Jon Stewart On CNBC

Posted by on March 5, 2009 at 10:16 am. NO Comments :

Further evidence that the only substantive review of the media takes place on Comedy Central. This is a must-see Daily Show clip wherein Jon Stewart mercilessly takes apart CNBC.

As a reminder, even though Stewart couldn’t name another business network (he eventually came up with Bloomberg), there is another one. And it’s much worse than CNBC.

The Fox Business Network was launched about a year and a half ago. At the time the chairman of News Corp said:

Rupert Murdoch: “…a Fox channel would be ‘more business-friendly than CNBC.’ That channel ‘leap[s] on every scandal, or what they think is a scandal.'”

Obviously Murdoch didn’t know what he was talking about. CNBC has long been a good friend to business. But FBN was created for that purpose. And, by the way, Murdoch also owns the Dow Jones index, which he acquired along with the Wall Street Journal.

Also, don’t miss Stephen Colbert’s amazing take on Glenn Beck’s asinine “War Room” (be sure to watch both videos).

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Starve The Beast: The Wrath Of The Right

Posted by on March 2, 2009 at 9:45 am. 11 Comments :

We are now a month into the administration of Barack Obama. It’s a month that seems to have been packed with a year’s worth of activity. From the first day in office when Obama issued executive orders permitting more openness with presidential records and Freedom of Information Act requests, to announcements of major policy agendas for an economy on life support and the still soul-sapping wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House has been busy, to say the least.

At the same time, they have had to deal with the opposition of an increasingly obstructionist Republican minority and a media that is overtly hostile. Last year, prior to the election, Fox News was already fortifying its right flank. New multimillion dollar contracts were handed out to Roger Ailes, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Hannity’s show shed the dead weight of alleged liberal Alan Colmes. Glenn Beck was brought in to shore up the daytime crowd. Neil Cavuto, a bully who is every bit as obnoxious as O’Reilly poisons the economic news, and he is also managing editor of Murdoch’s Fox Business News. And just this week Bill Sammon, author of a shelf full of bitterly partisan books, was promoted to VP and Washington Editor for the network.

The result is a full court press of some of the dirtiest political assaults ever waged by what is advertised as a “news” network. Fox News is shamelessly pushing a campaign to characterize Obama as a Socialist – a committed opponent of America and its values – from 6:00 am with the crew of Fox & Friends, to after midnight with broadcasts and repeats of their primetime neanderthal shoutcasters. They get their marching orders directly from Rupert Murdoch who last September said that…

“[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

Even worse, these rightist dissidents come very close to openly advocating acts of violence and armed rebellion. Glenn Beck’s ominously titled “War Room” was an hour long descent into fear mongering that posited nothing short of the decline of western civilization. The upshot of this Terror Hour is that America’s days are numbered, so you had better start stockpiling guns, hoarding food and water, converting your dollars to gold, and barricading your secluded compound in the Wyoming wilderness (move over Ted Kaczynski). And, of course, it’s all Obama’s fault.

Another result of this Apocalyptic programming surge is higher ratings for Fox News. The core primetime schedule on Fox has enjoyed a rare uptick in audience growth. For the past three years, Fox, while number one in total audience, has been the slowest growing network in cable news. CNN and MSNBC produced consistently stronger growth. Particularly MSNBC, which was once a struggling also-ran, but which now challenges Fox’s powerhouses and routinely beats CNN. But the numbers for this February are another story.

Total Day: FNC +29%, MSNBC +17%, CNN +2%.
Primetime: FNC +28%, MSNBC +23%, CNN -30%.

What accounts for the turnaround in Fox’s fortunes? Well, first of all, they are benefiting from their previous slack performance. In other words, they were able to record higher comparative rates of growth because their prior year numbers were held down due to some rather unique circumstances. To understand the current numbers, you need to remember what was going on a year ago.

In February of 2008 the Democratic Party was in the middle of a hotly contested presidential primary. Early in the month it was already apparent that McCain would win his Party’s nomination. Consequently, audiences viewing campaign news were disproportionately composed of Democrats. Amongst the biggest draws were the televised debates. Democratic candidates, you may recall, had forsworn Fox News as a host for their debates. So the two Democratic debates held in February 2008 were carried by CNN and MSNBC, and both drew audiences many times greater than their regularly scheduled programming. Democrats also shunned Fox for other TV appearances and interviews. It had gotten so bad that Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, made a veiled threat in December of 2007:

“I think the Democrats are damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News.”

We know the problem still existed in March of 2008 because that’s when Wallace debuted his Obama Watch: a clock that would record how long before Obama appeared on Wallace’s show. It was a childish prank on Wallace’s part, but it clearly showed that the Democratic embargo of Fox News was having a real impact. For CNN and MSNBC, who had the guests and the event programming that appealed to the most motivated news consumers, it meant higher ratings. Fox, on the other hand, had depressed numbers because their most loyal audience – Republicans – already had a candidate, so there was no campaign drama to keep them tuned in. Comparing those numbers to February 2009 would, therefore, be favorable to Fox by producing a greater percent difference.

So some of the good news for Fox was really just a matter of perception. But that’s not the whole story. They are actually having a pretty good year, particularly post-inauguration. All the networks have suffered some falloff from January, but Fox has retained more of their recent gains than have their competitors. I can only offer some informed speculation as to why that would be.

First, Fox has more new programming that may be piquing the interests of their viewers. The new programs include a retooled Hannity, minus Colmes, and Glenn Beck’s Acute Paranoia Revue. Beck has found his home at Fox. His ratings have significantly increased over what he had at HLN, and he has also improved the time period he fills on Fox. As for Hannity, dumping Colmes was obviously popular amongst the Foxian pod people. It’s just that much less non-approved, pseudo-liberal noise they have to sit through.

Secondly, by heating up the aggressive tone, Fox has fashioned a hearth around which despondent conservatives can huddle. In 2006 they suffered the loss of both houses of congress. Now they have lost the presidency as well – and to what they view as an unpatriotic, Muslim, elitist, intent on driving the nation to Socialism in a Toyota hybrid. So now they congregate in the warm red glow of the Fox News logo that provides them the comfort that comes from numbing propaganda and the righteous smiting of perceived enemies.

This doubling down on rancor has had mixed results for Fox. While it endeared them to their base, and those they could frighten into submission, it also cost them dearly on a broader financial scale. The stock of Fox News parent, News Corp, is down 70% for the last 52 weeks. To be sure, the economy, particularly for media companies, was difficult, to put it mildly. But News Corp competitors Time Warner, Disney, and even the Washington Post were only down in the 45-55% range. News Corp suffered its worst loss ever of over $6.4 billion. And going forward, they advised Wall Street that income will decline another 30% for fiscal 2009.

In examining the reasons that Fox would perform so much worse than similar enterprises, one would have to consider the possibility that people have become disgusted with the obvious one-sided manipulation and the non-stop, phony news alerts that are Fox’s shock in trade. But I believe that it would also be fair to conclude that the direct actions taken against Fox News by Democrats last year are at least partially responsible for Fox’s inordinately more severe decline. The ratings disparities year over year document the effect that a sustained campaign of snubbery can produce.

Starve The BeastWith the stepped up efforts of Fox to sling ever more buckets of mud, it is more imperative now than ever that Democrats act affirmatively in their best interests. They must resist the siren call of televised glory and begin to discriminate between those who are fair practitioners of journalism and those who seek only to engage in slander and slime. In two previous installments of my Starve The Beast series (part 1 / part 2), I described how complicity with Fox News is not merely a waste of time, but is demonstrably harmful. This is even more true today, as the evidence above illustrates. The message that Democrats and other progressives must take to heart with all deliberateness and determination is: STAY THE HELL OFF OF FOX NEWS! Since it hurts us when we appear and it hurts them when we don’t, the way forward is crystal clear. It makes absolutely no sense to lay down before lions who are determined to devour you.

Now, I don’t want to approach this from a purely negative standpoint. While constructing a united front in opposition to Fox News is an absolute necessity, there are some positive steps that can be taken as well. Other news organizations must be pressured to present a more balanced picture of current events. And, where possible, true liberal voices must gain access to the televised public square. Media Matters long ago documented the imbalance of conservatives and Republicans on the Sunday news programs. That ideological discrepancy has continued apace since Obama’s inauguration. Now it’s time to do something about it. It’s time to make a case for TV to offer a more equitable representation of liberal views – the views of the majority, the winners.

Political activism has always been shaped in part by access to polling. It is an irreplaceable asset for anyone managing a campaign for a candidate or an issue. Similarly, TV survey data is critical in analyzing media performance and prospects. This data is distinct from conventional polling. Remember, networks don’t care about the public. They care about a subset of the public that is attractive to their customers. And their customers are not viewers – they are advertisers. While there are many sources for political data, there are few for media data – and most of those are press releases from vested corporate interests. There is little that we can do with ratings data that has already been massaged to advantage one particular party.

If progressives want to have some influence on programming, they must be able to anchor their arguments with original research and facts. For this reason, it is no longer enough for sites like Media Matters or Talking Points Memo or Daily Kos or News Corpse to merely document right-wing media abuses. If we want to help shape the editorial direction of the Conventional Media, we have to offer authoritative presentations to map a path to bigger audiences and ratings victories. We need to speak to the needs of the news providers and give them a business case for adopting a truly balanced programming model. To do this we need access to the raw data that is at the heart of television marketing.

So who amongst the lefty netroots will step forward and subscribe to Nielsen Media Research broadcast and cable data? I’m going to rule out News Corpse because I can’t afford it. But I do have 14 years of experience in media research and would be willing to help produce analyses and presentations. Just as progressive authors and bloggers offer informed advice to advance political goals, we need to be able to make a persuasive, market-based case for the sort of programming reform that we want to see. We need to be able to show the networks that it is in their interest, financially and ethically, to develop programming that is honest and in keeping with the principles of an engaged and probing press. We need to be able to counter the false impressions relentlessly pushed by faux news enterprises that tout themselves as the popular voice of the nation. It seems that a day does not go by that Bill O’Reilly doesn’t boast about his ratings. The funny thing is that he also condemns the source of those ratings with the delusional paranoia that only he can muster:

“The bottom line on this is there may be some big-time cheating going on in the ratings system, and we hope the feds will investigate. Any fraud in the television rating system affects all Americans.”

So O’Reilly thinks that the system he so proudly cites for affirmation of his massive popularity, is also engaging in big-time cheating for the benefit of his foes. If he’s right, and Nielsen data is not to be trusted when they report that his competition is catching up, than why should we trust it when it reports his success. In truth, the only cheating going on is on the part of the self-promoting networks and the egomaniacal personalities they employ. It is their selective and misleading interpretations that are distorting the reality of viewer behavior.

Suffice it to say that we would be in a much better position to dispute the spin that’s being peddled if we had access to unfiltered Nielsen data. We could mine that data to develop solutions and strategies to present to news programmers. Then we may begin to have some influence over news programming, personalities, and content.

This is as important an endeavor for progressives as the strategies we promote for politicians. I would argue that it’s more important. Especially in a media environment where prominent news enterprises are openly fomenting a near-militaristic antagonism to our representatives and our values.


The Fairness Doctrine Of The Undead

Posted by on February 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm. 1 Comments :

Never mind that President Obama has repeatedly stated his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine.

Never mind that no one in congress has drafted, introduced, or advocated a bill reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Never mind that almost every liberal organization, including the most prominent media reform group, Free Press, has come out against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

Never mind that it’s been 20 years since anyone has taken an official action in support of the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine is presently the most serious threat to the United States short of Al Qaeda.

And now we can add an actual vote to prohibit the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine – an overwhelming vote by a Democratic Senate of 87-11 – to the list of things that we can ignore because hysterical right-wingers STILL believe that the Fairness Doctrine is lurking just around the next bend in the road, waiting to pounce on their loudmouthed radio ranters and deflower the virtue of America.

In a bill aimed at giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives (along with a new seat for Utah), the Broadcasters Freedom Act was added as an amendment. The text of this legislation prohibits the FCC from reimposing the terms of the Fairness Doctrine. The margin of approval for the amendment should put to rest any discussion that Democrats are endeavoring to bring back the Doctrine. It should be put to rest, but it won’t be. Republicans are so wedded to the fear they seek to generate with this issue that they will embrace it with all their might rather than recognize that they are battling a phantom.

This is not so much a case of a zombie doctrine rising from the dead, as it is the GOP reanimating a corpse for their own exploitation. Rush Limbaugh began raving about the return of the Doctrine almost as soon as the Senate had voted to prohibit it. And he did it in typical racist Limbaugh fashion. He attempted to explain that completely unrelated media reform measures like local programming, and ownership diversity, were really just new disguises for the Doctrine. On diversity, he described why that wouldn’t work saying that it would be faked by corporate schemers who…

“…would go down to the barrios of Los Angeles, and they would pick somebody out, ‘Hey, you, Hector, over here,’ and they’d put Hector in charge of the company…”

In that brief citation, Limbaugh managed to double down his dumbness. First, he insulted Latinos by implying that they are all residents of barrios and none are qualified to run a business. Second, he admitted that companies are too corrupt to entrust with minor social contrivances like obeying the law – companies like the one that employs Limbaugh.

So now there has been a vote, and everyone is on the record. But the Fairness Fairies are clapping as hard as they can and they refuse to let this go. Obviously, this will never end. No matter how many spikes pierce the heart of the Fairness Doctrine, delusional conservatives will exhume the body and pretend that it still lives.


Fox Business Network Is On The Case

Posted by on February 26, 2009 at 3:10 pm. 2 Comments :

Last year the Fox Business Network filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Treasury Department documents related to the Toxic Assets Relief Program. After filing the request, FBN launched an advertising campaign promoting their tireless efforts on behalf of the American people.

I have no problem with the FOIA requests, in fact I support them. They are an important part of a transparent democracy, and news enterprises have always used them to provide a complete picture of what our government is doing on our behalf. They do it in the interests of journalism, not some disingenuous grandstanding as protectors of the people. It is unseemly for a network to puff itself up simply for doing its job. Bloomberg also has FOIA requests pending, but they aren’t banging the drum about it.

Now the puffery is ascending to new highs of absurdity. Fox News executive vice president Kevin Magee is patting himself and his network on the back for being champions of the people. He is engaging in a sustained campaign of self-flattery that he paradoxically says “is not a wild publicity stunt.”

Magee: “One of the ways that we want to differentiate ourselves is to tell our audience that we are trying to protect their interests. We think that’s a wide-open field. CNBC seems to always be the friend of the CEO and that’s fine, nothing wrong with that. It has served them well.”

This statement is a direct contradiction of what his boss said when FBN debuted:

Rupert Murdoch: “…a Fox channel would be ‘more business-friendly than CNBC.’ That channel ‘leap[s] on every scandal, or what they think is a scandal.'”

So it is FBN that has always sought to be “the friend of the CEO.” Now, in the midst of a Wall Street driven economic collapse, they want to pretend that they are the network of the people. What a crock! The truth is, they are engaging in pure self-promotion. FBN has tried to cultivate the image of being a business channel for Main Street, not Wall Street. But from the beginning, that pretense has been as phony as their “Fair and Balanced” sloganeering for Fox News.

On top of all of this, FBN wants to claim as their victory something that is not really a victory and with which they had little to do anyway. Documents referenced in the FOIA request have already begun flowing. Over 1,200 have been released, 300 of which were previously undisclosed. FBN’s attempt to take credit for this is plausible only if you completely forget that President Obama, on his first full day in office, issued an executive order requiring agencies in his administration to cooperate with FOIA requests. This explicitly reversed a Bush executive order that mandated withholding information if at all possible.

Emerging from the secrecy-obsessed world of George W. Bush may feel strange, but FBN should recognize that they haven’t moved any mountains. They are just in a new era of openness that makes news gathering a little easier. It is more than a little pathetic that somebody else loosened the top of the jelly jar and FBN thinks they’ve grown new muscles.


Meet Bill Sammon: The New Fox News DC Chief

Posted by on February 26, 2009 at 1:33 pm. 8 Comments :

The “Fair and Balanced” network, Fox News, has just promoted Bill Sammon to VP And Washington Managing Editor. Just so you know who will be heading up the political newsgathering for the so-called news network, here is a collection of his writings:

Bill Sammon Books
  • The Evangelical President: George Bush’s Struggle to Spread a Moral Democracy Throughout the World
  • At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election
  • Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.
  • Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House
  • Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters

Bill Sammon is no less ideological or partisan than Bill O’Reilly. Now he will be in charge of all Washington news decisions. That means both establishing the tone and slant of stories they report, and determining what stories to refrain from reporting. He will also continue to appear on Fox News offering his opinions as a news analyst. Fox still hasn’t learned that opinions are not a part of the journalist’s responsibilities.

See the full contingent of Fox News authors here.


Rupert Murdoch Won’t Apologize For Racism

Posted by on February 24, 2009 at 12:46 pm. 1 Comments :

The overtly racist cartoon published last week in the New York Post stands as evidence of the intractable racism that still infects the right-wing media.

Today, Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the Post as well as its parent News Corp, issued what he regards as an apology:

“Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.”

“Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you – without a doubt – that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.”

So Murdoch spoke to a number of people and now he understands the hurt that was caused. But he still is only apologizing to those who “felt offended” – as if they were responsible for the pain. What’s more, he characterizing those who were hurt as simpletons who misinterpreted the intent of the cartoon.

What Murdoch does not do is apologize for racism. His new found understanding doesn’t include a grasp of the hatred that is embodied in the insults and violence expressed in the Post’s cartoon. He doesn’t comprehend that his so-called apology has little meaning when it exists in a vacuum unsupported by his actions. After all, he has done and said nothing about his editor’s defense of the cartoon. Col Allan, in his response to the controversy, complained that…

“…there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past — and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback. To them, no apology is due […and that the cartoon…] is a clear parody of a current news event.”

Apparently it was not so clear as Mr. Allan thinks. If Murdoch has to emerge from his lair a full week after publication, what is clear is that there has been public repulsion to the cartoon that is not going away quickly enough for the media mogul. But he probably won’t have to worry about business at the Post (Well, not more than usual since it has lost millions annually for over a decade). His readers have risen to the occasion to support the cartoon and its message. The vast majority of the comments attached to the online apology either defend the cartoon or berate Murdoch for apologizing. And amidst this rush to embrace hate are comments like this one:

New York Post Cartoon Comment

That comment is representative of many of the comments posted on the paper’s web site. Who will apologize for that?

Murdoch’s bully boy, Bill O’Reilly, has repeatedly hammered web sites like Daily Kos and the Huffington Post for what he says is hate speech. He attributes every comment on those sites to the name at the top of the page. In reality it is just an open forum where people speak for themselves. More often than not, objectionable content is quickly smacked down by other commenters. But in O’Reilly’s mind it is still the site’s responsibility. So I wonder if he will show some consistency and condemn the New York Post for comments like the one above. Especially since it is not an aberration, but the consensus.

Actually, I don’t wonder at all. In fact I wouldn’t be too surprised if Osinko turned out to be O’Reilly himself. After all, it was O’Reilly who ventured into Harlem and…

“…couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship […] There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, “M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'”

Osinko – O’Reilly / O’Reilly – Osinko — Hmmm…..

New York Post Cartoon

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Peter Chernin Breaking Up With Rupert Murdoch

Posted by on February 23, 2009 at 4:23 pm. 1 Comments :

The most talked about thing on the Fox studio lot this morning, after Slumdog Millionaire’s eight Oscars, has got to be the news that CEO Peter Chernin is heading for the exit. Chernin has run the entertainment side of Rupert Murdoch’s empire since 1996, the year Murdoch launched Fox News.

The Chernin legacy is one of profound accomplishment. He is an old school Hollywood exec who demonstrated his skill as an effective manager in a creative business. He was also at the opposite end of the political spectrum of his boss. Chernin gave generously to Democratic candidates and causes. And he would have to be the person who gets credit for the humor directed at the right on programs like The Simpsons. Of course, he would also have to take the blame for reactionary programs like 24.

According to reports, Murdoch does not intend to replace Chernin, and will assume much of those responsibilities himself. I would expect that to be a temporary situation. One of the probable reasons for Chernin’s departure is that there is no upward mobility for him at News Corp. Murdoch will be grooming family members for expanded rolls in the future. He needs a successor and he isn’t going outside of his family to find one. So goodbye Chernin.

This is bad news for News Corp on many levels. Losing an experienced, respected, and connected Hollywood veteran is certain to be troublesome. But even worse is the prospect of Murdoch taking the reins himself. Chernin has had near autonomy running the entertainment group. It is not an area in which Murdoch has much experience or affinity. His focus has always been on his newspapers. And if we were to judge him on the performance of that sector, his future is bleak indeed. The New York Post has lost tens of millions of dollars annually for every year he has owned it. The percentage of the newspaper segment of News Corp is now 19%, the largest piece of the company. And the company is careening toward collapse, having lost about 70% of its market cap in the last year. That is significantly worse than competitors like Time Warner and Disney. Financial analysts are getting nervous about News Corp and Murdoch, and their ability to weather these storms.

The timing of this could not be worse for Murdoch. As the company is trying to stay afloat in one of the worst economic downturns in decades, and while still trying to integrate Dow Jones and the sickly Wall Street Journal into the company, Murdoch now has to divide his attention between his failing publishing interests, his falling stock valuation, and now the helm of the movie and television concerns that Chernin had managed so well. Why should any investor have confidence that Murdoch will succeed at Chernin’s job when he has failed so badly in the newspaper realm he loves so much and has been engaged in for over 50 years? More likely, he will do to the entertainment group what he did to the rest of the company.

Now if only Roger Ailes would leave Fox News and let Murdoch destroy that too.


Rachel Marsden’s Guide To Being An Idiot

Posted by on February 20, 2009 at 11:30 am. 2 Comments :

Rachel MarsdenFormer Fox News personality and serial stalker, Rachel Marsden, has penned a column that purports to be a survival guide in these tough economic times. She condenses her advice into a 7-point program, some of which makes a little sense. She perked my interest early with her first suggestion: “Turn off the TV news.” But it just went downhill from there.

There is much to criticize in TV news. It can be shallow, artificially dramatic, and biased toward the views of the giant corporations that own them and support them through advertising. But Marsden’s call to avoid TV news is really an attempt to insure that people cultivate ignorance. She isn’t really interested in tuning out the static and disinformation of news manglers like Fox News, she just thinks that staying current on political affairs is a waste of time:

“I think everyone has a general idea of the idiocy in which Obama and the Democrats are engaged. You know why cable networks keep showing us this financial disaster porn? Because you keep watching! You don’t need to rivet yourself to a blow-by-blow of the implosion. The Obama administration is going to be like any other soap opera – you can tune out and come back in three years without having missed anything.”

Marsden’s true intent begins to unravel with her second point: “Listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, every day.” Clearly she is plotting to keep you ill-informed by avoiding responsible news sources, and then indoctrinating you to the dis-information of Limbaugh:

“Rush won’t tell you how great you are as a result of your mere existence, but he’ll tell you what you need to do to achieve greatness…”

Really? So a thrice-divorced, drug-addled, gasbag, whose motivational counsel consists of cultish calls to become an unquestioning dittohead, should serve as an example of personal responsibility and achievement? A racist provocateur who incites riots is Marsden’s idea of a role model?

Marsden’s whole scheme comes crashing down when you jump to point number five: “If you’re in university, now is a good time to seriously rethink what the heck you’re doing with your life.” Accepting for the moment that self-reflection is always a good thing, what Marsden appears to be recommending is that you drop out of school, seek vocational training, and keep your mind safe from the nasty liberal world of academia:

“Universities and colleges are businesses. Businesses run almost exclusively by liberals. That should tell you everything you need to know about what kind of return you can expect on your investment. They take your money, it disappears into the black hole of academia, and you get spit back out with your pockets emptied and your brain thoroughly washed.”

It’s interesting to hear a conservative disparage the sanctity of business. If Marsden is so repulsed by the thought of academic institutions operating in a free market, perhaps she would prefer that public education be extended to include college. I would join her in pursuit of that, but somehow I doubt that that is where she’s going.

I should be careful about agreeing to join Marsden in anything. Her history of criminal harassment is the stuff of legends. She was even thrown off the set of Fox News for “bizarre and erratic behavior,” as reported by Murdoch’s own New York Post. Somehow, though, she keeps managing to find work. This article on surviving was published by Human Events, whose bar for coherent discourse is set lower than the Mariana Trench.

When looked at as a whole, Marsden’s survival guide is nothing but the glorification of ignorance. She advocates shutting yourself off from information, immersing yourself in lies, and avoiding the destructive consequences of learning. That’s a good recipe for becoming a docile subject of the sort of brain-dead totalitarianism propagated by the Republican Party and Fox News. But it’s a terrible guide for survival in these, or any other, times.


Michael Steele’s All New Republican Partay

Posted by on February 19, 2009 at 5:47 pm. 1 Comments :

Republican PartayMichael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, was interviewed by the Washington Times and is apparently challenging Jon Stewart for the title of funniest satirist.

“Steele plans an ‘off the hook’ public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party’s principles to ‘urban-suburban hip-hop settings.’

Repizzles in hizzle, my bruthas. Or should I say, my president? (see video below).

The first problem he’s going to encounter is locating any “principles” in the Republican Party. Then he’s going to have to deal with the fact that what passes for principles are overtly hostile to the young and minority voters he wants to target. Then he’s going to discover that the problems his Party have been experiencing are not the result of bad PR in the first place. Their problems stem from bad ideas, disastrous policies, and embarrassing candidates. Undaunted, Steele is charging forward with his plan to revitalize the GOP. He intends to craft messages that will appeal to a broad cross-section of voters – from soccer moms to hockey moms. Seriously, that’s what he said. Steele rejects suggestions that his new campaign will be merely “cutting edge”:

“I don’t do ‘cutting-edge.’ That’s what Democrats are doing. We’re going beyond cutting-edge.”

Sure…you wouldn’t want to emulate the Democrats who have enjoyed massive electoral victories, taking control of both houses of Congress and the White House over the past couple of years. Steele is going beyond cutting-edge, by which he means attacking other Republicans. In the interview he takes the time to note a rift between himself and Karl Rove, who never sent him a card congratulating him on winning the RNC post. (Is this a budding turf war ala Tupac and Biggie?) And when colleagues expressed concern that he might need some help with organizational and fund raising activities he told them to “Stuff it!” Then he proceeded to slam their previous efforts saying…

“Where we have fallen down in delivering a message is in having something to say […] We missed the mark in the past, which is why we are in the crapper now.”

I’d have to agree with him there. Not having something to say can impair one’s ability to deliver a message. But pretending your down with the homies in the hood isn’t going to help him put more Repubs in Da House – or Da Senate either. All I can say is that, with a teaser like this, I can’t wait to see what Steele produces. Although a commenter on the Washington Times web site had an interesting take:

Big Time Patriot: Hey, the GOP already IS hip-hop, more specifically, the GOP are Gangsta Rappers…

They hate judges, don’t think laws apply to them, like to take drugs (Yeah thats YOU, Rush) and disrespect women. All they need are some nice Rim’s and they are all the way there.


Obama Must Reject Bush’s Imperial Bequest

Posted by on February 19, 2009 at 2:08 pm. 3 Comments :

The legacy of George W. Bush lives on in the form of executive powers that he invented in order to pursue his extra-Constitutional agenda. The risk of setting his megalomania into precedent was amongst the best reasons to prosecute and/or impeach him and his accomplices.

In Washington, it has been long understood that no one willingly cedes power. Now President Barack Obama finds himself in command of the regime that was built by Bush, replete with Imperial perks that defy Constitutional law. Obama must now reject them.

Bruce Fein, a conservative lawyer and author who courageously joined those calling for Bush’s impeachment, has written an outstanding article that enumerates the danger of doing nothing about Bush’s excesses. On matters from state secrets to extraordinary rendition to torture, Fein calls for a return to the rule of law, and he cautions that Democrats must not be so enamored of their shiny new president that they permit him to get away with retaining the tyrannical powers established by Bush.

Since most of the violations of the Bush administration were executed from the Oval Office, it is up to Obama to set the ship of state aright. And it is up to the people to make sure that he does so.