, and use other garbage pejoratives. Hannity will lament that Rand is the "only" Republican candidate he cannot support. Glenn Beck will fawn over neo-conmen like Santorum again. FOX News will commence with the usual combination of blackout and subtle ridicule. The National Review will extol the most fiscally liberal, pro-war candidate. These people are not stupid and know that Rand takes after his father... a lot. In fact, Limbaugh has already mocked Rand for his run-in with the TSA, and Levin has mentioned Rand in a tone of voice lush with hatred. Phony conservatives like Levin and Limbaugh influence many voters.
The 2012 Ron Paul campaign had way more grassroots support than any other. Ron Paul bumperstickers abounded months before the primary in each state, often as early as September 2011. Romney bumperstickers were only became evident in September of 2012. Ron Paul events routinely drew thousands. Romney was lucky to get more than several hundred.
But the grassroots support was not enough. The sheeple Republicans voted in the primary for the candidate the media said "could win": Romney. That is, the one who could win within the acceptable paradigm of being the world police and continuing unsustainable spending.
What's missing from the Liberty Movement is an elite media presence. But elite media presence requires support from rich, powerful people. The American Revolutionaries had wealthy financiers in 1776, and a good many of the wealthy elite, especially on Wall Street, need to be converted to liberty. Once this happens, it will be easier for a pro-liberty talk radio show host to become as popular as a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.
As far as candidates for talk radio go, perhaps the best hope for the urban areas is Peter Schiff, who has a radio show advancing a libertarian worldview. But we still would need a conservative Christian who will speak to middle America. Most people won't admit it, but Alex Jones has influenced many people to become Ron Paul Supporters, and guessing from the local scene, as much as 15% of all Ron Paul people were directed to like Dr Paul and liberty itself by Jones. Indeed, Jones professes to be a Christian, but he isn't quite conservative in the way he does things. His sensationalism and conspiracies may not appeal to most Republicans. We need someone who can speak to conservative social sentiments while also tactfully promoting liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy without any conspiracies or obsession with globalists. Tom Woods may be decent for a "Firing Line" kind of show on PBS if the liberal PBS would allow such a show, but as a radio host, Woods's keen intellectual mind may be too fast for the average person. Jack Hunter may not be gregarious enough for radio. We need someone. If Jones gains popularity, it would certainly help, but non-conspiracy people will be better able to sway undecided voters toward Rand.
As far as television, FOX News needs to reinstate Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedomwatch, and it needs to become as popular as "The O'Reilly Factor". A Buchananite Republican needs to get a show on some network, and maybe Lou Dobbs could lean more towards liberty. Stossel needs to be put on prime time more often. We need to win these little "elections" before we can win Rand the big one. I am confident that if liberty people have half as much time as the neo-cons, they will do just as well, if not better.
Print media is picked over by liberals and shallow moderates. The New York Times will never employ another Henry Hazlitt. In any case, every single copy of the National Review must be replaced with the American Conservative as soon as possible. Get your friends to switch. The New American, The Freeman, and Reason Magazine all need to gain prominence as well.
This is not to say that we can slack on grassroots efforts, as those will have to be stronger than ever to bring about a Rand victory.
Anyway, it seems impossible that we'll have representatives in elite media by 2015, in time to sow seeds for the 2016 presidential primary election. But unless we reach the masses on this level, we're finished. The Internet and word of mouth can only do so much. We must reach the sheeple.
The 2012 Ron Paul campaign had way more grassroots support than any other. Ron Paul bumperstickers abounded months before the primary in each state, often as early as September 2011. Romney bumperstickers were only became evident in September of 2012. Ron Paul events routinely drew thousands. Romney was lucky to get more than several hundred.
But the grassroots support was not enough. The sheeple Republicans voted in the primary for the candidate the media said "could win": Romney. That is, the one who could win within the acceptable paradigm of being the world police and continuing unsustainable spending.
What's missing from the Liberty Movement is an elite media presence. But elite media presence requires support from rich, powerful people. The American Revolutionaries had wealthy financiers in 1776, and a good many of the wealthy elite, especially on Wall Street, need to be converted to liberty. Once this happens, it will be easier for a pro-liberty talk radio show host to become as popular as a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.
As far as candidates for talk radio go, perhaps the best hope for the urban areas is Peter Schiff, who has a radio show advancing a libertarian worldview. But we still would need a conservative Christian who will speak to middle America. Most people won't admit it, but Alex Jones has influenced many people to become Ron Paul Supporters, and guessing from the local scene, as much as 15% of all Ron Paul people were directed to like Dr Paul and liberty itself by Jones. Indeed, Jones professes to be a Christian, but he isn't quite conservative in the way he does things. His sensationalism and conspiracies may not appeal to most Republicans. We need someone who can speak to conservative social sentiments while also tactfully promoting liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy without any conspiracies or obsession with globalists. Tom Woods may be decent for a "Firing Line" kind of show on PBS if the liberal PBS would allow such a show, but as a radio host, Woods's keen intellectual mind may be too fast for the average person. Jack Hunter may not be gregarious enough for radio. We need someone. If Jones gains popularity, it would certainly help, but non-conspiracy people will be better able to sway undecided voters toward Rand.
As far as television, FOX News needs to reinstate Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedomwatch, and it needs to become as popular as "The O'Reilly Factor". A Buchananite Republican needs to get a show on some network, and maybe Lou Dobbs could lean more towards liberty. Stossel needs to be put on prime time more often. We need to win these little "elections" before we can win Rand the big one. I am confident that if liberty people have half as much time as the neo-cons, they will do just as well, if not better.
Print media is picked over by liberals and shallow moderates. The New York Times will never employ another Henry Hazlitt. In any case, every single copy of the National Review must be replaced with the American Conservative as soon as possible. Get your friends to switch. The New American, The Freeman, and Reason Magazine all need to gain prominence as well.
This is not to say that we can slack on grassroots efforts, as those will have to be stronger than ever to bring about a Rand victory.
Anyway, it seems impossible that we'll have representatives in elite media by 2015, in time to sow seeds for the 2016 presidential primary election. But unless we reach the masses on this level, we're finished. The Internet and word of mouth can only do so much. We must reach the sheeple.
Monday, August 27, 2012
The Associated Press's Puff Piece for Romney
AP "reporters" Brian Bakst and Glenn Adams portray Ron Paul delegates as the lawless ones and Romney as the sophisticated peacemaker.
They do not bother to find out whether the Maine GOP actually violated parliamentary rules or whether complete removal of its delegates was justified, nor do they ask why the GOP has broken its own bylaws to depose rightful Ron Paul delegates.
After Romney lawyers got Ron Paul delegates unlawfully thrown off the ballot in Massachusetts, the rotten AP reporters, Brian Bakst and Glenn Adams, portray Romney as the compassionate peacemaker in their puff piece.
How could Bakst and Adams be so wrong accidentally? They must have been either biased toward Romney or paid to be so. Here is their ridiculous AP article:
Ben Swann tells the real story:
They do not bother to find out whether the Maine GOP actually violated parliamentary rules or whether complete removal of its delegates was justified, nor do they ask why the GOP has broken its own bylaws to depose rightful Ron Paul delegates.
After Romney lawyers got Ron Paul delegates unlawfully thrown off the ballot in Massachusetts, the rotten AP reporters, Brian Bakst and Glenn Adams, portray Romney as the compassionate peacemaker in their puff piece.
How could Bakst and Adams be so wrong accidentally? They must have been either biased toward Romney or paid to be so. Here is their ridiculous AP article:
A group of Maine Republicans supportive of Texas congressman Ron Paul for president have been ejected from the state's national convention delegation.
The Republican National Convention's credentials committee voted Friday to replace 10 of the 20 delegates after determining their election as delegates violated party and parliamentary rules.
In a peace offering [?!], Mitt Romney's campaign has announced plans to air a tribute to the libertarian-leaning Paul during the convention.
Ben Swann tells the real story:
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Luzerne County Libraries Reject Ron Paul DVD
A graduate from King's College reports that most libraries refused to put a DVD documentary about Ron Paul's first presidential campaign called For Liberty into their collections.
Accepted For Liberty
Wilkes University
Osterhout Free Library
Scranton Abington Memorial Library
Rejected For Liberty
King's College
University of Scranton
Hoyt Library
Back Mountain Library
Hazleton Public Library
Kirby Library (Mountain Top)
Abington Community Library (Clarks Summit)
Mahanoy City Public Library
Shenandoah Public Library
Lancaster Public Library (Duke St. location)
Below are his words:
Accepted For Liberty
Wilkes University
Osterhout Free Library
Scranton Abington Memorial Library
Rejected For Liberty
King's College
University of Scranton
Hoyt Library
Back Mountain Library
Hazleton Public Library
Kirby Library (Mountain Top)
Abington Community Library (Clarks Summit)
Mahanoy City Public Library
Shenandoah Public Library
Lancaster Public Library (Duke St. location)
Below are his words:
I gave a copy to public libraries in Hazleton, the Back Mountain, Mountain Top (Kirby), and Kingston (Hoyt). The only public library in Luzerne County to accept the DVD and put it into their collection was the Osterhout Free Library in Wilkes-Barre.
I spoke with a librarian there who said that since I had donated to the other libraries so long ago (August 2011 or seven months ago) and since those libraries still hadn't put it out, they must have rejected it. When I called each of them up in December 2011 and asked why they hadn't displayed "For Liberty", they all said that the DVDs simply had not been processed yet. None of them would admit that the DVD I gave them was refused, which must have been the case.
It is a sad state of affairs that people in charge at the Hoyt, Hazleton Public, Back Mountain, and Kirby libraries are so anti-democracy that they refuse to accept DVDs that feature a political candidate they presumably don't like. Other libraries to reject it were King's College, Mahanoy City Public, University of Scranton, the Abington Community Library in Clarks Summit, the Lancaster Public Library on Duke St, and the Shenandoah Public Library.
In addition to the Osterhout, libraries to accept the Ron Paul DVD into their collections were Wilkes University and the Scranton Abington Memorial Library, and Wilkes even sent me a kind letter of thanks.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Talk Radio Drinks Rick Perry Koolaid
Somehow, "conservative" talk radio is falling unanimously behind Rick Perry in the Republican presidential primary. It's like a pod of whales all following each other to become beached on the perilous shore. And so with them, swims all their listeners to the craggy cove of Governor Good Hair.
Rash Limbaugh was dubbed an honorary Texan by Rick Perry in 2009, so that deal is sealed. He also says that Ron Paul is a "kook"--the same slander used by Bill Kristol.
Laura Ingram is gushing over what a pious Christian she believes Rick Perry to be. She remarked that he is "ticking off all the right people", as if all Perry's opponents are Obamaphiles, which is false.
Even Michael Savage, who we would expect to know better, is now glowing about how handsome Rick Perry looks to him; and how he's physically superior to Ron Paul (this is seriously what he said). Savage has also begun to falsely claim, just as Rush has, that Ron Paul can't win despite the fact that Paul scores way better with moderates and independents than Savage's man-crush Rick Perry.
Mark Levin and Sean Hannity will no doubt try to outdo these three in Perry worship.
But considering all the problems* with Rick Perry, wouldn't we expect at least one major talkshow host endorse somebody else? Perhaps Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, or Romney? Why are these people mindlessly falling into the Rick Perry Groove?
It almost seems like a conspiracy. Talk Radio has been stoking the anti-Obama fires in people's souls for nearly three years. This is why listeners often say that "anybody would be better than Obama." With the flame a-broiling, Talk Radio then, surreptitiously, slips in the name of Rick Perry as an alternative.
It's like the listeners have been conditioned to have an appetitive urge for the removal of Obama. It is a childish, ridiculous view that only conservative talk radio could have fostered. Indeed, Obama is a Machiavellian monster who leans left in his corporatist policies and acts like an effeminate despot, but by centering all the discussion on the basic thesis that "Obama and the Democrats are the cause of all our problems", Talk Radio has conditioned its listeners to accept Obama's exact policies as long as they have a Republican stamp on them. It is a moronic tribalism that only Michael Savage seems to break with, but even he has the hots for Governor Good hair; and brings his listeners to the same craggy shore as does his fellow gabbers.
Talk Radio and its dependents may well accept the phony right-wing populist Perry just as the Left accepted the phony left-wing populist Obama in 2008. By saying Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, Talk Radio inflicts a self-fulfilling prophecy by getting their listeners to write him off.
We had held out hope the Savage would endorse Paul, but he has cast himself as one of the pack.
____________________________
*Some of Rick Perry's Problems include:
1. He called for the TARP bank bailouts.
2. The fact that the Texas state government grew at a faster rate than the US government during his tenure.
3. Lack of action on illegal immigration. He also signed the Texas version of the DREAM Act which allows in-state tuition for children of illegals.
4. The selling of toll roads to foreigners.
5. Holding a pre-election prayer event, likely for political gain.
6. Benefiting from an insiders club of billionaires while repaying them with sweet deals and government contracts.
7. Assuming the role of "parent" by forcing little 12 year-old girls to take Gardasil shots despite the fact that most of them would have never gotten the virus that causes HPV, especially if they and their fiances were to wait until marriage. Not only this, but Perry did it via an executive order and thus severely violated his own state constitution.
8. Perry acted like the opt-out clause of the mandate was easy, but if Perry really wanted to "give" people a choice, then there should have been an opt-in as Santorum said. Nevertheless, opting out was much more difficult than Perry made it seem in the debate.
9. Lying to Michele Bachmann about how much Merck, the maker of Gardasil, benefited him.
10. Endorsing moderate Rudy Giuliani in 2008.
11. Scoffing at the idea of endorsing constitutionalist Ron Paul in 2008.
12. Provoking Debra Medina to run against him in the Republican Primary of 2010.
13. Exclaiming the wonders of Hillarycare in the 1990s well after having switched to the Republican Party.
For more see http://www.facebook.com/groups/conservativesagainstrickperry/
Rash Limbaugh was dubbed an honorary Texan by Rick Perry in 2009, so that deal is sealed. He also says that Ron Paul is a "kook"--the same slander used by Bill Kristol.
Laura Ingram is gushing over what a pious Christian she believes Rick Perry to be. She remarked that he is "ticking off all the right people", as if all Perry's opponents are Obamaphiles, which is false.
Even Michael Savage, who we would expect to know better, is now glowing about how handsome Rick Perry looks to him; and how he's physically superior to Ron Paul (this is seriously what he said). Savage has also begun to falsely claim, just as Rush has, that Ron Paul can't win despite the fact that Paul scores way better with moderates and independents than Savage's man-crush Rick Perry.
Mark Levin and Sean Hannity will no doubt try to outdo these three in Perry worship.
But considering all the problems* with Rick Perry, wouldn't we expect at least one major talkshow host endorse somebody else? Perhaps Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, or Romney? Why are these people mindlessly falling into the Rick Perry Groove?
It almost seems like a conspiracy. Talk Radio has been stoking the anti-Obama fires in people's souls for nearly three years. This is why listeners often say that "anybody would be better than Obama." With the flame a-broiling, Talk Radio then, surreptitiously, slips in the name of Rick Perry as an alternative.
It's like the listeners have been conditioned to have an appetitive urge for the removal of Obama. It is a childish, ridiculous view that only conservative talk radio could have fostered. Indeed, Obama is a Machiavellian monster who leans left in his corporatist policies and acts like an effeminate despot, but by centering all the discussion on the basic thesis that "Obama and the Democrats are the cause of all our problems", Talk Radio has conditioned its listeners to accept Obama's exact policies as long as they have a Republican stamp on them. It is a moronic tribalism that only Michael Savage seems to break with, but even he has the hots for Governor Good hair; and brings his listeners to the same craggy shore as does his fellow gabbers.
Talk Radio and its dependents may well accept the phony right-wing populist Perry just as the Left accepted the phony left-wing populist Obama in 2008. By saying Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, Talk Radio inflicts a self-fulfilling prophecy by getting their listeners to write him off.
We had held out hope the Savage would endorse Paul, but he has cast himself as one of the pack.
____________________________
*Some of Rick Perry's Problems include:
1. He called for the TARP bank bailouts.
2. The fact that the Texas state government grew at a faster rate than the US government during his tenure.
3. Lack of action on illegal immigration. He also signed the Texas version of the DREAM Act which allows in-state tuition for children of illegals.
4. The selling of toll roads to foreigners.
5. Holding a pre-election prayer event, likely for political gain.
6. Benefiting from an insiders club of billionaires while repaying them with sweet deals and government contracts.
7. Assuming the role of "parent" by forcing little 12 year-old girls to take Gardasil shots despite the fact that most of them would have never gotten the virus that causes HPV, especially if they and their fiances were to wait until marriage. Not only this, but Perry did it via an executive order and thus severely violated his own state constitution.
8. Perry acted like the opt-out clause of the mandate was easy, but if Perry really wanted to "give" people a choice, then there should have been an opt-in as Santorum said. Nevertheless, opting out was much more difficult than Perry made it seem in the debate.
9. Lying to Michele Bachmann about how much Merck, the maker of Gardasil, benefited him.
10. Endorsing moderate Rudy Giuliani in 2008.
11. Scoffing at the idea of endorsing constitutionalist Ron Paul in 2008.
12. Provoking Debra Medina to run against him in the Republican Primary of 2010.
13. Exclaiming the wonders of Hillarycare in the 1990s well after having switched to the Republican Party.
For more see http://www.facebook.com/groups/conservativesagainstrickperry/
Thursday, June 30, 2011
King's College Radio Station Criticized
King's alum Jim Spock once had a talkshow on King's College's radio station WRKC (88.5FM), Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. But Spock was removed in 2005, because, according to him, station manager Sue Henry did not like the content of one pre-recorded show he was airing.
Spock had been airing his own talkshow in addition to the three pre-recorded shows, one of which was "Making Contact"--a liberal show similar to Democracy Now.
Spock insists that Henry, a known Republican, told him to cease his show because she didn't like the content of "Making Contact". Spock refused to continue his show without Making Contact and the King's administration backed Sue Henry.
Spock says several King's College broadcasting students had backed him but were afraid to say so. He now reports that two of the shows he once played are now broadcast by Wilkes University's radio station 90.7 WCLH.
We're not fans of "Making Contact" per se, but we are partial to alternative media (being that that's what the NuPo is). We'd frankly be interested in what a liberal like Spock had to say, given that Steve Corbett and Nancy Kman tend to be a little closed-minded and banal sometimes. A college radio station would seem like a great place for new amateur talkers to be heard. As long as said talkers were held to a code of ethics so they did not slander anyone, a talkshow at King's station should be fine. Maybe Henry thought enforcing a code of ethics would be too much of a burden for King's College to handle given its limited resources.
Anyway, we thought we'd re-post a letter to the editor that someone wrote in support of Spock (The views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the NuPo):
Spock had been airing his own talkshow in addition to the three pre-recorded shows, one of which was "Making Contact"--a liberal show similar to Democracy Now.
Spock insists that Henry, a known Republican, told him to cease his show because she didn't like the content of "Making Contact". Spock refused to continue his show without Making Contact and the King's administration backed Sue Henry.
Spock says several King's College broadcasting students had backed him but were afraid to say so. He now reports that two of the shows he once played are now broadcast by Wilkes University's radio station 90.7 WCLH.
We're not fans of "Making Contact" per se, but we are partial to alternative media (being that that's what the NuPo is). We'd frankly be interested in what a liberal like Spock had to say, given that Steve Corbett and Nancy Kman tend to be a little closed-minded and banal sometimes. A college radio station would seem like a great place for new amateur talkers to be heard. As long as said talkers were held to a code of ethics so they did not slander anyone, a talkshow at King's station should be fine. Maybe Henry thought enforcing a code of ethics would be too much of a burden for King's College to handle given its limited resources.
Anyway, we thought we'd re-post a letter to the editor that someone wrote in support of Spock (The views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the NuPo):
Dropping Radio Programming Runs Counter to DemocracyWe found the above 2005 letter on this blog: http://www.sauvessanges.com/published7.html
Re: “King’s sees tempest in its airwaves,” Jon Fox, Nov. 25, [2005].
There is no word to express my outrage towards Sue Henry, general manager of WRKC, the King’s College radio station, and Robert McGonigle, associate vice president for student affairs.
The fact is that both agreed to pull off the air the show “Making Contact,” a current affairs program, because they found the broadcasting of what is happening in America today to be inappropriate. The anti-war rally in Washington was real, the state of mind of the majority of Americans towards the Bush administration is real, but Ms. Henry and Mr. McGonigle feel that Jim Spak, who had been running “Making Contact,” has gone too far with extremism while he was simply running a show on what? Current affairs.
As we preach democracy all over the world, Henry and McGonigle just killed it in the King’s College radio station.
Monique Frugier
Ardmore
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Glenn Beck's Double Standard
Glenn Beck Fawned over Bush era Republican Rick Santorum while interviewing him even though Beck has called Bush a progressive and has criticized Bush's spending.
Yet, Beck prefaced a June 27th interview with Ron Paul by saying that he thought Dr. Paul was "wrong on a few things". The introduction as a whole was favorable to Paul, and Beck actually took a slight at Rick Santorum's opinion (or lack thereof) on auditing the Fed. (see video). continued below
But during a half hour interview with Santorum on June 23rd, Beck did not once criticize Santorum's big government voting record. Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D, and many many other "compassionate conservative" schemes signed into law by George W. Bush. Why didn't Beck bother to mention his disagreements with Santorum's voting record?
According to The American Conservative's Jack Hunter:
Rush Limbaugh was also quite friendly to Santorum when he interviewed him, but Rush has never gone out on a limb and criticized Bush to the extent that Beck has. We know Rush is a sticker for the establishment GOP, but this is not the case for Beck, right?
It is painful to watch pundits like Glenn Beck say all the right things one moment and then forget them whenever a hallowed Republican like Santorum appears. The material on Beck's show would suggest that he is an avid Ron Paul supporter since Beck highlights heavily Fed's misdeeds more than any other FOX News host. Yet Beck fawns over Santorum and not Paul.
At least the judge, Andrew Napolitano, seems to be honest, that is, when FOX lets him on the air.
_____________________________________________
Addendum
We would add that Santorum has said he was "the tea party before there was a tea party". But Beck once cheered on a Tea Party crowd to condemn the Bush style spending that Santorum once championed.
Santorum also conflicts with the tea party in other ways. Shortly before the 2006 election that he lost to Democrat Bob Casey, Santorum said that it would be worth it to lose his senate seat for being an apologist for the Iraq war. But the tea party represents grassroots beliefs. The urge to attack Iraqis who live thousands of miles away, across the vast Atlantic Ocean, that have never attacked you is not a grassroots impulse.
While Santorum answered some of Beck's questions on the Libya war, he used some rhetoric resonant of the Bush era and the excuses he gave for lingering in Iraq. Santorum told Beck: "I think we should get out of [Libya], but I don't think we can immediately pull the plug [because among other things] it would threaten to "destabilize NATO"--whatever that means.
Admid concerns that the benefits of government foreign aid are being gulped up by dictators like Mubarak, Santorum has called for more US foreign aid and has refused to cut any money from the defense budget. Believe it or not, many tea partiers want Defense cut and belief much of the Dept's activity is wasteful.
Santorum had previously stated that NATO should have imposed a no fly zone sooner(!) than it did. Santorum also faultily insuates that it is "Reaganesque" to attack Libya even though Libya has not attacked the US in any way whatsoever in the past 20 years.
So how could Santorum tell Beck he disagreed with the war if he had said we should have gone in sooner? He must have either lied to Beck after Beck pushed him to be against it or have changed his mind between since he supported it.
Santorum went on to tell Beck that he was concerned that the government was not doing enough to convince people of of the need to "win" in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure that's what so many tea partiers are yearning for: propaganda in support of recreational wars.
Santorum also belittled Obama's unfulfilled obligation to get congressional approval for the war, and implied that the main task for Obama was to make clear the mission. Santorum wants a more articulate unconstitutional war, but an unconstitutional war nonetheless. Meanwhile, Beck allowed Santorum to pose as a constitutionalist.
Perhaps Santorum does, however facially, represent some social conservatives in the tea party since he is ardently pro-life, but according to Jack Hunter:
Even if Santorum does give good lip service to social causes, it does not absolve him from doing the right thing fiscally. Some would even say that Santorum's votes for fiscal prodigality were downright immoral. Moreover, would it be okay for someone to rob you as long as they were pro-life? To be irresponsible with money? To make shady quid pro quo deals?
According to a column quoted by Jack Hunter:
In keeping with this faustian philosophy, Rick Santorum endorsed the liberal Arlen Specter over less liberal Pat Toomey in 2004 in return for Specter's vote on the Bush tax cuts and Specter's alleged pledge to support Bush's supreme court nominees. But there is no evidence to suggest that Toomey wouldn't have voted to nominate George Bush's selections Roberts and Alito. Santorum's little quid pro quo game resulted in the retention of liberal Arlen Specter who eventually was a key vote for Obamacare.
And yet, the impeccable Beck never even brought up any of this to Santorum, and seemed to gloat over him the entire interview. Does Glenn Beck actually believe what he professes?
Yet, Beck prefaced a June 27th interview with Ron Paul by saying that he thought Dr. Paul was "wrong on a few things". The introduction as a whole was favorable to Paul, and Beck actually took a slight at Rick Santorum's opinion (or lack thereof) on auditing the Fed. (see video). continued below
But during a half hour interview with Santorum on June 23rd, Beck did not once criticize Santorum's big government voting record. Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D, and many many other "compassionate conservative" schemes signed into law by George W. Bush. Why didn't Beck bother to mention his disagreements with Santorum's voting record?
According to The American Conservative's Jack Hunter:
Today, Santorum remains the personification of Bush Republicanism. Heading into the 2012 campaign, the former senator sounds more like the ghost of Republicans past, invoking Bush’s name more often and favorably than any other candidate, while seeming to hope his beating of the culture and foreign war drums might drown out his big government record.If Beck were being consistent, wouldn't he at least question Santorum on his record?
Rush Limbaugh was also quite friendly to Santorum when he interviewed him, but Rush has never gone out on a limb and criticized Bush to the extent that Beck has. We know Rush is a sticker for the establishment GOP, but this is not the case for Beck, right?
It is painful to watch pundits like Glenn Beck say all the right things one moment and then forget them whenever a hallowed Republican like Santorum appears. The material on Beck's show would suggest that he is an avid Ron Paul supporter since Beck highlights heavily Fed's misdeeds more than any other FOX News host. Yet Beck fawns over Santorum and not Paul.
At least the judge, Andrew Napolitano, seems to be honest, that is, when FOX lets him on the air.
_____________________________________________
Addendum
We would add that Santorum has said he was "the tea party before there was a tea party". But Beck once cheered on a Tea Party crowd to condemn the Bush style spending that Santorum once championed.
Santorum also conflicts with the tea party in other ways. Shortly before the 2006 election that he lost to Democrat Bob Casey, Santorum said that it would be worth it to lose his senate seat for being an apologist for the Iraq war. But the tea party represents grassroots beliefs. The urge to attack Iraqis who live thousands of miles away, across the vast Atlantic Ocean, that have never attacked you is not a grassroots impulse.
While Santorum answered some of Beck's questions on the Libya war, he used some rhetoric resonant of the Bush era and the excuses he gave for lingering in Iraq. Santorum told Beck: "I think we should get out of [Libya], but I don't think we can immediately pull the plug [because among other things] it would threaten to "destabilize NATO"--whatever that means.
Admid concerns that the benefits of government foreign aid are being gulped up by dictators like Mubarak, Santorum has called for more US foreign aid and has refused to cut any money from the defense budget. Believe it or not, many tea partiers want Defense cut and belief much of the Dept's activity is wasteful.
Santorum had previously stated that NATO should have imposed a no fly zone sooner(!) than it did. Santorum also faultily insuates that it is "Reaganesque" to attack Libya even though Libya has not attacked the US in any way whatsoever in the past 20 years.
So how could Santorum tell Beck he disagreed with the war if he had said we should have gone in sooner? He must have either lied to Beck after Beck pushed him to be against it or have changed his mind between since he supported it.
Santorum went on to tell Beck that he was concerned that the government was not doing enough to convince people of of the need to "win" in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure that's what so many tea partiers are yearning for: propaganda in support of recreational wars.
Santorum also belittled Obama's unfulfilled obligation to get congressional approval for the war, and implied that the main task for Obama was to make clear the mission. Santorum wants a more articulate unconstitutional war, but an unconstitutional war nonetheless. Meanwhile, Beck allowed Santorum to pose as a constitutionalist.
Perhaps Santorum does, however facially, represent some social conservatives in the tea party since he is ardently pro-life, but according to Jack Hunter:
In positioning himself as the most socially conservative candidate, Santorum has been successful in spending as many taxpayer dollars as the Democrats by seeking right-wing refuge in his pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gay-marriage positions. The problem is, “conservatives” of Santorum’s stripe rarely do much to actually advance these issues. Is America any closer to overturning Roe v. Wade? Do we generally have more federal gun laws today or less? Has homosexuality become more or less culturally acceptable? For most Republican politicians, social conservatism has always been more of a fashion statement than a mission statement. You even get the sense that politicians like Santorum know full well they can’t do much legislatively on these issues and thus enjoy the conservative cover it always provides them. A 10th Amendment revolution [that only Ron Paul would champion] in this country might give social conservatives more political victories than they’ve had in decades—but it would also mean the loss of a valuable election tool for Republican politicians [like Santorum] who not-so-coincidentally seem to always favor impossible-to-pass federal legislation.
Even if Santorum does give good lip service to social causes, it does not absolve him from doing the right thing fiscally. Some would even say that Santorum's votes for fiscal prodigality were downright immoral. Moreover, would it be okay for someone to rob you as long as they were pro-life? To be irresponsible with money? To make shady quid pro quo deals?
According to a column quoted by Jack Hunter:
“Reagan was a small government conservative who declared in his inauguration address that government was the problem, not the solution. There, Bush begs to differ. The essence of Bush’s big government conservatism is a trade-off. To gain free-market reforms and expand individual choice, he’s willing to broaden programs and increase spending.”These sorts of bargains are faustian because they make conservatives seem fiscally irresponsible to liberals.
In keeping with this faustian philosophy, Rick Santorum endorsed the liberal Arlen Specter over less liberal Pat Toomey in 2004 in return for Specter's vote on the Bush tax cuts and Specter's alleged pledge to support Bush's supreme court nominees. But there is no evidence to suggest that Toomey wouldn't have voted to nominate George Bush's selections Roberts and Alito. Santorum's little quid pro quo game resulted in the retention of liberal Arlen Specter who eventually was a key vote for Obamacare.
And yet, the impeccable Beck never even brought up any of this to Santorum, and seemed to gloat over him the entire interview. Does Glenn Beck actually believe what he professes?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Mark Levin Sees no Contradiction
On his radio show broadcast today, Mark Levin shifted right from complaining about troops being removed from Afghanistan to saying that the reason things were so bad at home was that the government was "involved in everything." According to Levin, the government being "involved" overseas is desirable but involvement at home is anathema.
In Levin's mind, something magic must happen when government crosses a US border. It is very interesting that many Republicans such as Levin seem to be pro-small government at home but raging statists abroad.
After all, the US military is a government institution that relies not on profit for its funding but income redistribution. Its structure is susceptible to the same inefficiencies and wastefulness typical of any long-standing government bureaucracy.
It would seem like a logical conclusion that the military is a socialist organization because, after all, taxes are collected and redistributed to soldiers, personnel, and profiteers. Although most would say that necessary military funding is a necessary socialism, the overseas military activity Levin spoke of is not necessary--the non-defensive, recreational wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Although the odds of dying from a terrorist attack are far less than those of dying from a snake bite, snakes for some reason do not warrant equivalently overarching military action in Levin's mind. Is he soft on snakes or overestimative of terrorist threats?
Moreover, nearly all great nations in the modern era have fallen due to financial reasons. It is ironic that the very institution meant to protect us may be leading to our demise as it digs us further into debt.
To expect Levin to arrive at this thought may be expecting too much.
In Levin's mind, something magic must happen when government crosses a US border. It is very interesting that many Republicans such as Levin seem to be pro-small government at home but raging statists abroad.
After all, the US military is a government institution that relies not on profit for its funding but income redistribution. Its structure is susceptible to the same inefficiencies and wastefulness typical of any long-standing government bureaucracy.
It would seem like a logical conclusion that the military is a socialist organization because, after all, taxes are collected and redistributed to soldiers, personnel, and profiteers. Although most would say that necessary military funding is a necessary socialism, the overseas military activity Levin spoke of is not necessary--the non-defensive, recreational wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Although the odds of dying from a terrorist attack are far less than those of dying from a snake bite, snakes for some reason do not warrant equivalently overarching military action in Levin's mind. Is he soft on snakes or overestimative of terrorist threats?
Moreover, nearly all great nations in the modern era have fallen due to financial reasons. It is ironic that the very institution meant to protect us may be leading to our demise as it digs us further into debt.
To expect Levin to arrive at this thought may be expecting too much.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Velma Chides Hannity for being Obsessed with the Anthony Weiner Scandal
A woman named Velma from New Orleans called in to the Sean Hannity radio show and reprimanded him for spending too much time covering liberal congressman Anthony Weiner's sexting debacle. Hannity half tried to sidestep the question by mentioning unrelated stuff and then tried to cover himself by claiming that the incident was of prime importance.
But Velma was right. There's only so much nonsense people can take from hucksters like Hannity, who focus on insignificant gossipy things.
Hannity mentions many good things on his show, like concerns over eminent domain. But he rails on incessantly about Islamic Terrorism, which 99.999% of Americans have not been hurt by in the past year.
More generally, if Hannity really cared about the well-being of his listeners, he wouldn't fill their heads up with such gossipy trifles that don't truly inform them or make them smarter voters.
But being gossipy probably nets Hannity better ratings...
Yes, it is obvious that Weiner did something bad, but he needs to be criticized primarily on his bad ideas and policies--the things that actually affect people, not harassed over a singular sin of his. Going on a crusade to try to prove that all liberals are immoral people is a terrible strategy for the conservative movement because Anthony Weiner can simply be replaced with a liberal who doesn't sext.
When I was once a talk radio listener, I tried in vain to try to get liberals to think all liberals were immoral but it was to no avail. You've got to get people to see that it is the liberal policies that are the problem. This requires education and thought, neither of which a casual radio listener may want to give.
I suggest people seek out other sources of media, like The Freeman and news outlets like The Hill, the Washington Times, and Russia Today. For TV, there's "Freedomwatch" with Judge Napolitano. Napolitano may not have Hannity's looks and voice, but he is a lot more genuine in what he covers and how he covers it. Also, look to Christian Churches to hear the truth on moral issues, not some disc-jockey trying to get ratings.
I wish there were a mainstream radio show host I could recommend. But most of them are as gossipy as Hannity. Michael Savage is decent, but you have to listen through hours of him talking about his boat, his dog, his latest spaghetti recipe, his boyhood, all of which, although entertaining because of his wit and storytelling ability, are a lot to suffer through if you just want to hear only politics. Moreover, Savage, too, gets caught up in the character assassination hysteria, leaving his listeners so hateful of liberals that they blindly support the political opponents of such liberals without being critical enough of them. But at least Savage actually criticizes Republicans when they act like Democrats. He condemned Bush's rampant spending.
Savage's pick of Romney for president in 2008 was a bad choice, but overall Savage is probably the most honest major conservative talk-show host out there. He also has good guests on his show, one of whom, Jack Hunter, is an excellent and articulate commentator. Hunter has a radio show of his own, but it isn't widely syndicated.
When it comes to criticizing Democrats, conservative talk radio is fairly decent, (except Hannity and O'Reilly who obsess over minutia). But when it comes to being smart about which Republicans to support, talk radio gets an F.
But Velma was right. There's only so much nonsense people can take from hucksters like Hannity, who focus on insignificant gossipy things.
Hannity mentions many good things on his show, like concerns over eminent domain. But he rails on incessantly about Islamic Terrorism, which 99.999% of Americans have not been hurt by in the past year.
More generally, if Hannity really cared about the well-being of his listeners, he wouldn't fill their heads up with such gossipy trifles that don't truly inform them or make them smarter voters.
But being gossipy probably nets Hannity better ratings...
Yes, it is obvious that Weiner did something bad, but he needs to be criticized primarily on his bad ideas and policies--the things that actually affect people, not harassed over a singular sin of his. Going on a crusade to try to prove that all liberals are immoral people is a terrible strategy for the conservative movement because Anthony Weiner can simply be replaced with a liberal who doesn't sext.
When I was once a talk radio listener, I tried in vain to try to get liberals to think all liberals were immoral but it was to no avail. You've got to get people to see that it is the liberal policies that are the problem. This requires education and thought, neither of which a casual radio listener may want to give.
I suggest people seek out other sources of media, like The Freeman and news outlets like The Hill, the Washington Times, and Russia Today. For TV, there's "Freedomwatch" with Judge Napolitano. Napolitano may not have Hannity's looks and voice, but he is a lot more genuine in what he covers and how he covers it. Also, look to Christian Churches to hear the truth on moral issues, not some disc-jockey trying to get ratings.
I wish there were a mainstream radio show host I could recommend. But most of them are as gossipy as Hannity. Michael Savage is decent, but you have to listen through hours of him talking about his boat, his dog, his latest spaghetti recipe, his boyhood, all of which, although entertaining because of his wit and storytelling ability, are a lot to suffer through if you just want to hear only politics. Moreover, Savage, too, gets caught up in the character assassination hysteria, leaving his listeners so hateful of liberals that they blindly support the political opponents of such liberals without being critical enough of them. But at least Savage actually criticizes Republicans when they act like Democrats. He condemned Bush's rampant spending.
Savage's pick of Romney for president in 2008 was a bad choice, but overall Savage is probably the most honest major conservative talk-show host out there. He also has good guests on his show, one of whom, Jack Hunter, is an excellent and articulate commentator. Hunter has a radio show of his own, but it isn't widely syndicated.
When it comes to criticizing Democrats, conservative talk radio is fairly decent, (except Hannity and O'Reilly who obsess over minutia). But when it comes to being smart about which Republicans to support, talk radio gets an F.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
FOX News Needs to Apologize More to Ron Paul
FOX News anchorman Bill Hemmer excused the Network's "honest mistake".
To set up an interview with Ron Paul after he won the 2011 CPAC straw poll for president, FOX aired a clip of Ron Paul Being booed after winning at CPAC in 2010, instead of the clip from 2011 when he was not booed.
The video below explains it all.
Additionally, it has been said that the reason FOX News's film from 2010 has so much booing is that FOX had their sound equipment set up amid a hoard of Mitt Romney supporters. Many argue that a comprehensive sound bit from 2010 would have displayed better than a 50/50 ratio of cheering to jeering.
Whether FOX News really did just make a mistake in airing its 2010 booful clip is questioned by many and doubted by others.
But FOX News has many more things to answer for in terms of their barbaric treatment of Ron Paul over the years.
FOX's first apology would be for their constant smearing of Ron Paul as a 9/11 Truther during the 2008 election. Despite the fact that he is avowedly not a Truther, FOX purposefully cast him as one, and even sicked Michelle Malkin on him that she might absurdly allege with much vitriol his Truthership. Okay, maybe it's not known whether FOX "sicked" her on him, but her lurid display of errancy would have been pulled by a network concerned with journalistic integrity.
It is not known why FOX News has allowed such a display of ignorance to color their coverage of Representative Paul. Any journalist ought to know that Ron Paul has not "come out of nowhere", that it's false that he has "no business being on stage with other Republicans," and finally that he has his fair share of "electability."
One would at least expect FOX to be "fair and balanced" toward a Republican.
Paul has had a long and storied political career. A longtime supporter of Austrian Economics and freedom in general, he has dined with esteemed intellectuals such as Nobel prize winner F.A. Hayek, and has had an important role in questioning and debating with Fed chairmen since the days of Paul Volcker. Moreover, he has voted strictly with the constitution, an old, old Republican platform that lost popularity in the 20th century. Ron Paul needs no truther hype; he already has things he's famous for.
Others besides FOX News have found other excuses not to like Paul. In 2007, then writer for National Review Peter Suderman took the route of criticizing Paul for being "rigid." (He may have changed his mind since then as he now writes for the Libertarian outlet Reason.) But, to contend with his past point I propose that in an age of rampaging Fabian Socialism and flaccid RINO rulers, wouldn't a little "rigidity" or backbone desirable?
As for Paul's lack of Hawkish ambition, being a Republican should not entail supporting a proactive instigatory foreign policy. If it does, then the Republican Party could be said to have in place a form of psychological draft that it imposes on its members to make them into an army of chickenhawk voters, and this is a conscription which is rather aggressive and not indicative of a small government mentality.
Anyway, FOX News needs to apologize for everything it has done to Paul. Yet many chumps view FOX News as a bastion of conservative morality. "How could our noble, conservative network be wrong about Paul?" they ask. But remember, FOX News is a subsidiary of Newscorp which profits from Pay per View porn channels via its part ownership of DirecTV. Perhaps these sorts of associations explain the rising skirt levels of FOX News anchorwomen.
Some morality.
FOX News has many good hosts such as Judge Andrew Napolitano, and their reporting is reliable for liberty issues such as Net Neutrality, but the network has much to apologize for, and the first person they need to see is Ron Paul.
To set up an interview with Ron Paul after he won the 2011 CPAC straw poll for president, FOX aired a clip of Ron Paul Being booed after winning at CPAC in 2010, instead of the clip from 2011 when he was not booed.
The video below explains it all.
Additionally, it has been said that the reason FOX News's film from 2010 has so much booing is that FOX had their sound equipment set up amid a hoard of Mitt Romney supporters. Many argue that a comprehensive sound bit from 2010 would have displayed better than a 50/50 ratio of cheering to jeering.
Whether FOX News really did just make a mistake in airing its 2010 booful clip is questioned by many and doubted by others.
But FOX News has many more things to answer for in terms of their barbaric treatment of Ron Paul over the years.
FOX's first apology would be for their constant smearing of Ron Paul as a 9/11 Truther during the 2008 election. Despite the fact that he is avowedly not a Truther, FOX purposefully cast him as one, and even sicked Michelle Malkin on him that she might absurdly allege with much vitriol his Truthership. Okay, maybe it's not known whether FOX "sicked" her on him, but her lurid display of errancy would have been pulled by a network concerned with journalistic integrity.
It is not known why FOX News has allowed such a display of ignorance to color their coverage of Representative Paul. Any journalist ought to know that Ron Paul has not "come out of nowhere", that it's false that he has "no business being on stage with other Republicans," and finally that he has his fair share of "electability."
One would at least expect FOX to be "fair and balanced" toward a Republican.
Paul has had a long and storied political career. A longtime supporter of Austrian Economics and freedom in general, he has dined with esteemed intellectuals such as Nobel prize winner F.A. Hayek, and has had an important role in questioning and debating with Fed chairmen since the days of Paul Volcker. Moreover, he has voted strictly with the constitution, an old, old Republican platform that lost popularity in the 20th century. Ron Paul needs no truther hype; he already has things he's famous for.
Others besides FOX News have found other excuses not to like Paul. In 2007, then writer for National Review Peter Suderman took the route of criticizing Paul for being "rigid." (He may have changed his mind since then as he now writes for the Libertarian outlet Reason.) But, to contend with his past point I propose that in an age of rampaging Fabian Socialism and flaccid RINO rulers, wouldn't a little "rigidity" or backbone desirable?
As for Paul's lack of Hawkish ambition, being a Republican should not entail supporting a proactive instigatory foreign policy. If it does, then the Republican Party could be said to have in place a form of psychological draft that it imposes on its members to make them into an army of chickenhawk voters, and this is a conscription which is rather aggressive and not indicative of a small government mentality.
Anyway, FOX News needs to apologize for everything it has done to Paul. Yet many chumps view FOX News as a bastion of conservative morality. "How could our noble, conservative network be wrong about Paul?" they ask. But remember, FOX News is a subsidiary of Newscorp which profits from Pay per View porn channels via its part ownership of DirecTV. Perhaps these sorts of associations explain the rising skirt levels of FOX News anchorwomen.
Some morality.
FOX News has many good hosts such as Judge Andrew Napolitano, and their reporting is reliable for liberty issues such as Net Neutrality, but the network has much to apologize for, and the first person they need to see is Ron Paul.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Left-Wing Media Guilty of Exploitation, Brain-Washing, Hypocrisy in Reporting Arizona Shooting
It has been difficult to ignore the story of the Arizona shooting because the national media has plastered it everywhere unendingly. Although indeed an alarming tragedy, the national media has given the Arizona shooting an unnatural level of attention. This is because the national media's outlook is very government-centered. The federal government is one thing all Americans have in common, afterall. These things aside, some in left-wing media are guilty of exploitation, brainwashing, and hypocrisy.
1. Exploitation
Both Liberal and Conservative National Media are exploiting the tragic incident and are reaping profits from high viewer/listener ratings. But let's not forget that the Left first politicized the event by trying to scapegoat the right. Indeed, it was leftists who started the ongoing fight over the incident. In the end, the losers are (1) the shooting victims whose deaths have been politicized (2) the viewer at home who could have spent his time learning about a news item more relevant to his own well-being.
Video from Reason TV
2. Mind Control
Any reasonable person knows that political rhetoric does not necessarily cause someone to take drugs, become insane, and to shoot people as Jared Loughner did. Nevetheless, some leftwingers have continually tried to insinuate that talk radio, the Tea Party, etc., somehow indirectly caused Loughner to do what he did. I believe certain members of the Left are consciously trying to get their media audience to associate the shooting with Palin, Arizona's immigration policies, etcetera by mentioning them together--over and over. Thus, they are trying to create a psychological negative association in the minds of audience members between conservative things and the shooting; and I believe this is a form of deceit, if not brainwashing. So for instance, when conservatives or independents think about Arizona, they'll also remember being blamed for a shooting they had nothing to do with, and this may induce them to avoid discussion of Arizona's immigration policies, the tea party, etcetera.
For many progressive radicals, when it comes to political tactics, the ends justify the means. For them, although slandering one's political opponents may be wrong, it serves the greater purpose of squelching opposition to the glorious progressive agenda. Moreover, certain leftist media outlets have repeated their suggestion that the right is indirectly responsible for the shooting incident--in effect repeating a lie often enough so that people will believe it.
Even if Loughner had been an avid tea partier, it would still be obvious that few, if any tea partiers take hallucinogens, become insane, and want to shoot people. It's not exactly part of the tea party way of life. Moreover, innocent advocates for liberty or for regulation of immigration should not have to answer for the actions of every single person who may share some of their beliefs. Furthermore, one would not say that all followers of the Mohamed ought to answer for the deeds of a few members jihadist tribal sects--the ones typically responsible for honor killings and suicide bombings. Left-wing outlets would never try to smear Mohammedans--probably because most of them vote Democrat.
Chump conservatives will be affected by the Left's baseless accusations and psychological intimidation, and such chumps will become more timid in their rhetoric. They will not realize that when progressives say "the rhetoric needs to be toned down on both sides", they really mean to say "people should be more docile as the progressive agenda is advanced." "Civility" is a code-word for "Docililty". Many media progressives will no doubt want "Obamalot" to be remembered as a time of peace and harmony.
I must concede that not all of the leftward media has played the blame game. To my knowledge Anderson Cooper did not indulge in it.
Finally, some conservative women believe the reason certain leftists smeared Palin (regarding the Loughner incident) is that the Left is "afraid of her." I do not believe that the Left has any reason to fear Palin because she is unelectable, since she is unpopular with Moderates and Independents. Thus, if Republicans nominate Palin for president in 2012, it would bode well for Progressives. Conservatives ought to be the ones who're afraid of Palin.
3. Hypocrisy
One liberal pundit said frugal fiscal conservatives are reason Loughner was not institutionalized, insinuating that there's some lack of funding for mental hospitals. But according to Mona Charen in her book Do-Gooders, it was liberal psychologists of the 1960s who weakened the ability of the government to commit mentally ill people to institutions. Because of liberal policies, she says, the number of institutionalized people dropped from about 550,000 in the 50's to 70,000* in the early 90's--and this doesn't even take into account population growth. Moreover, there's tons of dough being thrown around by the government, but the funds allocated for mental health are going toward more temporary, halfway house type places rather than toward long-term asylums. I'm do not claim to know whether Loughner would have been institutionalized before he could hurt anyone if laws were the same as they were in the 50's, but if so, I still wouldn't blame liberal psychologists from the sixties for the deaths of Loughner's victims, since they obviously would not have intended for their policies to free up the criminally insane to harm others. In this way I am charitable, unlike some left-wing media.
In the end, the story is about one man plummiting into insanity and doing something bad--nothing more. The media shouldn't publish the views of these stupid liberal smear artists even if it brings higher ratings.
In closing, the video below seems informative.
_________
*This is a rounded number.
1. Exploitation
Both Liberal and Conservative National Media are exploiting the tragic incident and are reaping profits from high viewer/listener ratings. But let's not forget that the Left first politicized the event by trying to scapegoat the right. Indeed, it was leftists who started the ongoing fight over the incident. In the end, the losers are (1) the shooting victims whose deaths have been politicized (2) the viewer at home who could have spent his time learning about a news item more relevant to his own well-being.
Video from Reason TV
2. Mind Control
Any reasonable person knows that political rhetoric does not necessarily cause someone to take drugs, become insane, and to shoot people as Jared Loughner did. Nevetheless, some leftwingers have continually tried to insinuate that talk radio, the Tea Party, etc., somehow indirectly caused Loughner to do what he did. I believe certain members of the Left are consciously trying to get their media audience to associate the shooting with Palin, Arizona's immigration policies, etcetera by mentioning them together--over and over. Thus, they are trying to create a psychological negative association in the minds of audience members between conservative things and the shooting; and I believe this is a form of deceit, if not brainwashing. So for instance, when conservatives or independents think about Arizona, they'll also remember being blamed for a shooting they had nothing to do with, and this may induce them to avoid discussion of Arizona's immigration policies, the tea party, etcetera.
For many progressive radicals, when it comes to political tactics, the ends justify the means. For them, although slandering one's political opponents may be wrong, it serves the greater purpose of squelching opposition to the glorious progressive agenda. Moreover, certain leftist media outlets have repeated their suggestion that the right is indirectly responsible for the shooting incident--in effect repeating a lie often enough so that people will believe it.
Even if Loughner had been an avid tea partier, it would still be obvious that few, if any tea partiers take hallucinogens, become insane, and want to shoot people. It's not exactly part of the tea party way of life. Moreover, innocent advocates for liberty or for regulation of immigration should not have to answer for the actions of every single person who may share some of their beliefs. Furthermore, one would not say that all followers of the Mohamed ought to answer for the deeds of a few members jihadist tribal sects--the ones typically responsible for honor killings and suicide bombings. Left-wing outlets would never try to smear Mohammedans--probably because most of them vote Democrat.
Chump conservatives will be affected by the Left's baseless accusations and psychological intimidation, and such chumps will become more timid in their rhetoric. They will not realize that when progressives say "the rhetoric needs to be toned down on both sides", they really mean to say "people should be more docile as the progressive agenda is advanced." "Civility" is a code-word for "Docililty". Many media progressives will no doubt want "Obamalot" to be remembered as a time of peace and harmony.
I must concede that not all of the leftward media has played the blame game. To my knowledge Anderson Cooper did not indulge in it.
Finally, some conservative women believe the reason certain leftists smeared Palin (regarding the Loughner incident) is that the Left is "afraid of her." I do not believe that the Left has any reason to fear Palin because she is unelectable, since she is unpopular with Moderates and Independents. Thus, if Republicans nominate Palin for president in 2012, it would bode well for Progressives. Conservatives ought to be the ones who're afraid of Palin.
3. Hypocrisy
One liberal pundit said frugal fiscal conservatives are reason Loughner was not institutionalized, insinuating that there's some lack of funding for mental hospitals. But according to Mona Charen in her book Do-Gooders, it was liberal psychologists of the 1960s who weakened the ability of the government to commit mentally ill people to institutions. Because of liberal policies, she says, the number of institutionalized people dropped from about 550,000 in the 50's to 70,000* in the early 90's--and this doesn't even take into account population growth. Moreover, there's tons of dough being thrown around by the government, but the funds allocated for mental health are going toward more temporary, halfway house type places rather than toward long-term asylums. I'm do not claim to know whether Loughner would have been institutionalized before he could hurt anyone if laws were the same as they were in the 50's, but if so, I still wouldn't blame liberal psychologists from the sixties for the deaths of Loughner's victims, since they obviously would not have intended for their policies to free up the criminally insane to harm others. In this way I am charitable, unlike some left-wing media.
In the end, the story is about one man plummiting into insanity and doing something bad--nothing more. The media shouldn't publish the views of these stupid liberal smear artists even if it brings higher ratings.
In closing, the video below seems informative.
_________
*This is a rounded number.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Challenges Facing the Pauls
Ron Paul is one of the few politicians championing liberty who backs up his words with actions. He consistently receives a perfect score from New American magazine on its Freedom Index, because he always votes with the US Constitution. According to the latest poll, Paul is more popular among Independents than Obama or any other GOP candidate. Yet, he will undoubtedly face opposition from both the Republican and Democratic establishments and their underlings.
Some far-sighted left-wing smear artists have already done what their demented apostolate wants them to do: find a hair-brain, knee-jerk reason to write-off the Pauls. The cockamamie reason they've chosen is (surprise) racism*. They've found a way to label Ron Paul and his son racist.
Maddow did so by revealing that Rand Paul wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights act (without explaining the whole of Rand's libertarian rationale, of course).
A few months ago, CNN re-aired a piece it did 2008 about some obscure Ron Paul supporter(s) who ranted against blacks in a Ron Paul Newsletter from the '90s. The strange thing was that CNN re-aired it in 2010 as if the story had just broke, and it did so right after Ron Paul got majority vote at CPAC. Obviously, CNN wants you to think Paul is racist, and will probably re-air the clip whenever Paul gains ground. Intelligently debating the Pauls on their libertarianism appears to have been too difficult for the left-wing media. Smearing is just so much easier.
Thus far, Rand Paul seems to be an easy target for smear artists. Whether it be George Stephanopolus, NPR's Robert Siegel, or MSNBC's Maddow, Rand Paul seems unable to avoid their carefully crafted tricky questions meant to make him give answers that horrify outrage-prone, undereducated leftists. Rand will always have to contend with left-wing smear artists' prejudice that he is "guilty before innocent."
No doubt, the news networks will search far and wide to find, say, some skinheads who support Ron Paul and then will continually try associate him with them. Of course, Obama's evil supporters such as Bill Ayers, the New Black Panthers, and Irreverend Wright will be presented as if they are totally unrelated to Obama--with the defense of "guilt by association" given.
If the Pauls can withstand the carefully concerted propaganda of the corporate Left-Wing and Neocon media, then they, Ron in particular, will still have some hoops to jump through.
For one, Ron Paul is an isolationist, and many loyal Republicans are staunchly pro-Israel. Paul may be able to gain their acceptance if he names a pro-Israel vice presidential candidate or if he espouses some pro-Israel views, but in doing so, he may alienate some of his anti-war libertarian supporters, and, for that matter, some of his Independent supporters. Peter Schiff would be a good vice presidential candidate--who's probably at least a little pro-Israel.
Also, not all fiscal conservatives buy in to Austrian Economic theory (of which the Pauls are adherents). Many popular conservatives take a more monetarist view. This ideological difference manifests itself in some fiscal conservatives' reluctance to do things like audit the Fed. One such conservative, the popular Pat Toomey, has sidestepped questions about Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed.
Additionally, Ron Paul may not be the best candidate for people who like vociferous "captivators" like Obama who mesmerize audiences with loud, proud rhetoric. Paul just doesn't come across as the type of guy to do that. Moreover, whenever Paul answers some ridiculous accusation vaulted at him by, say, FOX news or Wolf Blitzer of CNN, he always answers with a tone of voice that makes him seem, well, like someone trying to prove he's not crazy. At 1:50 through the video below is a good example:
In the video above, Paul's words are very well chosen, but the intonation of his voice isn't the type of commanding tone to which hero-worshipers gravitate. The sad fact is that some people vote for candidates by virtue of how confident they sound, not how well they argue. This bodes badly for Ron Paul.
Finally, Ron Paul hasn't the support of Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, FOX News, or of many other conservative media. Because these people and networks hold so much sway, Paul may need support from a good many of them to win over the Republican base in 2012. He may be able to get Michael Savage if he pledges to be pro-Israel. However, Beck, Levin, Hannity, and FOX News have tried to cast Paul as a fringe radical, and it seems pretty unlikely that they'll do otherwise in 2012. In the first half of the video below, Joel Skousen covers the media's treatment of Paul in the 2008 primary race.
The next video offers analysis of FOX News's and Michelle Malkin's attempt to associate Ron Paul with the 9/11 truther movement.
The challenges faced by Ron Paul are certainly daunting, but are not insurmountable. The strongholds held by Neocons and the goons of the corporate Left are built on sand. What Paul needs is not just massive education efforts concerning liberty philosophy and free-market economics conducted by groups like FEE, SFL, etc., but a more palatable cultural movement. A movement that is not behind him per se, but behind Liberty Herself.
For this, Paul and Liberty need something powerful. And I say, one powerful way to unite people is through music. (To be continued...)
_______________________________
*For many of our friends on the Left, anyone who opposes any government program that purports to help black people is racist a priori. The only thing left to do is illustrate how the person in question is racist--the actual effectiveness of the government program be damned. That is the tactic.
Some far-sighted left-wing smear artists have already done what their demented apostolate wants them to do: find a hair-brain, knee-jerk reason to write-off the Pauls. The cockamamie reason they've chosen is (surprise) racism*. They've found a way to label Ron Paul and his son racist.
Maddow did so by revealing that Rand Paul wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights act (without explaining the whole of Rand's libertarian rationale, of course).
A few months ago, CNN re-aired a piece it did 2008 about some obscure Ron Paul supporter(s) who ranted against blacks in a Ron Paul Newsletter from the '90s. The strange thing was that CNN re-aired it in 2010 as if the story had just broke, and it did so right after Ron Paul got majority vote at CPAC. Obviously, CNN wants you to think Paul is racist, and will probably re-air the clip whenever Paul gains ground. Intelligently debating the Pauls on their libertarianism appears to have been too difficult for the left-wing media. Smearing is just so much easier.
Thus far, Rand Paul seems to be an easy target for smear artists. Whether it be George Stephanopolus, NPR's Robert Siegel, or MSNBC's Maddow, Rand Paul seems unable to avoid their carefully crafted tricky questions meant to make him give answers that horrify outrage-prone, undereducated leftists. Rand will always have to contend with left-wing smear artists' prejudice that he is "guilty before innocent."
No doubt, the news networks will search far and wide to find, say, some skinheads who support Ron Paul and then will continually try associate him with them. Of course, Obama's evil supporters such as Bill Ayers, the New Black Panthers, and Irreverend Wright will be presented as if they are totally unrelated to Obama--with the defense of "guilt by association" given.
If the Pauls can withstand the carefully concerted propaganda of the corporate Left-Wing and Neocon media, then they, Ron in particular, will still have some hoops to jump through.
For one, Ron Paul is an isolationist, and many loyal Republicans are staunchly pro-Israel. Paul may be able to gain their acceptance if he names a pro-Israel vice presidential candidate or if he espouses some pro-Israel views, but in doing so, he may alienate some of his anti-war libertarian supporters, and, for that matter, some of his Independent supporters. Peter Schiff would be a good vice presidential candidate--who's probably at least a little pro-Israel.
Also, not all fiscal conservatives buy in to Austrian Economic theory (of which the Pauls are adherents). Many popular conservatives take a more monetarist view. This ideological difference manifests itself in some fiscal conservatives' reluctance to do things like audit the Fed. One such conservative, the popular Pat Toomey, has sidestepped questions about Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed.
Additionally, Ron Paul may not be the best candidate for people who like vociferous "captivators" like Obama who mesmerize audiences with loud, proud rhetoric. Paul just doesn't come across as the type of guy to do that. Moreover, whenever Paul answers some ridiculous accusation vaulted at him by, say, FOX news or Wolf Blitzer of CNN, he always answers with a tone of voice that makes him seem, well, like someone trying to prove he's not crazy. At 1:50 through the video below is a good example:
In the video above, Paul's words are very well chosen, but the intonation of his voice isn't the type of commanding tone to which hero-worshipers gravitate. The sad fact is that some people vote for candidates by virtue of how confident they sound, not how well they argue. This bodes badly for Ron Paul.
Finally, Ron Paul hasn't the support of Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, FOX News, or of many other conservative media. Because these people and networks hold so much sway, Paul may need support from a good many of them to win over the Republican base in 2012. He may be able to get Michael Savage if he pledges to be pro-Israel. However, Beck, Levin, Hannity, and FOX News have tried to cast Paul as a fringe radical, and it seems pretty unlikely that they'll do otherwise in 2012. In the first half of the video below, Joel Skousen covers the media's treatment of Paul in the 2008 primary race.
The next video offers analysis of FOX News's and Michelle Malkin's attempt to associate Ron Paul with the 9/11 truther movement.
The challenges faced by Ron Paul are certainly daunting, but are not insurmountable. The strongholds held by Neocons and the goons of the corporate Left are built on sand. What Paul needs is not just massive education efforts concerning liberty philosophy and free-market economics conducted by groups like FEE, SFL, etc., but a more palatable cultural movement. A movement that is not behind him per se, but behind Liberty Herself.
For this, Paul and Liberty need something powerful. And I say, one powerful way to unite people is through music. (To be continued...)
_______________________________
*For many of our friends on the Left, anyone who opposes any government program that purports to help black people is racist a priori. The only thing left to do is illustrate how the person in question is racist--the actual effectiveness of the government program be damned. That is the tactic.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Limbaugh Anathematized and A Casual Discussion of Modern Media
Although allegations of bias in our local media sometimes arise, such as the purported unfair coverage of Bishop Martino in the Scranton Times or the strange, unfounded "Kill him" comment reported by the Scranton Times' 'reporter' David Singleton, most disputes over media coverage are relegated to the national media.
Recently, Rush Limbaugh had his bid for the St. Louis Rams pro football team revoked partly due to questionable media coverage. Like any public figure, Limbaugh has had to develop thick skin. Besides being scrutinized for his past abuse of the drug oxy-contin and his 2003 claim that the media wanted Donovan McNabb to succeed because he was a black quarterback, Limbaugh has been called a "clown" by New York Times writer Timothy Eagan, and a "human vat of vitriol" by MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews. However, most damning for Limbaugh's Rams bid were allegations that he is a racist. Cable news networks calumniated him, alleging that he said that "slavery had its merits" although they had no audio clip to back the "quote" up. CNN used an undated, vague citation "Rush Limbaugh On The Radio," and MSNBC cited Steelers linebacker James Farrior, a secondary source or in other words a quote of a quote.1 According to the Culture and Media Institute, as of Oct. 16 the networks spent merely 47 seconds on Saturday admitting that the "quote" and other spurious Limbaugh "quotes" were made up.2 CNN and NBC did not apologize, although CNN reporter Rick Sanchez apologized informally on his twitter page.3
Such disregard for verifying the facts in the television media is nothing new. Many may remember how the cable networks lifted Scranton Times reporter David Singleton's allegation that someone yelled "kill him" in reference to Obama at a Scranton Sarah Palin rally last October. Secret service agents called the allegation unfounded after they failed to find anyone else who had heard the shouted message. Notwithstanding the questionable source, the national cable outlets propagated the "kill him" comment anyway.4
Often, bias affects not only how, but what news is reported. For instance, it is doubtful that the news networks pointed out that Limbaugh employs a conservative black man, Bo Snerdley, as his control room operator. Snerdley is also the show's "official Obama criticizer" and quasi-co-host. Snerdley, in fact, wanted Limbaugh to sue media outlets for libel.
Moreover, the fact that Limbaugh has the distinguished black intellectual Walter E. Williams guest host his show would further undermine the media's calumniation of him as a racist. I suppose the problem for Rush is that he's more likely to see eye to eye with Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams than with the 'good' Al Sharpton or the irreverend Jackson. Unfortunately for many conservatives and Limbaugh, they are guilty of racism until proven innocent (in the minds of the left-wing press, which usually deprives them the air time to prove their innocence anyway). Limbaugh here is an example, but similar media bias exists in coverage of tea parties, global warming and other political topics.
Everyone knows that talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh are biased, but, as conservative talk show host Michael Savage points out, they do not try to hide it like news reporters do. Moreover, American news agencies at the aggregate level create a worldview that fits with what is taught in liberal arts courses in high schools and colleges across the country.
For instance, the 65 black kids who were thrown out of a Philadelphia swimming pool last summer received national spotlight and were eventually somewhat compensated with a free trip to Disney World courtesy of a donor. In contrast, the white family in Ohio which was allegedly assaulted by gang of supremacist black teenagers got little national attention, and the nearly 200 white New York state employees who were fired so that the state could hire more minorities were mentioned merely perchance in a New York Post article. Although one would think Americans could handle the news of all these events like adults, the national media apparently does not, preferring only to show that which fits a politically correct worldview.
Most people recognize that there are also ideological differences within media outlets such as those between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, FOX News and MSNBC, The Times Leader and the Citizen's Voice, or even local talk show host Nancy Kaman and Sue Henry!
This diversity in opinion has created many media rivalries. White House communications director Anita Dunn recently lashed out at FOX News, claiming that it is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. FOX's Glenn Beck shot back by showing a clip of Anita Dunn saying, in a speech to high schoolers, that communist dictator Mao Tse-tung was one of her favorite political philosophers.
Some people, namely politicians, are upset about conservative dominated talk-radio. Contrastingly, people on the right complain about American Universities where, according to a University of Toronto study, a professor is nearly 5 times more likely to identify herself as liberal than as conservative. Strangely enough, the only sort mitigatory legislation being proposed, a kind of "fairness doctrine," would target only radio stations.
Is such diversity of perspective in media a good thing? Gone are the days of Walter Cronkite when few gave the news to many, especially since the advent of Internet news sites like the Huffington Post and CNS News. Several lament the fact that Americans no longer have a common news experience like they did when Cronkite anchored in the 60's and 70's. Many still blame the diversifying media for creating an ideological gap in America, but one may also speculate that the media somewhat reflects a widening culture gap. Regardless, before one clamors for homogenization of the media via a fairness doctrine or other means, it's a good idea to empathize with one's political opponents and ask: if I were in his or her shoes, would I want someone to tell me that my lone opinion is illegal or that my free speech needs to be balanced out? as if there were only two sides to every issue? Moreover, multiple news outlets each having differing slants ensure against wide-scale media error. To paraphrase an idea of Frederic Bastiat, it is better if one of many news services err than if a single monopoly news service errs.
As long as free speech reigns in America, one must rely largely on websites to make media bias known. For instance, conservative sites such as newsbusters reveal liberal media bias. George Soros' media matters shows material from conservative sites. Newshounds covers bias on FOX News while Times Watch exposes bias in the New York Times. Other sites such as The Pew Research Center cover more general aspects of media outlets.
And for solidarity's sake, I admit that this very article is biased with respect to the which topics I cover, but I believe I present the topics fairly.
1 http://www.mrc.org/static/uploads/RushtoRuin.pdf
2 http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2009/20091016120005.aspx
3 http://twitter.com/ricksanchezcnn/status/4901464014
4 http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
Recently, Rush Limbaugh had his bid for the St. Louis Rams pro football team revoked partly due to questionable media coverage. Like any public figure, Limbaugh has had to develop thick skin. Besides being scrutinized for his past abuse of the drug oxy-contin and his 2003 claim that the media wanted Donovan McNabb to succeed because he was a black quarterback, Limbaugh has been called a "clown" by New York Times writer Timothy Eagan, and a "human vat of vitriol" by MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews. However, most damning for Limbaugh's Rams bid were allegations that he is a racist. Cable news networks calumniated him, alleging that he said that "slavery had its merits" although they had no audio clip to back the "quote" up. CNN used an undated, vague citation "Rush Limbaugh On The Radio," and MSNBC cited Steelers linebacker James Farrior, a secondary source or in other words a quote of a quote.1 According to the Culture and Media Institute, as of Oct. 16 the networks spent merely 47 seconds on Saturday admitting that the "quote" and other spurious Limbaugh "quotes" were made up.2 CNN and NBC did not apologize, although CNN reporter Rick Sanchez apologized informally on his twitter page.3
Such disregard for verifying the facts in the television media is nothing new. Many may remember how the cable networks lifted Scranton Times reporter David Singleton's allegation that someone yelled "kill him" in reference to Obama at a Scranton Sarah Palin rally last October. Secret service agents called the allegation unfounded after they failed to find anyone else who had heard the shouted message. Notwithstanding the questionable source, the national cable outlets propagated the "kill him" comment anyway.4
Often, bias affects not only how, but what news is reported. For instance, it is doubtful that the news networks pointed out that Limbaugh employs a conservative black man, Bo Snerdley, as his control room operator. Snerdley is also the show's "official Obama criticizer" and quasi-co-host. Snerdley, in fact, wanted Limbaugh to sue media outlets for libel.
Moreover, the fact that Limbaugh has the distinguished black intellectual Walter E. Williams guest host his show would further undermine the media's calumniation of him as a racist. I suppose the problem for Rush is that he's more likely to see eye to eye with Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams than with the 'good' Al Sharpton or the irreverend Jackson. Unfortunately for many conservatives and Limbaugh, they are guilty of racism until proven innocent (in the minds of the left-wing press, which usually deprives them the air time to prove their innocence anyway). Limbaugh here is an example, but similar media bias exists in coverage of tea parties, global warming and other political topics.
Everyone knows that talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh are biased, but, as conservative talk show host Michael Savage points out, they do not try to hide it like news reporters do. Moreover, American news agencies at the aggregate level create a worldview that fits with what is taught in liberal arts courses in high schools and colleges across the country.
For instance, the 65 black kids who were thrown out of a Philadelphia swimming pool last summer received national spotlight and were eventually somewhat compensated with a free trip to Disney World courtesy of a donor. In contrast, the white family in Ohio which was allegedly assaulted by gang of supremacist black teenagers got little national attention, and the nearly 200 white New York state employees who were fired so that the state could hire more minorities were mentioned merely perchance in a New York Post article. Although one would think Americans could handle the news of all these events like adults, the national media apparently does not, preferring only to show that which fits a politically correct worldview.
Most people recognize that there are also ideological differences within media outlets such as those between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, FOX News and MSNBC, The Times Leader and the Citizen's Voice, or even local talk show host Nancy Kaman and Sue Henry!
This diversity in opinion has created many media rivalries. White House communications director Anita Dunn recently lashed out at FOX News, claiming that it is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. FOX's Glenn Beck shot back by showing a clip of Anita Dunn saying, in a speech to high schoolers, that communist dictator Mao Tse-tung was one of her favorite political philosophers.
Some people, namely politicians, are upset about conservative dominated talk-radio. Contrastingly, people on the right complain about American Universities where, according to a University of Toronto study, a professor is nearly 5 times more likely to identify herself as liberal than as conservative. Strangely enough, the only sort mitigatory legislation being proposed, a kind of "fairness doctrine," would target only radio stations.
Is such diversity of perspective in media a good thing? Gone are the days of Walter Cronkite when few gave the news to many, especially since the advent of Internet news sites like the Huffington Post and CNS News. Several lament the fact that Americans no longer have a common news experience like they did when Cronkite anchored in the 60's and 70's. Many still blame the diversifying media for creating an ideological gap in America, but one may also speculate that the media somewhat reflects a widening culture gap. Regardless, before one clamors for homogenization of the media via a fairness doctrine or other means, it's a good idea to empathize with one's political opponents and ask: if I were in his or her shoes, would I want someone to tell me that my lone opinion is illegal or that my free speech needs to be balanced out? as if there were only two sides to every issue? Moreover, multiple news outlets each having differing slants ensure against wide-scale media error. To paraphrase an idea of Frederic Bastiat, it is better if one of many news services err than if a single monopoly news service errs.
As long as free speech reigns in America, one must rely largely on websites to make media bias known. For instance, conservative sites such as newsbusters reveal liberal media bias. George Soros' media matters shows material from conservative sites. Newshounds covers bias on FOX News while Times Watch exposes bias in the New York Times. Other sites such as The Pew Research Center cover more general aspects of media outlets.
And for solidarity's sake, I admit that this very article is biased with respect to the which topics I cover, but I believe I present the topics fairly.
1 http://www.mrc.org/static/uploads/RushtoRuin.pdf
2 http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2009/20091016120005.aspx
3 http://twitter.com/ricksanchezcnn/status/4901464014
4 http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)