While exercising in the health club today someone had turned on CNN (when the person left the gym I changed the station to Fox ASAP). Since I avoid the media in general and when I do I mostly watch Fox, I was surprised at CNN's overt bias in Mr. Obama's favor. Jack Cafferty made a two minute speech alleging that Mr. McCain is too old and senile. Perhaps it is Mr. Cafferty who is too old and senile. Worse, there was no counter argument or balancing view to Cafferty's hyperbole. At the same time, the coverage of Obama omitted criticism and was monotonously flattering. When I turned to Fox, I heard a discussion of media bias but the accusations in McCain's favor were balanced by a Democrat who blamed McCain for the media's lack of interest in him. Thus, Fox is somewhat balanced but the other stations are for Obama.
This election may stack up to be a referendum on the mass media. The McCain campaign has produced two ads, and it is asking Web viewers to vote on which one it should air. You can see them here. The first video shows parrot-brained,Polly-Want-An-Obama broadcasters such as Chris Matthews repeating how great Obama is to the tune of "It's Just Too Good to Be True, I Can't Take My Eyes Off of You". The second one repeats the parroting with less music. The majority of viewers think that the first video is better.
This election may be a referendum on the mainstream media. That is a good reason alone to back McCain even though you may be frustrated with the Republicans. A McCain victory will be a blow to the M-S-M, which has been suffering from declining readership and ratings. In turn, a McCain victory would cause the market value of the media outlets to decline. This will make a stock market takeover bid of one of the second tier cable stations easier.
I wonder if it might be possible for a libertarian or conservative to buy out CNBC or MSNBC. These stations contribute little to the national policy debate and have dismal ratings. Fox offers an alternative to the hackneyed, social democratic bias of the M-S-M stations, but it is in some ways a limited alternative. A libertarian-conservative news network might turn out to be profitable. A bit of sex appeal thrown in with conservative views would enable such a station to overtake CNN, crippling the left's cultural hegemony in the media area.
Here is a business plan: a proposal to take over CNBC and turn it into a libertarian conservative news station. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch, one of the Koch brothers or someone else with the resources might be interested in doing this.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Professional Staff Congress and Revolutionary Unionism
The temperate, prudent, courageous, just and of course virtuous Sharad Karkhanis has written an excellent issue of Patriot Returns. Karkhanis named his newsletter after our Patriot missles, which shot down Iraqi Scuds in 1991. With a circulation of 13,000, Karkhanis's newsletter aims to shoot down the Scuds of the perverse CUNY faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) and hopefully blow the PSC leadership back to Cuba, although I doubt that even Castro or his brother would want them. Maybe North Korea's Kim Jong-il would welcome them since they seem to aim to give the CUNY faculty a North Korean-style wage-and-benefit package, but even he might find them tiresome.
In the early twentieth century there were alternative models of unionism being proposed. The mainstream AF of L, created by Samuel Gompers and Adolph Strasser, advocated a form of unionism that labor scholar Robert F. Hoxie called business unionism. Business unionism does not question the underlying assumptions of the capitalist economy and resorts to political gamesmanship only in order to "reward friends and punish enemies". Its emphasis is improving wages, benefits and working conditions, not changing the world. Gompers expressed the pro-capitalist essence of business unionism when someone asked him: "What does labor want?" Gompers responded: "More". Like any profit-maximizing capitalist, and any red-blooded American, business unionists aim to advance themselves economically. In contrast, models of unionism that were prevalent during the early twentieth century included the Industrial Workers of the World (the Wobblies) and the communist unionism of the Socialist Labor Party's Daniel de Leon's Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance and others. American workers rejected what labor scholar Hoxie called revolutionary unionism in favor of business unionism. The gulf between the "New" Left and the business unionists reached a crescendo during the Vietnam War in 1965 when AFL-CIO president George Meany announced his support for the Vietnam War.
Inverting the historical pattern, the PSC leadership has rejected business unionism in favor of revolutionary unionism. Its repeated calls for demonstrations; the anti-Iraqi War protests several years ago; the endless radical rhetoric that has alienated New York's political establishment (social democratic thought it be); and the utter contempt with which the PSC's leadership treats economic and workplace issues all suggest that the PSC does not operate as a mainstream union. The low contract numbers that Karkhanis decries result from the PSC's leadership's strategic choice to favor revolution over selfish gain, or even selfish keeping your head above water and avoiding the bankruptcy judge.
Perhaps the the PSC leadership does not need to worry about electric, heating, gasoline and food bills. Perhaps like Professor Ros, they live in high rent apartments on six figure incomes. Perhaps they can afford to contribute $5,000 to the Obama campaign.
If so, isn't it time to get back to reality and rocket this crew back to Cuba via one of Karkhanis's Patriots?
In the early twentieth century there were alternative models of unionism being proposed. The mainstream AF of L, created by Samuel Gompers and Adolph Strasser, advocated a form of unionism that labor scholar Robert F. Hoxie called business unionism. Business unionism does not question the underlying assumptions of the capitalist economy and resorts to political gamesmanship only in order to "reward friends and punish enemies". Its emphasis is improving wages, benefits and working conditions, not changing the world. Gompers expressed the pro-capitalist essence of business unionism when someone asked him: "What does labor want?" Gompers responded: "More". Like any profit-maximizing capitalist, and any red-blooded American, business unionists aim to advance themselves economically. In contrast, models of unionism that were prevalent during the early twentieth century included the Industrial Workers of the World (the Wobblies) and the communist unionism of the Socialist Labor Party's Daniel de Leon's Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance and others. American workers rejected what labor scholar Hoxie called revolutionary unionism in favor of business unionism. The gulf between the "New" Left and the business unionists reached a crescendo during the Vietnam War in 1965 when AFL-CIO president George Meany announced his support for the Vietnam War.
Inverting the historical pattern, the PSC leadership has rejected business unionism in favor of revolutionary unionism. Its repeated calls for demonstrations; the anti-Iraqi War protests several years ago; the endless radical rhetoric that has alienated New York's political establishment (social democratic thought it be); and the utter contempt with which the PSC's leadership treats economic and workplace issues all suggest that the PSC does not operate as a mainstream union. The low contract numbers that Karkhanis decries result from the PSC's leadership's strategic choice to favor revolution over selfish gain, or even selfish keeping your head above water and avoiding the bankruptcy judge.
Perhaps the the PSC leadership does not need to worry about electric, heating, gasoline and food bills. Perhaps like Professor Ros, they live in high rent apartments on six figure incomes. Perhaps they can afford to contribute $5,000 to the Obama campaign.
If so, isn't it time to get back to reality and rocket this crew back to Cuba via one of Karkhanis's Patriots?
Raquel Okyay on Oil
Raquel Okyay points out that close to 70% of voters agree with Senator McCain:
"that the ban on offshore drilling should be lifted to ease the price of oil. Leading Democrats are still trying to prevent oil companies from offshore drilling, even with the high poll numbers against them."
Okyay points out:
"We want drilling because it makes sense to exploit our own resources instead of paying for oil elsewhere. There is a way to accomplish this goal without losing sight that renewable energy is the way of the future. Pelosi apparently has other things on her mind when determining whether offshore..."
The oil debate is an example of how America's commitment to socialism has crippled it economically. There ought not to be public debate concerning how to best obtain energy. The reason that we do not use alternative energy is that state and federal policy has inhibited the building of wind mills and has made risky investments difficult to make through regulation, inflation, taxes and other penalties to inventors. America becomes increasingly poorer as our Congressional Neros fiddle in Washington, dabbling in oil investing and exploration, subjects about which they know little. It is time to de-regulate the energy markets and stop penalizing inventors by taxing and harassing them when they succeed.
"that the ban on offshore drilling should be lifted to ease the price of oil. Leading Democrats are still trying to prevent oil companies from offshore drilling, even with the high poll numbers against them."
Okyay points out:
"We want drilling because it makes sense to exploit our own resources instead of paying for oil elsewhere. There is a way to accomplish this goal without losing sight that renewable energy is the way of the future. Pelosi apparently has other things on her mind when determining whether offshore..."
The oil debate is an example of how America's commitment to socialism has crippled it economically. There ought not to be public debate concerning how to best obtain energy. The reason that we do not use alternative energy is that state and federal policy has inhibited the building of wind mills and has made risky investments difficult to make through regulation, inflation, taxes and other penalties to inventors. America becomes increasingly poorer as our Congressional Neros fiddle in Washington, dabbling in oil investing and exploration, subjects about which they know little. It is time to de-regulate the energy markets and stop penalizing inventors by taxing and harassing them when they succeed.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Barack Obama, the Teapot Dome and America's Parrot-Brained Media
Is Barack Obama going to be our next Warren G. Harding, the president whose cabinet was implicated in several corruption scandals, most famously the Teapot Dome scandal? Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs (hat tip Larwyn) has been analyzing Obama's campaign contributions and finds an extraordinarily long list of foreign contributors, including one, Jeanne McCurdy, who has made multiple contributions on a single day. Pamela writes:
"There are numerous individuals who are "bundling" contributions, some are smaller from the same person on same day, not to mention lots "unemployed or student". Further, there's a ton of foreign service and State Department admissions.
lots and lots of multiple entries.
"lots of foreign service, diplomat entries.
"lots of military analyst types.
"lots way over any $200 non-reporting caps.
Other overseas contributors are making multiple small donations ostensibly in their own names over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up..."
Read it all here.
Is the media asking questions about the rather odd goings on such as Obama's cover-up of his birth certificate and unusual patterns in campaign contributions? Is the media questioning why Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs employees are overwhelmingly in favor of Mr. Obama? Is it merely because investment bankers favor change--or do they prefer $100 bills? Is the media asking questions, or is it functioning as a parrot-brained cheering squad for Mr. Obama, failing to ask even the most elementary questions that a competent mass media would ask?
"There are numerous individuals who are "bundling" contributions, some are smaller from the same person on same day, not to mention lots "unemployed or student". Further, there's a ton of foreign service and State Department admissions.
lots and lots of multiple entries.
"lots of foreign service, diplomat entries.
"lots of military analyst types.
"lots way over any $200 non-reporting caps.
Other overseas contributors are making multiple small donations ostensibly in their own names over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up..."
Read it all here.
Is the media asking questions about the rather odd goings on such as Obama's cover-up of his birth certificate and unusual patterns in campaign contributions? Is the media questioning why Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs employees are overwhelmingly in favor of Mr. Obama? Is it merely because investment bankers favor change--or do they prefer $100 bills? Is the media asking questions, or is it functioning as a parrot-brained cheering squad for Mr. Obama, failing to ask even the most elementary questions that a competent mass media would ask?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
