Perhaps the best speech given during this entire campaign cycle.
The O-Team
More genius by ZO. See more great clips here
Media Bias
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
In a piece entitled “Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?” columnist and novelist Orson Scott Card chastises members of the liberal media for failing to report on the sources of the financial crisis we’re suffering through right now…
This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor – which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house – along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
The Nobel Prize of Obliviousness
Third time’s the charm…
First there was Jimmy Carter… sorry, just got back up from the floor. Jimmy freaking Carter got the Nobel Prize for his bang up job of bringing peace to the middle east. We should give him credit, it lasted thirty seconds longer than the previous cease fire. Not to oversimplify, but this is a former president who has broken with history and openly and repeatedly criticized a sitting president. It would matter if he had a single proud moment in office himself.
As if Carter wasn’t enough, next there came one of this generation’s greatest opportunist hypocrites, Albert Gore, inventor of Al-Gore-Tex, the fabric that allows abject failure in the political arena and a running and disturbingly accurate imitation of everyone’s grandmother (wonder if there’s more to that) to bead up and slide right off his career.
Taking a page from his own rain shedding fabric days, he figured there would be serious money in global warming (or is it global cooling this decade?) The smart thing his advisers came up with (we know he didn’t come up with it because he’s just a card reader like Obama) is the idea that instead of actually doing something about the “crisis” — like creating a green energy company or simply reducing the energy footprint of his mansion in Tennessee, or maybe leaving the private jet at home, or maybe dropping his convoy to a skeletal 10 gas-guzzling SUVs and Towncars burning ozone to and from every possible speaking engagement his handlers can schedule — anyway, instead of doing anything real about the “crisis”, his sage advisors said “hey, you could try your hand in the scary and accountable private sector for the first time since that 5 year stint at The Tennessean newspaper after college, or you could turn this lemon stretch of the natural environmental cycle into hysterically sweet solid gold lemonade in the bank.” And rain gold it has for the sweet talker from Tennessee. But a funny thing happened on the way to selling the Brooklyn Bridge…
Even Gore never imagined the clueless in Norway, adorned with nose rings of popular hysteria, could possibly be taken in by the shameless and insincere opportunism he embodied with the acting talent of, well, Al Gore. But they did. And those of us who thought that the Jimmy Carter prize was the last straw, certainly lost faith entirely in the judgment of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
Which bring us to the third of the infamous leftists: Paul (“Bush would be Satan, if there was a God”) Krugman. He’s the nerdy kid who used to cry just being near a fight in school, let alone being in one. He’s a lone beacon to the dwindling pseudo-intellectual self-obsessed New York readership, and the formerly somewhat respectable paper that prints his vile bile. I imagine him at his desk, crying at the violence of his blind fury (because fury is scary) and yet smiling through his tears for the self-congratulatory vengeance he feels his words get him on the conservative that stomped his frailty or stole his girl in some former time. His bully pulpit provides a thick network of flaming and smoldering leftists to insulate his frantic and desperate anger, so he’s safe to blather on, reciting the socialist and leftist talking points like a male version of Surrender Poodle Pelosi but without the stones.
I imagine Alfred Nobel would certainly take his mighty invention and blow all of Scandinavia to the judgment seat of the Almighty if he were alive to be ashamed of the state to which this prize has devolved: prizes awarded to a forgettable president, a transparent money-grubber, and the poster child of desperately shrill.
With these offenses, the Nobel Prize is certainly less fair and reasonable but closely resembling an Oscar these days, as Oscars are won solely on crony or agenda popularity, rather than by merit as awards should be.
I guess that’s why Gore’s won both.
Krugman could win an oscar for crying on cue, but for him it wouldn’t be acting.
Obama’s Tony Robbins Connection
After listening to the hundreds of hours the media have forced onto the airwaves of Barack Obama blowing hot air and smoke, I’ve noticed a familiar cadence in his speech and manner. In fact, as I listened more and more and noticed the nuances and mannerisms, even terminology, I searched my memory for the connection. He sounds like someone. He sounds like one of those self-help lecturers. After a lot of struggle and even some doubt as to whether I was imagining it, I finally placed the fence-sitter’s choice award winning performance. His voice, his movements, his tone, …his whole persona is a carefully crafted and rehearsed impression of Tony Robbins.
As the realization sunk in, another realization hit me; no wonder his empty rhetoric and out-of-nowhere-but-crooked-Chicago-politics origin have not hindered his rise to populist popularity. No wonder the common folk (some say simple minded) fall so easily for his hypnotic ambiguity. HE’S A MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER! Not an inspirational speaker, not an truth speaker, not even an empathetic speaker. This difference between B.O. and Robbins is that motivational speaker B.O. keeps all of his talking points in the ethereal realm of “hope” and “change” and, as much as possible, avoids the facts of reality.
It’s only been in recent weeks, since McCain’s started using his teeth, that Obama’s begun to abandon the happy-because-I-decide-to-be cirrus world of the golden and happy-tongued.
Though I can’t definitively verify the connection between Obama and Robbins, a cursory search returned ample references to that connection, several claiming certain knowledge that Barry was trained by Robbins. (If you know any different or can confirm, feel free to comment.)
For the record, I understand from soaking up public sentiment over my life that Tony Robbins has made millions of dollars helping a great many people for exactly as long as those people stay in the bubble and procedure of belief in his system. Though I don’t know much about his programs and have never seen him speak, I know the self-help lecturer type and I know the effects of those programs. When there’s substance, it’s a good thing. When substance and sound policy is absent, it’s mass hypnosis.
There’s nothing wrong with people seeking to improve themselves and seeking advice on that pursuit from those who they believe have experienced success. The problem I have is when a extremist politician stands in front of the country and builds a presidential campaign on a tick-perfect impression of a filthy-rich famous (and very liberal) motivational speaker. Barack Obama shouldn’t want the presidency on mirroring someone else’s performance without the substance. He may have the performance down, but by discerning his words we suspect that he’s still just the angry kid with a tumor of a chip on his shoulder that metastasized by the teachings of questionable parenting until supported and saved by stable grandparents, though one was a “racist”, so he says. An angry kid shaped by charity education and then radicals and corrupt politics afterward.
When I think of Obama, a quote from the most recent Bond movie, Casino Royale, keeps popping into my head, so I’ll let you decide if the shoe fits…
… by the cut of your suit, you went to Oxford or wherever. Naturally you think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, my guess is you didn’t come from money, and your school friends never let you forget it. Which means that you were at that school by the grace of someone else’s charity: hence that chip on your shoulder.
Obama’s a stage performer, and one inch deep, not a change agent.
Burning down the house – what caused the financial crisis
Watch and rate the video on YouTube to keep it in front of the fence-sitters who don’t know this information.
CBS Intentionally/Unintentionally Mistranscribes Palin
Katie (aren’t her squirrel cheeks so cute!) Couric hacked her cute little way through a cute little string of interviews with future VPOTUS Sarah Palin. But something happened on the way back to the audience. A little error in transcription here and there, strangely at the times when the meaning is critical to her answers. I found it irresponsibly sloppy at best and outright crooked if intended to cause reader confusion on Palin’s positions.
| Katie Couric’s “CBS for Obama Victory” team transcription | Palin’s actual words |
| My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don’t know how long ago, a year or two ago that he’s not benefiting from that. And you know, I was – I would hope that’s not the case. | My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don’t know how long ago, a year or two ago that he’s not benefiting from that. And you know, I was – I would hope that’s the case. |
| I’m all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. | I’m ill about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. At the same time we know that inaction is not an option. |
Don’t you find that fascinating? I do. I find it very curious.
It’s really hard to justify dropping the ball like this, obviously when the video that conflicts with your poor transcription is on the same page.
You can look at it one of two ways.
First, it was unintentional; the dense CBS News team couldn’t understand “that thick Alaskan accent”, even though I had no trouble at all picking out what she said with perfect clarity. CBS News must be employing a really unqualified transcriber.
Second, it was intentional; while much more devious if true, it certainly wouldn’t be beyond any common expectations of liberal CBS to play with the text a little to subtly shake credibility with very plausible deniability. CBS has been playing that game for decades.
Either way, it’s irresponsible to take words out or put words into the mouth of a candidate weeks before an election. Especially when the horse your money’s on is the other one. Shame on you CBS. Please correct the copy and fake-spank the lackey who was just following orders.
Obama Tried To Delay Iraq Withdrawl
Barack Obama has almost entirely escaped media scrutiny of his efforts to influence leaders in Iraq to delay scheduled troop withdrawals until after the election. I don’t think I need to tell you why he would do something so crooked and frankly disingenuous to the American people and their soldiers for political gain. This slippery weasel is truly the opportunist we all know he is.
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.
The Opacity of Vinegar
I think it’s official. Obama has passed beyond worried and has entered the bitter angry stage of his campaign’s slowing train. While addressing the issue of his lipstick-pig comment (and whether that comment was intended or not we don’t know), Obama showed the strongest signs yet of his frustration and surprise to see his lead evaporate.
If he had smart handlers, they would have told him to address the issue very lightly and playfully beg forgiveness, then move on. Instead he sat on the subject and stewed about the need to address his comment and how McCain and the press are combining to attack him. Barry, the last thing you get to complain about is why your cheerleading squad has taken a five minute break from their persistent chanting over broadcast and cable. No one’s gotten more love and protection from the press than you. And you can’t have it both ways, denying the horse you came on, and then looking in its mouth.
What a baby.
The Diligent: Preserving Ground Zero
Two of the 9/11 victim family members fighting the liberal bureaucracy of NYC for the 9/11 Memorial were interviewed by a NY Times reporter (the reporter clearly being careful in this case because of the personal and touchy subject).
An interesting moment to me was when one of the women representing the families commented on thinking that the NYC government would do the right thing, regardless of politics and other problems…
“At that time I didn’t think it would take so long to do the right thing… they’re going to understand the importance of this space, and the lives that were lost in this space, and the sacred and hallowedness of it. How can you not?”
The reporter pauses and thinks carefully how to frame the question she knows the liberals want to ask…
“There are people who say, [pause] that’s a little too intense. What drives you like that? You know, who do you represent? How do you answer the people who ask those kinds of questions?”
Must be people like the reporter, for her to have even considered asking that question. A little too intense? Yeah, let’s bury our liberal heads in the sand and forget 9/11 happened? Maybe the mean Muslims will hate us less if we just forget about 3000 dead and make it go away. The woman either didn’t realize the reporter was questioning her motivations, or decided to brush it off. She answered, essentially, a different question and moved on. But this is the classic subtle and careful craftiness of the liberals in the press. They steer and craft and mold a interview or story into something that seems innocuous but even slightly forwards their agenda, even subconsciously. The right in the press do it too, but their numbers are far fewer and they call themselves commentators much more consistently.
What we should all understand as we watch TV, or read newpapers (while they last), is that humans write the stories. And as long as humans write the stories, there will be spin. Period. Once you establish that, you have to figure out who’s spinning for whom and for which worldview, to even know what to make of the content. It’s too much work to have to second guess reporters all of the time.
I wish it was a by-line requirement, to establish your personal slant and angle of it. As much as I would like to deliver a neutral report in the interests of impartial journalism, if I were a reporter I know that the nature and subject matter of my reporting would be flavored with my worldview. It’s unavoidable. I’ve never heard a neutral report. Not once. It’s not hard to read and watch news and see the slant, left or right, clear as day. It’s human to slant. It means you care about it. It means you aren’t a machine. The problem is when reporters have a slant and try to hide it. They realize that an obvious slant will weaken the desired perception of impartiality, so they practice the subtle lean — an almost inperceptable tilt that seems reasonable and harmless but in the end leaves readers/viewers with the opposite worldview feeling strangely icky.
I believe some of the younger and more naive reporters actually believe that they can change the world by forwarding the liberal agenda through the press. There is a lot of preaching by liberal professors and others on college campuses about “making a difference” by controlling the language and thoughts of the masses. The best ways to do this is by choosing politics or “journalism” as a focus and career path. Unfortunately for this country, the conservative students, coping with little or none of the “I’m a misfit and I want to be heard” mentality, instead choose to go into private business and build the country. This is a blessing for the country, but also the curse that brought about the liberal dominance in the media now.
Anyway…
Bias of Leftist “Journalists” Measured in Clear Terms: Cash
Good article on IBD, entitled “Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1“.
The left apologist bias in the mainstream media is not news. We all know this. But at the same time, we’re surprised that they would let such easily quantifiable a metric as contributions tell the same tale in plain numbers that their “journalism” does in a far more foggy and sinister way on air.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
Again, no surprises, but yet another pleasant confirmation.