Andy Brietbart gets my vote as the most courageous words for election day. Like Andy, I too still like Bush. I think Bush has honestly done what he thought was right to the best of his ability at every step, and I believe his ability is far superior to what the vast majority think it is. I have long argued that if Al Gore had been elected and by some miracle had done exactly what Bush has done, he would be viewed as a heroic and excellent President by the MSM. For one thing, they would have HAILED the perscription drug legislation as a hugely wonderful thing!
Golly, they completed the investigation the night BEFORE the election! How timely! I have to give them credit for not doing the day after the election. Now, we must remember, Democrats never do "dirty politics" -- Bush's DWI showed up the Friday before the 2K election, and just last week there was a lawsuit against Norm Coleman's wife in MN. Both were COMPLETELY UNRELATED to "Democrats or politics"! Now I'm not sure who "proved this" or how they did it, but it must be a fact since the MSM has never indicated that either had anything to do with politics or the Democrats, so I'm sure they didn't!!
It really needs to be read to be appreciated, but it does the heart of someone who listens to a lot of NPR good. I suspect that we will be able to listen to this kind of "insight" in ALL media in the next couple of years -- heck, they have a really good start already!
Our relations with the Muslim world have rarely, if ever, been better. The current $320 per barrel price of oil allows long-oppressed states to develop themselves without the yoke of neo-colonialism or invasive efforts to force democracy upon their populations. As UN Ambassador Ayers noted, "We can state with pride that the US not only respects, but embraces cultural differences."
One doesn't need to read this with much care to see how non-serious the journalist and reviewers see a noted vampire author turning Christian. The idea of "redemption" so goes against the popular culture; "You are what you are", the best you can do is "be authentic". How the random universe managed to somehow give each person this "are" is not explained, but randomness is very witty in in the popular view.
Christianity is not popular with the elite -- believers are fools, they don't "get it", and the secular intelligentsia in every age KNOW that THEY have "got it". The "it" of that age is always "the latest it"--so therefore it must be "best". Even though evolution for example says NOTHING at all about "perpetual improvement", and we well know that natural systems in which something that at least WE currently "explain" as "randomness" is at work are just as happy to kill as to cure. To the random system as a whole, even "survival" would only be "it happens to work as long as it works" kind of thing--a random universe has no "desire" or "bias" for there to be life at all, let alone our assumed individual "random self to be true to".
The idea that there are no guarantees whatsoever that "the latest knowledge is best" doesn't fit very well-the fact that we are "here now" seems like it OUGHT to mean that this is the best time we could have been here! The idea of any "discoverable transcendence" or even worse, the idea that lives could be changed by this "thing that doesn't exist" is especially scary to the vast secular world. I still argue that one of the core hatreds of Bush is that a late bloomer with a drinking problem could find Jesus, change, and become President. Right off, it hits most secular folks as "phony and simple minded". If such redemption is possible, wouldn't we have a better secular pill or procedure to pull it off without resorting to the messiness of God?
Maybe Ann Rice sought out Jesus because she "had hard times"--her husband died and she got diabetes. Well, maybe so--I suspect that even the most secular of reporters will note that all humans face the "hard times" of death. Some of us need something to make us realize that and some of us don't. Life is very short and death is very long, whatever the circumstances that help one realize that fact, it seems that it is worth giving some thought. You will be dead much longer than your career, marriage or how long you live in your current home. Probably you spent some time thinking about those decisions, some people never own a home, get married, or have a job, but I gaurantee you that death will not be avoided.
Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipate
The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.
The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.
This is a good short story on media bias, The fact of bias is obvious to all but the most ardent and credulous lefty and covered in nearly excruciating (though recommended) detail in the "Bias" books by Bernie Goldberg, but this is still well written and much shorter than the books.
It has a twist at the end that I hadn't fully considered relative to the "perfect storm" that seems intent on electing BO. I'm sure that much like major corporations, the average age in the news room is getting a bit long in tooth and there are too many folks "running out the clock". The "Fairness Doctrine / Return of Unions for 50+ers in the newsroom" is an interesting angle--especially to a 50+er at a corporation.
Gee, maybe I need to look on the "bright side"--protect my job for another decade with a union? Sure, it would destroy the company, but so what? Don't I have a RIGHT to employment in my golden years?
Special thanks to the Vegas readership for pointing this one out.
In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.
And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.
With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.
And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country …
One of my maxims on understanding the left --- When they accuse the right of something, it usually means that the gambit that they are making accusations of is well known and heavily used by the left already.
One of the accusations by a surprising number of lefties was that "The War On Terror" is a manufactured crisis to keep the right in power. It seems a little hard to imagine that 9-11 was an "inside job", but a shocking number of lefties buy that, or the only slightly less harder to swallow idea that "Bush lied about WMD" -- since the "lie" would have involved Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Colin Powell, the entire CIA and DOD and only about 90% of all intelligence agencies in the world plus the UN. They agreed Saddam had WMD, they just disagreed over the US doing something about it.
The Subprime debacle and subsequent financial meltdown doesn't require a lot of imagination to fan into a "conspiracy theory", but more accurately it fits into a whole series of overall left activities that had the objective of "breaking the capitalist system". They didn't know exactly which one would malfunction, but they were pretty sure that one or more of them eventually would. A look at this site can be a bit scary. The specifics of the Cloward-Piven Strategy are here. In short, "manufactured crisis to achieve a result".
The whole idea of the "radical left" is something that the MSM would have you believe doesn't exist in this country. In their narrative, the "far right" (America's constant danger) chased communist spies that never existed in the McCarthy era, hung around with "The Military Industrial Complex" to manufacture a cold war with the benevolent USSR and hideously morphed into the "Religious Right", "Neocons" and other "well documented" elements of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"--an organization so well known and factual that a First Lady could talk about it in all seriousness on NBC's Today Show in the '90s and still be elected Senator from NY.
The "organized right" with all it's nefarious connections to "The Trilateral Commission" and all manner of corporate and religious connections involving "Jews", "The Pope", "The Military" and all other elements is well known by the MSM. Utter the phrase "Un-American" -- as Michelle Bachmann was led into doing by Chris Matthews, and the specter of "McCarthyism" is roused from its grave in an instant.
Strangely, one can go through a bunch of schooling and live a long MSM fed life and come to the conclusion that "there is no organized left". Strange.
I'd argue that the main reason that Americans don't realize anything about "the left" is the same reason that a fish is going to have a hard time telling you what it means to be "wet". Post FDR, we have been so far toward the left and fed by a MSM that finds the views of the left to be way more factual than the average "Sunday Christian" finds the teachings of Christ, so that like the fish, we just don't know about being "left".
We live in the "Obamanation", that I often refer to as BOistan.
Great article that covers the fact that the MSM, BO and the Democrats are lying about what has happened to the poor and middle class over the past 30 years. ALL Americans have had stunning success in that time, BUT, since the MSM / Democrats have managed to convince everyone that they HAVEN't had good times, a bunch of actions that are nearly certain to kill prosperity are going to happen.
We pretty much know what creates Republicans--belief in God, Family, personal responsibility, hard work, thrift, etc
So what will Democrats likely do once they get in? Well, naturally:
replace religion with "unity and support for BO"
replace family with "domestic partners", mandatory head start, "youth programs"
replace responsibility with government "rights" of all sorts so there is no sense of responsibility to work
replace hard work with union seniority, government restrictions / incentives / disincentives for job actions
and thrift ... well, that is the subject of the linked column, the coming attack on the investor class.
I'd say there are 3 things that give you an 80%+ odds of being Republican:
Practicing Christian (you go to church, do your best to follow Christ)
Married with kids--especially one marriage.
You have consistently invested something from say 5-10% of your income in the stock market
The linked article covers what Democrats are likely to do to try to destroy #3. Essentially, increase taxes on investing at the front end and at the back end and provide incentives to take government alternatives that create more dependency on the government. They will go further by putting "government money" into business to crowd out private capital ... socialism/fascism that politicises business so business becomes just one more part of an oppressive and inefficient state.
Why does #3 tend to make you a Republican? He touches on this in the article. If you actually believe in the ideal of America, you believe in WE THE PEOPLE ... NOT, "We the Government". Free people freely interacting in a free market has created the greatest standard of living for the greatest number of people in world history. If you believe in that, then you invest in it and discover the truths of the real world of which markets are just a part.
It is HARD (in fact impossible) to predict what will go up and when and when it all will go up
Nobody is "in control" ... not the rich, not labor, not the government, NOBODY. The force of human ingenuity is greater than the comprehension of any person or persons if it is allowed to operate relatively freely.
Markets ... and luck, weather, business, prices, opinion, sports teams, etc WILL "fluctuate" ... the only way to rid yourself of the fluctuation is "least common denominator, little or no growth or opportunity"
If you are Bill Clinton, BO, or John Edwards, then the media has so little curiosity about looking at your background or activities that even when obvious difficulties arise, it is difficult to see the MSM cover them. If you are Sarah Palin or even Joe the Plumber, then the MSM is going to dredge through all sorts of stuff including "sealed records" finding whatever dirt they can.
This from an Instapundit reader, I think he has it exactly right. We are ALL heavily influenced by the MSM--sometimes just in attempts to think differently from them if you are an iconoclast like me, but one has to realize that "I disagree with everything that X says" is a VERY profound form of inflence. I certainly try to avoid that as well, but I'd be an even bigger fool than I already am if I thought I typically succeeded. I've long thought that essentially what happened to Bush / Republican party is that the far right of the party got ticked about what "actual governing" was like rather than "criticizing the opposition". Was there a lot to criticize about the last 8 years? Absolutely, it is SUPPOSED to be conservatives that realize that there is ALWAYS going to be PLENTY to criticize about government!! The question is a bit like a root canal or procto --- the idea that a "good one" is going to be "everything you hoped for" is a bit unreasonable!!! HOWEVER, what we tend to forget is that a bad one can be really bad ... eg 30's, 65-82 kind of deal.
If the libertarians are disgusted with the GOP and conservatives are disgusted with the GOP (see e.g. Mark Tapscott and others who have floated the idea of a new party), is there a theory which would explain both trends? Yes. I think you can blame the MSM. Seriously.
GOP politicians are still politicians and they learn early not to fight with those who buy ink by the barrel. Conservatives who expect that the GOP is going to step in front of the MSM-driven train to defend principle are destined for a letdown. Few are going to commit political suicide and those who do aren't around next term to do it again. Conservatives don't need a new party. They need a new news media.
I think the libertarian discontent with the GOP is also driven by the MSM. Let's face it, libertarians who voted for Reagan are not leaving the GOP over gay marriage. Can anyone summarize all the legislation and regulation that the GOP has enacted which has alienated libertarians? There's nothing much there. What there has been is a constant drumbeat from the MSM and Hollywood to demonize conservatives. The standard cultural portrayal is a cartoon. But over time, it seeps into the subconscious and becomes perceived fact. I really think the disenchantment is due more to the cartoon than reality.
The longer I'm alive the more I suspect that most people that lived through an era and paid reasonable attention to what was actually happening would scarcely recognize the "general historical view" that ends up being accepted by people in the future reading history. Part of this is simply the need for humans to arrive at a "story" that has a narrative form that "makes sense to humans". We know that everything no longer revolves around us, but we live in the constraints of our gray matter and existence which needs to have a "simple, historical, narrative story that"makes sense".
In many cases, that alone is enough to make the "story" wrong in a lot of significant ways, add some biases (which we all have), sprinkle in the fact that everyone's picture (including mine) is RADICALLY incomplete, and pretty soon, "historical reality" starts to look more like a cartoon of something that might not even be recognizable to those that were alive and not total sheep during the era.
It appears that the fact is that we never had a recession prior to the 4Q of 2008 (two successive quarters of negative growth) -- it seems unlikely that with a lot of corporations reporting reasonable numbers in 3Q that GDP is going to be negative. HOWEVER, kind of like Katrina, Valerie Plame, Global Warming, "lying about WMD", Bush/Cheney supposedly "creating" connections between Iraq and 9-11, etc, we live in an era when manufactured reality IS reality for 90% of the population. Therefore, "We have been in a recession" for something like a year now, so when we now have what appears to be a real downturn at least impending, it CAN'T just be a "recession" -- therefore, "Depression".
Kinda like the little kid that lies about what happened to his homework, the lies just have to keep getting bigger. The PROBLEM is that with the economy, a major part of economic activity depends on what people think! When 90% of people believe we are in a recession ... and then a bunch start to think we are in a depression, that can have a really big effect on how they behave.
Worse, when they are told that the "fault" lies with "capitalism and too little regulation", and they start to believe that as well, then LESS capitalism and MORE regulation is likely to be the "fix"--which of course makes the situation worse, and now we have what is commonly referred to as a "death spiral".
