Posts

Showing posts with the label media bias

Stop Offering Opinions "to Trump Voters"

Image
Every online post, newspaper column, or magazine puff piece written "to Trump voters" will be read by exactly ZERO Trump supporters... or will be taken as the condescending, presumptuous tripe it is by the one or two Trump voters who care what The New Yorker or National Review (for that matter) have to say. No Trump voter cares what I write. They don't. They don't care what my opinion of them is. They don't care what any other over-educated Ph.D. or media elite offers as a critique. The reality is, the few Trump voters I know don't actually like him. They voted against the system, against BOTH parties, and hope it all burns to the ground. Some voted for the Supreme Court and district court appointments. But otherwise, they didn't vote "for" anyone. The day-to-day worker has moved on. The majority of people didn't vote and a good portion of those who did aren't that engaged a few weeks later. Life will go on. Some of us will ob...

Here's Some Anti-American Dream Nonsense...

Image
The Statue of Liberty front shot, on Liberty Island. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It's hard, really hard to make it big in America. Well, yes, success takes work, especially if you are trying to start a business, but some in the media and within academia seem to want to convince their audiences that unless you are born wealthy and white, there's almost no hope at all of living the American Dream. The United States does have widening inequality. There are complex explanations for this, including the fact that our wealthy are wealthier (on average and at median) than the wealthy elsewhere. Income inequality, which isn't the same as wealth inequality , is also increasing for many complex reasons. But, there are actual signs that more people can and do start businesses. You wouldn't know that, though, based on how some present research data to the public. The following article from Quartz ( The Atlantic ) is so flawed, statistically and philosophically, it demonst...

Money and Speech

I'm really tired of the canard that money suddenly has an outsized influence in politics. Plenty of studies show that money follows likely winners, but doesn't determine the winners of elections. More importantly, this September 7, 2014 column by Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Bernie Sanders of Vermont ignores the most basic of all questions… http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/the-threat-to-american-democracy-110683.html In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a disastrous 5-4 opinion striking down major parts of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to the explosion of outside money in elections through so-called super PACs. In the 2012 election, we quickly saw the results — 32 major super PAC donors combined to give more money than the millions of ordinary Americans who donated less than $200 each to Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. More than 60 pe...

Tea Party Critics: Mixing and Matching

The following mixes and matches several quite different groups, confounding Tea Party activists will a long list of varied demographics: The Very Angry Tea Party By J.M. BERNSTEIN http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/ In a bracing and astringent essay in The New York Review of Books, pointedly titled "The Tea Party Jacobins," Mark Lilla argued that the hodge-podge list of animosities Tea party supporters mention fail to cohere into a body of political grievances in the conventional sense: they lack the connecting thread of achieving political power. It is not for the sake of acquiring political power that Tea Party activists demonstrate, rally and organize; rather, Lilla argues, the appeal is to "individual opinion, individual autonomy, and individual choice, all in the service of neutralizing, not using, political power." He calls Tea Party activists a "libertarian mob" since they proclaim the belief "that they c...

Money, Corporations, and Reality

While the Citizens United case has ignited righteous indignation on the political left, the Supreme Court ruling last week removing most caps on campaign advertising was not only the correct decision but represents a return to how our founders approached politics. Every newspaper, magazine, and "news" outlet was exempted from corporate finance restrictions even before this ruling. Why? Because you cannot limit the free press. But why should that logic apply to businesses? When our nation was founded the political parties, various organizations, the wealthy, and even many in the merchant class set about publishing "newspapers" that were little more than campaign ads. Printing was a huge business as a result. A single sheet newspaper could be prepared simply and distributed for a reasonable cost. Newspapers were named the "Middletown Press Democrat" or the "Anyville Republican Gazette" for a reason. Media bias was a given. Even small towns ha...

European Attitudes

CNN and other news outlets are reporting that Europeans prefer Obama to McCain by a 5:1 ratio. CNN: Cafferty File Why do we care do much about European opinions? These people don't have a single popular leader in their own nations. France's president is below 30% in the polls, Number 10 is (ironically) between 10 and 20% favorable, and even Germany, with a decent economy, doesn't give majority approval to the chancellor. So, these are relatively unhappy people, politically. They are beyond cynical — they're just plain unhappy. Part of the problem is that when you have a parliamentary system, the leaders in power seldom win leadership posts with a clear majority. You can cobble a parliamentary majority together with a 30% plurality and a dozen smaller, usually more radical, political parties. The end result is that no one is content. But, there is a larger reason: their systems, which they resoundingly claim are better than the U.S. system and our economic mode...