Monday, August 31, 2009

Mainstream Media Bias


The effect of the mainstream media bias on the outcome of the 2008 election should not be ignored.  The third estate enjoys certain special privileges in our constitution and legal system because the founders envisioned that this group would create  well informed voters who would make good decisions.  The schools that educate our journalists still give lip service to the idea of an unbiased press.  They teach a separation between news and entertainment, and between news which is theoretically unbiased, and editorial opinions which are clearly separated from news and are allowed to be biased.  The graduates of these schools do not follow these theoretical teachings and so the concept intended by the founders no longer works.  The main stream media has become the propaganda arm of Democratic party.  

Republicans have pointed out that the mainstream media is blatantly biased to the left, but accusing these people of biased reporting has had no effect on their behavior.  If news coverage had been as the founders had intended would we  have lost the 2008 election for president?  Maybe, perhaps even probably not.  The mainstream media had their candidate, and they promoted him with enthusiasm and good effect.  To our claims of bias they do not even need to reply.  

I contend that the Republican party and the mainstream media are in fact locked in a life or death struggle with each other.  They just don't know it yet.  It is a struggle in which one must necessarily destroy the other completely to survive.  Certainly the Republican party has not acknowledged this. Currently, the mainstream media does not need to acknowledge this.  It is not a foregone conclusion which entity must win this struggle.  Although to many it seems that we are powerless to effectively attack the mainstream media, while they are able to deliver one crushing blow after another to the Republican party.  Actually, we have the means to effectively fight back.  Our actions can, and must be ethical and legal, but beyond that we must acknowledge that we need to destroy the mainstream media.  We have tried raising the objection to their bias, and it has done no good.  Past that ineffective effort we must recognize that we are in a fight to the death with this institution, and must destroy it before it destroys us.  

The current presumption is that we are powerless to confront mainstream media.  That seems to be the attitude of both protagonists at the moment, but it is wrong.  The reason that we  have been ineffective in this matter is that we have presumed that if we simply proclaim bias, and even prove bias on the part of the media, the media will correct its behavior.  We must recognize that we are not going to change the mainstream media.  They are doing what they want to do and they are getting away with it.  The first step in dealing with this problem is to recognize that it is a life or death struggle that we must win to survive, and that we must destroy the mainstream media to win.  Half measures here will not work.

I'm not advocating illegal or even unethical activity.  In fact what we do must be both legal and ethical.  This is essential, or the plan won't work.  The plan also won't work if we set upon some moderate course that would allow for the MSM as we know it to survive.  Sorry, but we have to be tough about this.  It is not nice work, but if we are squeamish we will not win.  If we don't win we will be destroyed.  This thing cannot end in a stalemate or a tie.

So what powers do we actually posses that will allow us to destroy the mainstream media before they destroy us?  Bear in mind that we lost the 2008 election with a popular vote of 46%.  46% was not enough to win  an election, but it is more than enough to wreck havoc on the mainstream media.  

If you were to approach almost any businessman and ask him what would happen if he lost 46% of his customers you would get the answer that it would destroy his company and he would be out of business.  The key here is that the mainstream media are a collection of rival businesses.  They can be destroyed by simply making them unprofitable.  This needs to be done quickly enough so that they cannot simply downsize and survive.  The goal here is their destruction.  Remember that our base here is about half of their customers.  If we do this right they won't even know what hit them until they find themselves mentioned in a museum somewhere alongside buggy whips.  

The credibility of news organizations has been very bad for a long time.  This is their weak spot, or perhaps their weakest spot.  Instead of attacking first with claims of bias, we need to attack their credibility.  This will not be difficult.

The mainstream media currently offers a glut of badly prepared misinformation.  Inaccuracies are numerous and major.  If we could put together a group that would hound the mainstream media over their inaccuracies we could destroy what remains of their credibility.  I believe bloggers are well along on this work.  They know how to do this.  We simply need more dedicated people to find inaccuracies and make them public.   Once this effort is in full swing, we may even be able to use one news outlet against another, but publicizing the errors of the mainstream media broadly enough will be hardest part.  Finding the errors will not be much of a problem.  It would be exhausting to find all the errors, but we don't have to.  

Only after the mainstream media has a credibility near zero should we mention their bias.  After the mention of bias, we move on with two other elements of attack.  

First we create alternatives to the mainstream media that attempt to be the source of error free information.  Ideally these would be constructed along the lines of the model taught in at least some journalism schools but quickly abandoned in practice afterwards.  That is to say, the news would be without bias, and the opinion would be clearly marked as such and not mixed into the news to make entertainment with a bias.  This will be a challenge because there is a natural tendency particularly in bogs to be all bias and use only information that supports the bias.  The alternative we create must be better than that if it is to displace the mainstream media.  We are trying to create an offering like journalists tried to create fifty years ago, and we must do it with a low cost infrastructure.  The internet seems the likely place for this, but not the only place.  

Second we invite everyone, but particularly our base (remember they are half of the mainstream media's customers) to abandon the mainstream media in indignant disgust and embrace alternatives that actually do serve the purposes intended by the the country's founders.  At some point this means an organized boycott.

Could some mainstream media survive this kind of attack by changing to a model that was in line with role the founders intended for the third estate?  Sure, but in effect they would have been destroyed and rebuilt so as to be a servant to neither party and a threat to the veracity of both.  That is OK, we are not trying to control the flow of information the way the Democrats do now. We are only trying to protect the flow of high quality, unbiased information to the public so that it resembles the intention of the founders.  If we try to do more to make the situation favor our own interests the attack will fail.  

Having said that some of the mainstream media might survive in an acceptably altered form, I think the more likely outcome is that alternate methods of distribution will displace the majority of the mainstream media, which is a thing they fear even now.  Our attack and our determination to proceed with efforts likely to cause their total destruction are essential, and if done thoughtfully may help to launch alternative means of distribution on a trajectory that better serves the nation and not incidentally treats our own party and causes more fairly.
 
Jerry


Saturday, August 29, 2009

Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution?

Before I launch into any discussion of practical ideas about this topic let’s discuss what conservatives and libertarians are in contemporary America.

If you peruse Wikipedia or other sites devoted to political philosophy you will find conservatism and libertarianism often defined in terms of left and right politics. Conservatism is often described as being right-wing politically and as supporting tradition and the status quo. Libertarianism is often described as on the right politically with regard to economic and government fiscal issues but on the left on social issues. You’ll even find such terms as libertarian socialism which I think was coined by Noam Chomsky. I consider this an oxymoron. Noam Chomsky like Obama is a Marxist as far as I am concerned. They employ other confusing terms to describe themselves to hide that fact. There is a trail of too many mass graves attributable to Marxism.

If you need a short definition, then the best way to think about libertarianism is as a natural or God given rights doctrine. Libertarians in the U. S. are classical liberals in the tradition of philosophers like Adam Smith, John Locke, et al and of the Founders of this country. They are focused on individual liberty. American conservatives on the other hand do value the tradition of individual liberty and the philosophy of the Founders but are focused on traditional moral values in a broader sense. However they aren’t wedded to the status quo to the detriment of material progress as is often implied by leftists who I will henceforth refer to as socialists or collectivists. As far as left and right are concerned those terms are misleading at best when applied to libertarians and conservatives. It’s best to think in terms of those who favor socioeconomic systems that rely on state control and collectivist approaches as opposed to those who favor decentralized socioeconomic systems that rely on individual liberty when determining the differences in political philosophies in the United States.

In this country libertarians and conservatives have a lot in common but also some important differences. Since libertarians generally place maximum importance on individual liberty they will often be against criminalizing harmful behavior which does not directly violate the rights of another person. In simple terms people have a right to harm themselves by stupid behavior. Conservatives will tend to favor control of certain behaviors because there is indirect harm to others. That’s a tradeoff that libertarians are less likely to favor.

I think the most central commonality in these two political groups is the belief in individual liberty and market capitalism which are decentralized socioeconomic approaches. The folks we refer to as leftists, progressives, or liberals, i.e. the collectivists place very little value on decentralized socioeconomic approaches. Although they will vociferously deny it collectivists tend to be authoritarian. They believe most of us need to be guided through life by the rulers of the state and their bureaucratic agents. They use to call themselves liberals but they really aren’t liberal at all.

So let’s recap by providing definitions. These are my definitions so you may disagree. In fact when it comes to defining American conservatism and libertarianism you will likely find no two conservatives and no two libertarians in the U. S. who define themselves completely the same way. In the end political and socioeconomic beliefs vary quite a bit by individual.

Conservative – one who holds traditional socioeconomic and moral values in the highest regard and believes that adhering to these values will best promote material progress and the general welfare.

Libertarian – one who holds individual liberty based on natural or God given rights in the highest regard and believes that adhering to individual liberty will best promote material progress and the general welfare.

Things like the philosophy of the Founders, the U. S. Constitution, market capitalism, and the concept of God given or natural rights are all part of American traditional values. Because these things are also important to individual liberty conservatives and libertarians have a lot in common. They often get to the same page but by slightly different reasoning.

As a practical matter the main differences between libertarians and conservatives are in the areas of foreign policy, immigration, and drug laws. Note I have used lower case c and l for conservatives and libertarians. We are talking about two groups of people not any political party. There are conservatives like Newt Gingrich and libertarians like Ron Paul in the Republican Party for example. Bob Barr was a Republican but is now a member of the Libertarian Party. In subsequent posts I’ll describe the aforementioned main differences in more detail and posit reasons why conservatives and libertarians should hold these differences in abeyance in order to save our constitutional republic.

G.M.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Obama's Visit to Montana

The following is a recent e-mail from "Kathy" in Montana, who wishes to remain anonymous.

"Hello All,

By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I  feel that since Bill and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you.  Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you.

On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do. The White House would not release ANY details other  than the date.

On about Tuesday Bill found out that they would be holding the "Town Hall" at the airport.  (This is only because Bill knows EVERYONE at the airport.) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you can not get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public.
  
FYI:  We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held  a large amount of folks with sufficient parking (gymnasiums/auditoriums). all of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!!  $$$$$  During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it  just kept coming. Though it was our President coming, several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession.  $$$$$ 

Late Tuesday/early Wednesday  the 12th,  they said that tickets would be handed out on  Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving  around 12:30 Friday.

Thursday morning about 600  tickets were passed out.  However, 1500 were printed at a local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm......900 tickets  just DISAPPEARED.  This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of  Dollars of
lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana has some of  the best beef in the nation! And it would have been  really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of  the Recession?? Just think...with all of the traveling the  White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we  are paying for.

On Friday Bill and I got out  to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest  Obama's spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest  and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus  carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members  drove up onto the area (illegal)and unloaded right there. It  was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU  men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU  crowd.  The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About  99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them....professing abortion rights with their  T-shirts and preprinted signs.  (BTW, all these folks did  have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area.)

Those against  healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid  confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU  kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very  intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU  man.

So we had  Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs  and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses,  doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been  driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the  store, made a sign, and came to protest.

If you are wondering about  the press.....Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the  other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were  even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything  about the
crowds. We did have some local news media  around us from this state and Idaho. Speaking of the local  media...they were invited. However, all questions were to be  turned into the White House in advance of the event.   Wouldn't want anyone to have to think off the top of their head.

It was very obvious that it  was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything  was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that  Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even  those people that talked about their insurance  woes........the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource  and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come. Smoke and mirrors...EVERYTHING was staged!

I am very dismayed about what  I learned about our current White House. The amount of control  and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the  United States of America, more like the USSR.  I was physically  nauseous. Bill and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers  and your voices. If you care about our country please  get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your  voices again and again! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what  is going on in Washington DC.  Scary!"


Quote for the day

Who is the author of this quote:

 "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.  The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.   When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.  You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Quote for the day

Who is the author of this quote:

"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long."

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

How to post a topic

Only co-authors may post topics.  At present there are only two co-authors, George and myself.  If anyone would like to post a topic send it to me I will copy and paste it verbatim.

Anyone interested in becoming a co-author may contact me by email at the above address.

Guns in public

The following is a summary of the discussion a few friends were having.  The discussion outgrew email exchanges and the Conversations Around a Wood Stove Blog was born.  This summary was authored by Jerry an original member of the original group.

The founders intended that citizens be guaranteed the right to bear arms as a precaution against tyranny from their own government.  When the constitution was written citizens might well have been able to equip and train themselves well enough to protect themselves from tyrants in their own government.  That would be somewhere between difficult and impossible today.  I also personally believe that by the time citizens are in armed conflict with our troops or our police, our cause is already lost, and I will not spill blood for a lost cause.  I think George differed with me on that.

The right to bear arms for personal defense against violent criminals, and even political thugs such as the modern equivalents of the brownshirts of Nazi Germany is still a reasonable use of the second amendment.  If we continue down the road toward socialism there will be more of these.  In fact, there are indications that the current administration is using such already.

 I mostly agree with Jerry's summary.  I would add with emphasis that it is my strong belief that those who stockpile all manner of black rifles, shotguns and pistols along with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo are seriously deluded.  Their stated goal is to deter the central government from some vague and nefarious purpose.  I have said it before and I say again, ''Those who expect to mount a winnable armed revolution against the US Government are suicidal.  A platoon of grunts, raw out of Boot Camp will make mincemeat of them before they empty the first magazine from their Belchfire Magnum".

I have a sufficiency of weapons; all, except some handguns, suitable for hunting.  There is not a black rifle or "assualt" rifle in the safe.  My battery is sufficient to protect against varmints, and feed my family in emergency.

The present purpose of the Second is to gaurantee to non criminals the right to possess and bear arms for personal protection against varmints both human and animal.  The Second has nothing to do with hunting.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Quote for the day

Who is the very famous author of this quote:

'Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.''

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Welcome. This blog evolved from a few friends corresponding about economics and politics. The last subject was about guns in public. This proved such a popular topic that we needed more room for discussion. This blog is the result.

The authors have no illusions or delusions that this, out of the millions of blogs, will ever amount to anything more than a bull session among a few hundred people interested in civil discourse on subjects of mutual interest.

No ideas, thoughts, opinions, or heresies are forbidden so long as they are presented without profanity and the ad hominem argument. If you accept that small constraint, pull up a chair and join the fray.