Local News Media
When I say the press is liberal, I usually try to qualify this as the major media. I was in Carson City this weekend visiting my mother. When I looked at the paper there, not too surprisingly they had an article on Saddam. But the picture was interesting, rather than a common picture of Saddam with his “new look” it was a picture of Saddam being led in while still in handcuffs.
The key issue however is that while local media often is conservative, particularly in the areas that voted for Bush in the last election, local press only affects the local area. The major media, however, affects the whole nation. It is the major media that controls the agenda and shapes the debates, not the local media.
For example, the news on the economy the last nine months or so, has been very good. Virtually every indicator, including jobs has shown great improvement. But the major media has not reported much of this good news, and instead has sought to find as much negative news about the economy as they can, along with pushing the democrats saying how bad things are. As a result there is now a large disconnect between reality and the views of the American people. In Iraq, things are much more mixed, but the tactic of the press has been the same: Focus on the negative, and ignore or downplay anything positive.
You could say that this is what the press does: focus on the negative; but that is not true. During the election in 2000, the press virtually ignored all the indicators of how the economy was in major trouble. The Internet bubble burst in the late spring, and there were a lot of layoff and closures during the summer. The Dow lost over 10% and the Nasdaq lost a third of its value. But this was all ignored. Here in CA people were pointing to the looming energy crisis, and pointing out there would be major problems in the winter of 2001 unless something was done.
But that was an election year and such news might have hurt Gore’s chances. So it was virtually ignored. Even after the election but before the inauguration when Bush was pointing out these signs and saying something must be done, the Democrats were complaining that Bush was simply trying to “talk down the economy.” (Sort of makes you wonder if pointing out there is a problem when there really is a problem is “talking down the economy” then what is trying to claim there are problems, when things are beginning to look better?)
In addition, local media often depend on the major media of there stories. For example, many local paper run AP stories unchanged. So while the local media in Knoxville may be “so Republican,” even in Knoxville, I bet they still have access to NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, etc. Yet if you are in an area were the local media is liberal, then you will likely only get one side of the story.
On the other hand, I notice that many liberals are so used to a media that only presents the liberal view of the news that they see any attempt to present both sides as “conservative.” For example, when I ask what news source do they see as objective and balanced, often the reply will be “PBS.” Frankly I think this is why Fox often gets labeled as a “conservative” network. In the words of one democratic senator commenting on fox following an election (I think it was 2002, but it may have been 2000) the problem with Fox News is that they ‘let republicans get their message out.’ It is not silenced or distorted as it so often is in the major media.
The Effects of Law
I was working on my online class, and just realized something. Normally when a student writes me because they have a problem, I try to work with them to see what I can do to help them out. However, I just had another ADA (American with Disabilities Act) student, and I it struck me that I have to act completely differently than I would normally act. Rather than write back asking if there is anything I can do to help, I cannot reply at all. Instead I have to transfer the entire subject to the ADA-compliance officer who is someone trained in all the nuances of the law. This is because one careless word, and the university could be liable for huge fines.
The Intolerance of Tolerance
One problem I have with many liberal issues is that they are based more on feelings of the moment than on reasoned consideration of principles and their implications, particularly there long term implications. In the real world ideas have consequences and reasoning applied to justified something cannot be artificially restricted just to the subject at hand, without falling victim to the logical fallacy of special pleading. Sometimes it takes years for this to show up, but they do show up unless reversed.
Concrete examples of this abound. For example, the reasoning used to support same-sex marriage applies equally well to virtually any other possible arrangement. Yet, point out this problem, and somehow you are trying to trying to ‘change the subject’
Another example recently occurred in Canada. The country many liberal want us to model ourselves after, and it follows on from one of the logical problems with “hate-crimes legislation.” Many liberals want to set up a special category of crimes in an attempt enforce tolerance. It is not enough to just punish people for committing crimes, when the crime is against certain special groups, extra punishment is needed. Thus we have hate crimes legislation for these special groups. This is justified by claiming that it is the hatred involved that makes the crime special and thus the special punishment. You get some punishment for the crime, and then additional punishment for the hatred. Ok, but if that is true, then does it not follow that that hatred is in and of itself, something worthy of punishment?
As such, it was in some respects not all that surprising to see Sweden pass laws prohibiting hatred against special groups a few years ago, and now they have been recently followed up by Canada, which passed C-250. Under that law you can be sent to jail for two years for “willfully promoting hatred” against special groups.
Of course, one problem is that what is “promoting hatred” is very vague. Is pointing out the high rate of un-wed mothers among inner city blacks (about 80%) promoting hatred? It has been called so. Is opposing same-sex marriage promoting hatred? Would a sermon on what the bible says about homosexuality be promoting hatred?
Of course one of the big problems is that this is determined to a great extent by who is in power. What if the tide continues to shift to the right? Could the writing of homosexual leaders condemning Christianity, be considered “promoting hatred.” Ted Truner and others have frequently made hate filled statements concerning Christians, should they be thrown in jail for such statements?
In short, how can you have a free and honest debate on issues, if you run the risk of being thrown in jail for your statement if the powers that be determine them to be “promoting hatred”? And all of this in the name of tolerance?
Minimum Wage Yet again
It is an election year, so once again the Democrats have rolled out the old stand by of the minimum wage, and Kerry is proposing an increase.
If raising the minimum wage is really such a good thing, why is it just election years when this comes up? Why is the increase so small? Why not raise it to $10, $15, $20 or even a $100 per hour?
The answer is simple. While is many sound so good and compassionate, and conversely make those who oppose it sound so mean and heartless, nothing is free and raising the minimum wage does have costs. One cost is to increase the costs of goods and services. (which tends to offset the benefit of any increase) and the other is that it cost jobs.
If a job has an economic value to a business of $5.00 per hour, raising the minimum wage above $5.00 simply means the job will disappear, and anyone doing that job will loose it. If a potential employee’s skills are only worth $5.00 per hour to a business, and the minimum wage is above $5.00 per hour, then the person will not get a job.
This loss of jobs affects those at the bottom of the job ladder the most, particularly those just entering the job market seeking thier first job. Thus while national unemployment is currently at 5.6% for 16 to 19 year olds it is 17.2% and for minorities in this age group it is even higher (19.7% for Hispanics and 32.5% for blacks).
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out this morning “These low-paying jobs are important because they are a gateway into the world of work for people who lack experience and skills. One study showed that, of a sample of workers earning minimum wage, fully 63% were already making more a year later.”
Given the already high unemployment in these groups are we really making things better if by raising the minimum wage, and thus making it even harder to hire these people? Sure those who already have a job and do not loose it will get some benefit, but it will be at the expense of those who don’t have a job, and will find it even harder to get one.
Why I don’t Trust Democrats with Defense
The answer is quite simple: their record since the late 1960s combined with their current actions. While JFK was a pro-defense and strong anti-communist, since the late 1960s, the democratic party has almost universally misread our enemy, seeing us as the problem, calling for reductions in defense.
They misread the enemy in Vietnam. Even after the peace treaty and the withdrawal of our troops, democrats pushed for and got a complete cut off of aid, resulting in the collapse of the south and the subsequent death of millions and effective imprisonment of millions more in the region.
They misread the USSR, seeing the US as the problem, not soviet expansionism. As a result, the Soviets expanded into country after country: Angola, Mozambique, Guinea, Ethiopia, South Yemen, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Rhodesia, and Nicaragua until with the invasion of Afghanistan even Carter began to see a problem.
They misread situation in Iran, opposing the Shah for “human right abuses” looking instead to Khomeini. (Though Carter, did support the Shah somewhat, it was somewhat off and on, and ultimately not of much help).
They misread the situation in Grenada opposing US action that freed the island nation.
They misread the Sandinista in Nicaragua, and the FMLN in El Salvador, again seeing the US as the problem, and opposing US actions and policies that were ultimately successful.
All during this period they say the US, not the USSR as the main problem and opposed Reagan’s policies that ultimately led to the fall of the USSR.
They opposed the first Gulf War, (Though they later were critical of Bush for “not finishing the job” they had opposed in the first place, and then later were critical of the current President for finishing the job).
While since 9/11, while many liberals now see terrorists as an enemy, I still do not think that many grasp the real nature of the threat. Kerry, and many other democrats still talk of this as if it was more a law enforcement issue than a war. In addition, many on the left still see the US as the main problem and it is our actions that have caused the terrorism. Jean Kirkpatrick coined the label the “blame America First” crowd. While this certainly does not fit every liberal, it continues to fit a great many on the left, particularly in the leadership position, and particular if “America” is governed by a conservative.
Just consider all the silliness of this being just Oil, or that Bush lied, etc. which also indicates that they do not seem to understand the nature of the threat and instead see this more as a political issue to be used to attack Bush, then a real threat to the nation. Case in point, the New York Time had the prison scandal on the front page for something like 24 consecutive days, and continues to try and keep the story alive is a vain effort to attack Bush. Yet the Beheading of people by the terrorists is a one day story at best.
Most of the attacks of the Democrats on the war, play right into the hands, and in some cases actually support, the aims of the terrorist, and thus only encourage them.
Finally, their main “solution” seems to be to go back to the law enforcement approach used during the 1990s and to let the UN and countries like France, Germany, and Russia take a more leading role. But can we really trust that the UN and these countries will really have our best interest in mind? Given what we have since found out about the corruption of the Oil for Food program and the UN and these countries, or France’ stated goal to weaken the US, is this really who we want to trust our security? Especially given that a recent reports said it is not a matter of if, but when, a dirty bomb is exploded in a US city.
So while the Bush administration has not been perfect (and I think it would be unreasonable to demand perfection), given that we have seriously disrupted the terrorist organizations world wide, captured or killed 2/3s of the al Quada leadership, and removed hostile governments that supported terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and convinced Libya to peacefully back away from terrorism, I think Bush has done a pretty good job. After all, following 9/11 who thought we would go even half as long without another attack. Currently we are coming up on 3 years.
Just consider all the silliness of this being just Oil, or that Bush lied, etc. which also indicates that they do not seem to understand the nature of the threat and instead see this more as a political issue to be used to attack Bush, then a real threat to the nation. Case in point, the New York Time had the prison scandal on the front page for something like 24 consecutive days, and continues to try and keep the story alive is a vain effort to attack Bush. Yet the Beheading of people by the terrorists is a one day story at best.
Most of the attacks of the Democrats on the war, play right into the hands, and in some cases actually support, the aims of the terrorist, and thus only encourage them.
Finally, their main “solution” seems to be to go back to the law enforcement approach used during the 1990s and to let the UN and countries like France, Germany, and Russia take a more leading role. But can we really trust that the UN and these countries will really have our best interest in mind? Given what we have since found out about the corruption of the Oil for Food program and the UN and these countries, or France’ stated goal to weaken the US, is this really who we want to trust our security? Especially given that a recent reports said it is not a matter of if, but when, a dirty bomb is exploded in a US city.
So while the Bush administration has not been perfect (and I think it would be unreasonable to demand perfection), given that we have seriously disrupted the terrorist organizations world wide, captured or killed 2/3s of the al Quada leadership, and removed hostile governments that supported terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and convinced Libya to peacefully back away from terrorism, I think Bush has done a pretty good job. After all, following 9/11 who thought we would go even half as long without another attack. Currently we are coming up on 3 years.
I certainly don’t see any thing that would convincement that Kerry or the democrats would do a better job, and a lot that indicates they would do a lot worse.
True this does not represent all democrats, or even all liberals, but I believe it does represent the leadership of the party. On the other hand, this is the first time I can remember that leading democrats have actually rejected the nominee of their party and endorsed a Republican.
