Fair and Balanced???? Really?

Its pretty safe to say most of us realize that most all media is slanted one way or another if not for any other reason then marketing segmentation. This is very obvious on cable news with CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Just take a look at MSNBC’s slogan: “Lean Forward”. Does it get more obvious then that?

Fox News tilts to the right and although they say they are “fair and balanced” I had a hunch it wasn’t the case just based off memory from tuning in time to time. What I found was pretty telling. I went to Foxnews.com and did a simple search with this criterion:

Fox News-Story-Past month-Politics

Mentions are pretty obvious and a lead story is when the subject name is in the headline. Now before we see the results, remember... what has went on in the Republican primaries the last month. Cain dropped out, Gingrich fell on his face and Paul has risen to the top of the Iowa Caucus polling. With all that said here are the results:

Romney 82 mentions with 24 lead stories

Gingrich 77 mentions with 23 lead stories

And lastly, Ron Paul… 33 mentions with 1 lead story and it laughably ran today (24 days into the month) entitled:

Newsletters, Statements Cause Campaign Trail Problems for Ron Paul

How is the candidate leading in Iowa the most conservative man running and one who has the most diverse crowds in the field have only one lead story and coincidentally enough it’s a negative one? Isn’t it interesting Romney and Gingrich are almost even? Does the Republican establishment not want Paul to gain traction. Without question they do not. Does Fox news? Obviously they will not cover him, even if he was leading the polls in Iowa... so no, its obvious they have no vested interest in him let alone him gaining traction. So what is the relationship between Fox and the Republican Establishment?

Lets say the newsletters are true, and Ron Paul is a racist.

So what? Do you suppose he would be the first racist to hold office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? And i know my statement begs the question.... "does that make it right?" No of course it doesnt, but if ones personal views dont effect the job then i dont think it matters. Everyone has preconceived notions. So in reality, everyone stereotypes to a degree. Does Ron Paul stereotype or not trust people because of their skin color? I dont know. Again. Lets suppose he did write those words. Where in those letters did he say hateful things? Not derogatory but hateful? Where did he spew hatred? If i was to say that Black men are 7% of the population but make up 40% of the prison population, is that racist for me to point that out? No, now if i were to use some hyperbole to make this sound "funny" (if you can even find humor in that) does that make me racist? That is up to the reader i suppose, but in my opinion its doesnt. I think its just poor taste. I dont advocate anything in those letters and i find it trashy, cheap writing.

I don't want to run your life. I don't know how to run your life. And the constitution doesn't permit me to run your life." Ron Paul

However, lets say again they were written by him and not only that Ron Paul is a racist. Where in his platform can racism be applied to politics to hurt people he allegedly despises? Where in libertarianism is it that you put collectivism over individualism. Remember, Dr Paul calls himself the champion of the constitution and what does that paper stand for? Personal liberty. And if we are all guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) and nothing else... how does that hurt anyone or how is that prejudice? What would he do to apply his obvious racist views? To end the war on drugs? To end overseas military campaigns and occupations that are 50 or more years old? To cut taxes on all working Americans not just the ones that will help an election here and there? Those all benefit the majority of most Americans. Of all race and all economic situations. And that also obviously includes the benefit to minorities. Ask yourself these questions:

1. Are these the views of a closet racist? And if he is, again.... how can his views ever be used against anyone from a Libertarian point of view?

2. What holds more weight, a few newsletter ads that he denied writing 20 years ago, or a 30 year span of consistency and principals matched by nobody else in government since the days of Jefferson and Washington.

Republicans Money(ball) problem

Its often said that Ron Paul has no chance to capture the nomination, and its said so much by so many people in all types of media that there is no need to rehash it. We get it. He is too old, too kooky, to outside of the mainstream and his delivery and appearance isn’t presidential enough.

Every time I hear Ron Paul doesn’t have the appearance to become elected President much less elected the Republican nomination I always think of the quote from the book Moneyball. Right before the amateur draft the GM and his scouts are in a room debating players. Oakland A’s GM Billy Bean is squabbling back and forth with a typical player with an older scout, who finally just says the player doesn’t have the body to be a ballplayer.

Frustrated Beane tells his scouts: “ we're not selling jeans here”.

The book Moneyball is a lot like the current GOP. It’s a good ‘ol boy network of establishment brand names vetted by the press and by the power structure that’s calls itself the RNC. It’s the party of Grover Norquist and Karl Rove. It’s the party that panders to big business and social conservatives or basically anyone that will guarantee groups of people who will be pulling Republican levers down come election days. And lest not be confused, it’s not limited to Republicans. The Democrat’s establishment is just as guilty if not more. You see, the Republican establishment only has one network pandering to it.

Appearance is everything. Content is only credible if it is sellable. With that said, you can get people like Romney or Rick Perry to be in the spotlight. Rick Perry, much like Newt Gingrich is a career politician and both are without question RINO’s. Even Perry at one point was an elected Democrat before he “seen the light”, conveniently after he voted for a 5.7 Billion dollar tax increase in the Texas State legislature. But that doesn’t matter. They are egotistical maniacs who will do whatever a focus group tells them to do that make them look favorable in way or another. Perry might not be so much like this, but he has Jesus on his side, so that works too... that’s sellable.

What about Mitt Romney? If there is anyone that is more fallible to waffling, it’s the Mitt. Nobody has been for more after he was against it. Hes a wet dream for the RNC and Fox and whoever else likes a happy meal - Manchurian candidate. He is good looking, articulate, from Big business and has lots of well connected friends. Mitt has always and will continue to be the golden boy of the establishment Republicans and you cant fault them for that. He’s the ideal company man, the good - trusty servant. But he doesn’t serve your interests, he serves their interests.

That’s where this gets interesting. The book Moneyball was based around new versus old ideas. Modern technology versus the naked eye. That’s exactly what is happening in the Republican Party as we speak. We are seeing the old players; the Limbaughs and the Romneys and Bushes and John MCains of the country vehemently oppose the most conservative man not only in congress but in any federal branch of government for that matter. Because it petrifies them, they might not understand it, why they discount him but its simple. Their brand will be toast. They will not be as viable.

Ron Paul wants to put an end to crony capitalism and corporate welfare. He wants to shrink big government. Everything he wants to do is for freedom. That is republicanism at its core. With a limited government why raise taxes or fight endless wars? If you have a limited government how can you attempt to control and govern morality? You can’t. So if government has less control then that means someone has more and they don’t want that. Give the power back to the electorate; after all the work to strip them of that power? Dig in Mr Paul because if these tired, token and cyclical racists’ newsletters from the early 90’s are any indication; you’re going to get the kitchen sink.

Fox News... loves irony

From the Huffington Post:



Classic

76 years young: Ron Pauls attracting the youth vote

According to the latest survey by Public Policy Polling, Ron Paul owns the youth vote. Iowans under the age of forty-five are 30% of the time aligned with Mr Paul, his closest competitor? Mitt Romney …with half of that number. How is this so? Its not like Ron Paul gets the media attention of his competitors, in fact before his ascension into first place in Iowa; he was only surpassing Rick Santorum amongst Republican candidates in the MSM in terms of coverage according to a Pew Study conducted earlier this month.

Its been said, he has far and away the best network on the ground in Iowa. He has legions of volunteers willing and able to go door to door and work the phones. He also has money and when you have money and enthusiasm in a political process anything is possible and Mr Pauls rise is a perfect illustration of that.

How is it that a 76 year old “crank” is the favorite to young voters in a state where the young vote is not always taken serious? Why is Mr Paul fairing so poorly with older voters, getting blown out by 31-15 amongst Iowan seniors… when hes a senior himself? And yet he still rises to #1 in in Iowa?

The answer is pretty obvious. Ron Paul is a message that resonates with those that want change. And not the change thats artificial and a product of some consultant poll numbers and pushed through the press like a happy meal. We know the type of change (sic) im talking about. Its just that... talk. No, we are talking real, tangible, drastic change in a desperate time. We have all heard it before and its logical, the older you get the less change you want; I mean that is conservatism at its core, right?

The Millennial’s and the Gen-X see the broken foreign policy, the failed economy and the constant bickering and broken ideas proliferating Washington. They see lawmakers out of step with the electorate, something the tea party and the occupy movement tap into. And they want to do a U-Turn. There isn’t a politician in this country more inclined and eager to do just that then Ron Paul.

Ron Paul may not win the nomination, but as he always has said its about philosophy and content over delivery and appearance. Its about changing the conversation more then it is about winning. With so many young voters jumping into the Ron Paul revolution – that appears the biggest story going forward. Win or lose much like his growing army of young "Paul-bots" his message is only going to grow.

Blue, white... and red? Is the US on the same path of Greece?

With Greece out on the corner whoring for another bailout and Standard and Poor yesterday lowering Greece’s credit rating to CCC (the lowest in the world) joining Moodys, who dropped Greece two weeks ago… it’s a great time to reflect. Or fittingly enough hold up a mirror to ourselves. Could the mighty US ever be in the same mess the Greeks find themselves in now? They are socialists you say and we’re capitalists, surly that couldn’t happen. Or Could it?

The Greek GDP is 329 Billion (2009). Obviously its not Rwanda. But let’s put that into perspective. The 2009 revenue of Wal-Mart was over 400 Billion. Wal-Marts annual revenue surpassed 174 nations that year. And being Wal Mart is just one company in the US, it gives you a feel for how truly large and powerful we are. So much so, that the US GDP is nearly three times its nearest competitor standing at 14.2 Trillion.

What separates the US from Greece? Sure we collectively output 45X in a year then they do collectively, but our external debt to GDP ratio is 100% on the nose as of tonight’s check. What we have that Greece don’t have is simple. We have a printing press. Our currency is traded throughout the world as the default currency. All we have to do is print our recovery (at the expense of massive inflation of course amongst other undesirables). The Greeks have to rely on a bailout from the European Union or default and declare bankruptcy. In many ways bankruptcy isn’t a bad thing for Greece. Because the sooner they can weed out mal-investment, waste and become more efficient the sooner they can get started in rebuilding. We on the other hand are so disillusioned our reckoning is going to be a lot slower and much much more painful.

So Greece having to default on its debt is one thing, for us to do it… that surly would send a ripple effect throughout the world. And that’s where the conversation truly ends. That’s where you get into raising the debt ceiling. Because after all, its not just the Chinese holding debt, its average Americans too. We can stick it to those red chinamen… but we refuse to and won’t default on Grandma Sherley. I mean, Standard & Poor's may be forced to take away our AAA credit rating, or what basically what amounts to as being a credit card with no limit!

At the current rate, in a few months we will start to default on our debt. The disease of debt and living beyond our means at a national level are over. The diagnosis isn’t going to change. The treatment is the only choice we have. Take the medicine now by choice, or be forced to do it later. And we have two responsible options to do this now and one irresponsible one that will only make things worse.

We can default on our debts and admit to the world and to ourselves that we are living well beyond our means or raise taxes and pay our way. If our 2011 budget deficit is 1.6 Trillion and we have roughly 160 million working Americans, all we will need is 10g per working American to cover this years shortcoming (hows that for stimulating the economy, suck 1.6 trillion out of citizens hands and into the coffers of out of control and out of touch government).

Or we can do what what politicians always are in favor of doing, and that is to let the next guy worry about it and continue to kick the can down the road, raise the debt ceiling, creating an oncoming tsunami at what point could be a country in total chaos. Lets see what kind of chutzpah these elected “leaders” have the rest of this summer. Based on past results, i dont think the shoe business should need a bailout.

Taliban getting new recruits

I have been on record saying that the war on terror is a front. Sure, extremism is something that does threaten the 99% of us that want to live in peace, but your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about as you being crushed under a vending machine. Although, technically, you stand a 200% more of a chance of a vending machine attack then dying in a terrorist attack.

It is a front for a fledgling empire in its death throes to dominate a vital region for energy and global dominance in the coming future. This isn’t just an educated guess. Richard Cheney was on record saying this before he became VP and was CEO at Haliburton. It was Dick who said in 1999:

“the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow”

So we picked up progress. Even thou we are facing a decay infrastructure and crumbling and exploding entitlement programs that are facing insolvency. But then again, perpetual war and debt are probably our leading service export, so in some ways we did what we were good at. The reality is our priorities are so twisted and we are so much in debt we have a hard time seeing the difference between in and whats out. Illegal aliens kill soo many more American each year then terrorists yet we do nothing about our borders while spending a fortune defending the borders across the globe. Its nation where heart disease kills half a million, yet our programs to defend from this killer dwarfs in comparison to the “War on Terror”. Coincidence? I think not.

In fact CIA Director Leon Panetta, said recently that he thought we were facing about 75-100 Al Qaeda members. No shit. A nine year war costing over a trillion dollars and counting (and im being generous) not to mention countless deaths of our own boys and girls to fight what would be best described as a mid level street gang… in Omaha. The Mission to take out the Taliban in Afghanistan was a relatively short one. We met the objective and could have been out of there, but we went looking for boogie men. We started the nation building. And here we are, still fighting and creating enemies. We are still bogged down with ridiculous rules of engagements and strategies that look to be coming from a 14 year old kid with a mic playing call of duty and sipping mountain dew in his mother’s basement. The opium production there has went through the roof etc etc etc... etc....etc.

And then we get this. Jihad Monkey!



The first paragraph reads, and I kid you not:

"Taliban terrorists have a secret weapon to destroy the infidel American enemy — monkey marksmen. According to The People’s Daily in China, the Taliban in Afghanistan is “training monkeys to use weapons to attack American troops"

I rest my case.

The Slave Master...

After the "decision" last Thursday, i was working on a funny piece exposing Jesse Jackson for the fraud and sensationalist that he is after his diarrhea laced drivel two days following cable TV's blockbuster, most watched program on July 8th. I had it all planned out. It was the same Jackson that attributed the Duke Lacrosse scandal as part of a history of white-men exploiting female black slaves from Africa. Or the good Revs own words:

"That fantasy's as old as slave masters impregnating young slave girls"

This was the same 'Rev who compared Mike Vick to Jackie Robinson. The same man that was so quick to condemn the "wealthy white athletes – many from prep schools – of Duke" whom were conducting a code of silence. The same man that came to the defense of the "victim" by presenting her a single mother of two, just trying to make ends meet and go to college (at a mostly black college according to Jackson... thanks for pointing that our reverend). Even thou it was "the first time she had been hired to dance for a party" the good "Reverend" decided he and his Rainbow coalition would pay for her college so that she would have to lower herself to strip anymore.

This was the same woman who has led a life full of criminal behavior long before the Duke case proved her a liar. In fact this was the same "victim" that was recently charged with:

attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer

Like i said, i had it all wrapped up. Hell i was even going to get into Jacksons forays into Africa over the last twenty years, allegations that he supported the overthrowing of democracy in favor of thugs and tyranny. But i came across this article.This article says it all. Great work Greg Doyel.

NASA - the PR machine

This week, NASA unveiled a new strategy…public relations. That’s right; our brightest minds in not just aerospace but some of the sharpest in the country are now set to tackle the task of: re-inspiring children, expanding our international relationships and last but not least…reaching out to the Muslim world.

That’s right, the same commander in chief who defunded the constellation project to get us back to the moon by 2020 (you know its only been 38 years since our last visit) and start making progress again in what would have to be called a very disappointingly flat program in terms of growth and scientific advances. The same commander in chief that PolitiFact researcher Louis Jacobson said “dramatically broke with recent space policy -- and in so doing, he broke one of his campaign promises". But what do you expect, from a President who wants private enterprise to be more involved with NASA while the government overtakes healthcare, essentially flopping roles… now wants NASA to engage in “winning the hearts and minds”.

Is NASA equipped to engage in these PR missions? Im not sure, but the smart money is leave the space stuff to the space guys and the PR stuff to the PR guys. But hey, when you have a government running actual businesses and firing CEO’s or reaching out to a population with an open scientific hand that is generally controlled by theocracy’s stuck in the dark ages whom reject science or humanity…does anything really make sense anymore? Can we really look at these Muslim nations and praise their work in mathematics and contributions to science when they haven’t made any since the industrial revolution? What’s next off to Italy and praise them for the Roman accomplishments? Why not reach out to Spain and thank them for their work in the naval game?

This is a population that doesn’t educate half their population because of gender. It’s a population where same sex relationships are illegal. Populations where pornography and women not being dressed from head to toe are all punishable by law. It’s a population that through its leaders and religious gurus have kept a good chunk of their civilizations in the dark ages. Its obvious President Obama wants to engage this population in other ways besides the gun, although he doesn’t mind that route either. But is this really possible? Can you reach out with logic to a person of faith and convince them that logic and reason are beneficial?

The Enlightenment gave us our revolution and our liberty and that spurned our technology and our way of life. Through this we evolved socially as well. What Obama wants is what we all want… moderate Muslim nations that will start to evolve into democratically elected nations. But, it’s not likely to happen if the leaders of these nations have their say. Enlightenment for them would mean the end of their power. So, one asks to ask himself is it better to knock on doors and “hope” or is it more productive to clean your house, and lead by example? America needs to get back to being the shining beacon of hope but not by wishing upon a star… but instead by reaching for them.

The latest Republican disaster: Affirmative action

See President Obama? Hes black. Well, half anyway. In '08, Mr Obama got 97% of the black vote. An otherwise unheard of number in terms of voting. So what did Republicans think the best route to undertake to combat this? Put minority's in the spotlight. They had Bobby Jindal, the son of two immigrants from India give the ever so important official Republican response to President Obamas first ever address to Congress. He tanked. And who could forget the hiring of Michael Steele to be the Republican Party national chairman, again, kind of a big deal.

Michael Steele is supposed to be a Republican, the party who was supposed to be a party that celebrated individualism not collectivism. But Michael Steele supports collectivism.

I support the current system and improvements to the current system, keeping in mind that while we have done very well in affirmative action at our universities across this country, I look at our boardrooms across the country, I look at NBC, CNBC, Fox, all these stations, all the corporate, corporate companies-and I don't see affirmative action necessarily being practiced there when I look at the management, when I look at the leadership, when I look at those who have a decision-making role.

Source: 2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006

What is Affirmative action? Collectivism.

Why was he hired? To appeal to black voters, to seem more "diverse" instead of standing by a message and the principals of liberty and limited government.

Why cant they fire an obviously embattled Steele? Because hes black.

Why wouldn't they just stand on the foundation of the Republican principals of liberty and limited government? Because they dont value those principals.

and the cycle continues....