Yep, mo' money it is, but is that really a surprise? We're a bigger nation than we've ever been. We're facing bigger problems than we ever have. Our infrastructure is older and as neglected as it's ever been. Our population requires more care and feeding than it ever has, AND our revenue is less than it's been in a while. Now, I know raising taxes is no guarantee of increased revenue, but raising taxes and cutting spending just might be... ya think?
Let's ask Ohio's new governor who, teamed up with the rest of Clinton's EAs, managed to balance a budget and turn over a deficit to, oh what the heck was that guy's name who succeeded Clinton... dangit. Well, you know who I'm talking about, and you know what came of that extra money. So we've got the experience to make this work...as long as we don't have to read anyone's lips.
Let's at least make sure the guys in the previous post pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the teachers in the last post. How's that for a start?
Luth,
Out
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Follow the Money
About a year ago, lefty wacko Les Leopold posted an article on that equally lefty wacko HuffPost site purporting that the top 25 hedge fund managers in 2009 made as much as 658,000... wait for it... (for those of you not familiar with these numbers go ahead and guess...)
...hedge fund managers in 2009 made 658,000 what?
average bonus?
annual salary?
per hour?
No way, none of those guesses can be right. It would be ridiculous if during the year in which the efforts of people in this particular industry put 10% of the rest of us out of work, destroyed a much larger percentage of most our retirement accounts, spurred the foreclosure of hundreds of thousands of mortgages, and produced (as in Gross Domestic PRODUCT) pretty close to nothing, they made money reflected by any of those multiple choices!
Well, if you at least guessed that the $658,000/hour was a wrong choice, you're kind of right. Actually, Les Leopold's numbers suggest that the top ten 2009 hedge fund managers earned $900,000 PER HOUR! Yes you read that correctly. $.9 million PER HOUR.
But the 658,000 figure is even more exhilarating. Leopold's article suggested that the top 25 hedge fund managers in 2009 (combined) earned 658,000 starting teacher SALARIES. (He figured the average starting teacher salary, with benefits, to be about $38,000) Since I know some teachers in Ohio start a little below $25,000, and some a little above it, I'll accept Leopold's figure even if in my experience, it might be a little generous.
Of course some hedge fund professional associations disputed the other figure and I couldn't find any direct sources to back it up, but you can check Leopold's math for yourself (the math appears legit, even if no legit sources for any particular hedge fund manager's salary can seem to be legitimized) at the original post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/why-are-25-hedge-fund-man_b_531420.html or you can pick up his book, The Looting of America.
Nope, before posting this, I went for some numbers I could find and back up at least as much as my OpEd heroes, Rush, Bill, and Glenn could sink their teeth into. According to Absolute Return magazine's 2010 "Rich List" Appaloosa Management's David Tepper made $4 billion in fees and earnings last year.
To be fair, Mr. Tepper's earnings would only have paid 105,263 new teachers. To get anywhere near Leopold's 2009 claims, he's gonna need some help. Next on AR's list was the evil George Soros who had to scrape by on $3.3 billion. That would only cover the annual salaries of 86,842 new teachers. Leopold was clearly being extremely hyperbolic in his assessment. (by the way, ever notice when someone like Soros uses that money to campaign for something he's an "elitist" who's "buying votes," but when someone like T. Boone Pickens uses it, he's a "patriot" and whatever he spends it on is called "speech?")
Anyhoo, to get anywhere near Leopold's clearly exaggerated 2009 claim we'll have to use AR's numbers for the remaining 23 of the 25 top hedge fund managers, who, together with Tepper and Soros, put up a record $25.3 billion in fees and gains for 2010. (poor guys had to suffer through a down year in 2008, making only half of what they made in the previous record year, 2007...ah the ups and downs of hedge fund mgt.) And so our 2010 tally would only cover 665,789 (and a half) salaries of first year teachers. Wow. Perhaps Leopold wasn't exaggerating.
Maybe we just need another perspective to remind us that we are a capitalist society and that being successful isn't such a bad thing. Let's try this: since at least 10% of America's hourly wage earners were out of work in 2010 as a result of the kinds of things Tepper and Soros do for a living, maybe if we look at their salaries from the hourly perspective it won't hurt so bad.
OK, so there are 40 hrs in the American work week, 52 weeks in a year, so that's 3.3 billion divided by 2080... well, there you go. Soros (the #2 guy) only ended up making $1,586,583.00 per hour in 2010. PER HOUR... $1.5 million PER F-ING HOUR.
I guess it wasn't really comforting to view it that way. Well, at least we know where our nation's priorities lie. And at least we can take comfort in how our culture rewards those who contribute most to the well-lobbied-for corporate tax structure - no wait, I meant to type: those who contribute most to society. Just look at society today. How could we ever ask for more?
Luth,
Out
...hedge fund managers in 2009 made 658,000 what?
average bonus?
annual salary?
per hour?
No way, none of those guesses can be right. It would be ridiculous if during the year in which the efforts of people in this particular industry put 10% of the rest of us out of work, destroyed a much larger percentage of most our retirement accounts, spurred the foreclosure of hundreds of thousands of mortgages, and produced (as in Gross Domestic PRODUCT) pretty close to nothing, they made money reflected by any of those multiple choices!
Well, if you at least guessed that the $658,000/hour was a wrong choice, you're kind of right. Actually, Les Leopold's numbers suggest that the top ten 2009 hedge fund managers earned $900,000 PER HOUR! Yes you read that correctly. $.9 million PER HOUR.
But the 658,000 figure is even more exhilarating. Leopold's article suggested that the top 25 hedge fund managers in 2009 (combined) earned 658,000 starting teacher SALARIES. (He figured the average starting teacher salary, with benefits, to be about $38,000) Since I know some teachers in Ohio start a little below $25,000, and some a little above it, I'll accept Leopold's figure even if in my experience, it might be a little generous.
Of course some hedge fund professional associations disputed the other figure and I couldn't find any direct sources to back it up, but you can check Leopold's math for yourself (the math appears legit, even if no legit sources for any particular hedge fund manager's salary can seem to be legitimized) at the original post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/why-are-25-hedge-fund-man_b_531420.html or you can pick up his book, The Looting of America.
Nope, before posting this, I went for some numbers I could find and back up at least as much as my OpEd heroes, Rush, Bill, and Glenn could sink their teeth into. According to Absolute Return magazine's 2010 "Rich List" Appaloosa Management's David Tepper made $4 billion in fees and earnings last year.
To be fair, Mr. Tepper's earnings would only have paid 105,263 new teachers. To get anywhere near Leopold's 2009 claims, he's gonna need some help. Next on AR's list was the evil George Soros who had to scrape by on $3.3 billion. That would only cover the annual salaries of 86,842 new teachers. Leopold was clearly being extremely hyperbolic in his assessment. (by the way, ever notice when someone like Soros uses that money to campaign for something he's an "elitist" who's "buying votes," but when someone like T. Boone Pickens uses it, he's a "patriot" and whatever he spends it on is called "speech?")
Anyhoo, to get anywhere near Leopold's clearly exaggerated 2009 claim we'll have to use AR's numbers for the remaining 23 of the 25 top hedge fund managers, who, together with Tepper and Soros, put up a record $25.3 billion in fees and gains for 2010. (poor guys had to suffer through a down year in 2008, making only half of what they made in the previous record year, 2007...ah the ups and downs of hedge fund mgt.) And so our 2010 tally would only cover 665,789 (and a half) salaries of first year teachers. Wow. Perhaps Leopold wasn't exaggerating.
Maybe we just need another perspective to remind us that we are a capitalist society and that being successful isn't such a bad thing. Let's try this: since at least 10% of America's hourly wage earners were out of work in 2010 as a result of the kinds of things Tepper and Soros do for a living, maybe if we look at their salaries from the hourly perspective it won't hurt so bad.
OK, so there are 40 hrs in the American work week, 52 weeks in a year, so that's 3.3 billion divided by 2080... well, there you go. Soros (the #2 guy) only ended up making $1,586,583.00 per hour in 2010. PER HOUR... $1.5 million PER F-ING HOUR.
I guess it wasn't really comforting to view it that way. Well, at least we know where our nation's priorities lie. And at least we can take comfort in how our culture rewards those who contribute most to the well-lobbied-for corporate tax structure - no wait, I meant to type: those who contribute most to society. Just look at society today. How could we ever ask for more?
Luth,
Out
Saturday, January 15, 2011
First Amendment Clarification
Lest anyone think a liberal 'blogger is calling for laws about what politicians and media folk are allowed to say, I thought I'd better clarify.
Nope, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, it's time we grow the F up. We shouldn't need a law for adults to WANT to behave like adults in public. The law shouldn't have anything to do with it. What we need is for the rest of us to voice it when we disagree with the childish behavior of both our politicians and our big media personalities... or even with that guy in Wal-Mart talking on his cell phone in the diaper aisle screaming the F-word in every sentence!
You know me, I LOVE the F word, but when did it become acceptable for it to be part of every sentence someone's yelling in Wal-Mart?? I suspect it hasn't become acceptable, but rather, we've lost the adult skill of addressing the unacceptable-ness of it. Instead, we childishly stew, letting our anger at it, or at our own inability to address it grow into some hostile seething. The seething is then somewhat soothed when we hear Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh complaining about the same thing on the radio, but then hyperbolically calling for some drastic measure - in a PURELY entertainment-esque metaphor - NOT to be taken literatlly! tirade that makes us feel better. But it doesn't really. It just makes us feel less alone in our powerlessness. Then we confuse our own ineptitude with the EIB or MSNBC proposed solution and start believing such exaggerated silliness is an actual solution.
The thing is, the solution is simply, politely, asking the "gentleman" at Wal-mart to please use more appropriate language in public...around your mom, or your children. The solution is for all of us to grow the F up.
Have there been moments when, in the angry aftermath of some ridiculous statement made by a politician that I felt some childish satisfaction at a mean comment Olberman, or Rush made about the comment? Sure, then I remembered I'm an adult, that neither side in that childish spat was getting us closer to solving the issue, and that this particular form of entertainment is nothing more than that. I remembered that when it comes time for me to figure out where I actually stand on an issue, I need to think for myself and try to tune out the BS... the entertainment. Like what Jersey Shore characters, or AM radio "characters" say and actually tune in on what really should matter.
It's no surprise that this has been the theme of the week on The Daily Show. Many fans who stood in line for the free tickets in recent miserable New York City weather this past Monday might have felt a little slighted as the Monday show's entire first segment was Stewart intelligently and carefully explaining why it's not fun to make fun of the news when the news involves the tragedy of the previous weekend. As it was, he probably lost half his audience in that brief speech but it was eloquent, needed to be said, and probably wasn't and won't be heard anywhere else.
Later in the week, The Daily Show hosted Tim Pawlenty, who admitted to having said things in public he later wished he hadn't, but remained defensive as Stewart laid out his plea for SELF restraint. It was as if Pawlenty assumed Stewart was calling for repealing the 1st amendment. He didn't seem able to grasp what Stewart actually said: that we and our politicians should WANT to use speech that made a clearer distinction between them and crazed gunmen or extreme talk show hosts.
Am I the only one saddened by the fact that the only "news" show that's handled the truly important topics of the week with an adult approach and an appropriate and respectful deference and urgency is on Comedy Central?
So, back to the point: Yes, I believe Keith, Rush, Rachel, and Glenn should be ALLOWED to say whatever the hell they want. And, as a legion of idiots, we should be allowed to hang on and repeat their every word. No, there shouldn't be a LAW that prevents this.
What there should be is an adult segment of our population, say those over 17, who are able to see this for what it is, react negatively when appropriate rather than embrace it as the solution to the world's problems, and then to be able to seek more appropriate, relevant, and useful information upon which to form their opinions. They should then act on and voice those adult opinions in grown up ways. We should tell our politicians when their speech is inappropriate and worse, when their actions (or lack of) are ineffective. We should ignore entertainers whose idea of entertaining is simply preying on the ignorant who can't form their own opinions.
The dude using the F word in Wal-Mart only thinks that's ok because as a society, we have agreed that it is. This is in no small part because we hear and pay lots of money for very similar language on afternoon radio and evening cable tv. The initial confrontations of our collective childishness won't be smooth. They will require the MOST adult among us to use all of our skills to do it. But that's what we have to do - it's not legislation I'm calling for.
We should just all grow the F up.
Luth
Out
Nope, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, it's time we grow the F up. We shouldn't need a law for adults to WANT to behave like adults in public. The law shouldn't have anything to do with it. What we need is for the rest of us to voice it when we disagree with the childish behavior of both our politicians and our big media personalities... or even with that guy in Wal-Mart talking on his cell phone in the diaper aisle screaming the F-word in every sentence!
You know me, I LOVE the F word, but when did it become acceptable for it to be part of every sentence someone's yelling in Wal-Mart?? I suspect it hasn't become acceptable, but rather, we've lost the adult skill of addressing the unacceptable-ness of it. Instead, we childishly stew, letting our anger at it, or at our own inability to address it grow into some hostile seething. The seething is then somewhat soothed when we hear Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh complaining about the same thing on the radio, but then hyperbolically calling for some drastic measure - in a PURELY entertainment-esque metaphor - NOT to be taken literatlly! tirade that makes us feel better. But it doesn't really. It just makes us feel less alone in our powerlessness. Then we confuse our own ineptitude with the EIB or MSNBC proposed solution and start believing such exaggerated silliness is an actual solution.
The thing is, the solution is simply, politely, asking the "gentleman" at Wal-mart to please use more appropriate language in public...around your mom, or your children. The solution is for all of us to grow the F up.
Have there been moments when, in the angry aftermath of some ridiculous statement made by a politician that I felt some childish satisfaction at a mean comment Olberman, or Rush made about the comment? Sure, then I remembered I'm an adult, that neither side in that childish spat was getting us closer to solving the issue, and that this particular form of entertainment is nothing more than that. I remembered that when it comes time for me to figure out where I actually stand on an issue, I need to think for myself and try to tune out the BS... the entertainment. Like what Jersey Shore characters, or AM radio "characters" say and actually tune in on what really should matter.
It's no surprise that this has been the theme of the week on The Daily Show. Many fans who stood in line for the free tickets in recent miserable New York City weather this past Monday might have felt a little slighted as the Monday show's entire first segment was Stewart intelligently and carefully explaining why it's not fun to make fun of the news when the news involves the tragedy of the previous weekend. As it was, he probably lost half his audience in that brief speech but it was eloquent, needed to be said, and probably wasn't and won't be heard anywhere else.
Later in the week, The Daily Show hosted Tim Pawlenty, who admitted to having said things in public he later wished he hadn't, but remained defensive as Stewart laid out his plea for SELF restraint. It was as if Pawlenty assumed Stewart was calling for repealing the 1st amendment. He didn't seem able to grasp what Stewart actually said: that we and our politicians should WANT to use speech that made a clearer distinction between them and crazed gunmen or extreme talk show hosts.
Am I the only one saddened by the fact that the only "news" show that's handled the truly important topics of the week with an adult approach and an appropriate and respectful deference and urgency is on Comedy Central?
So, back to the point: Yes, I believe Keith, Rush, Rachel, and Glenn should be ALLOWED to say whatever the hell they want. And, as a legion of idiots, we should be allowed to hang on and repeat their every word. No, there shouldn't be a LAW that prevents this.
What there should be is an adult segment of our population, say those over 17, who are able to see this for what it is, react negatively when appropriate rather than embrace it as the solution to the world's problems, and then to be able to seek more appropriate, relevant, and useful information upon which to form their opinions. They should then act on and voice those adult opinions in grown up ways. We should tell our politicians when their speech is inappropriate and worse, when their actions (or lack of) are ineffective. We should ignore entertainers whose idea of entertaining is simply preying on the ignorant who can't form their own opinions.
The dude using the F word in Wal-Mart only thinks that's ok because as a society, we have agreed that it is. This is in no small part because we hear and pay lots of money for very similar language on afternoon radio and evening cable tv. The initial confrontations of our collective childishness won't be smooth. They will require the MOST adult among us to use all of our skills to do it. But that's what we have to do - it's not legislation I'm calling for.
We should just all grow the F up.
Luth
Out
Thursday, January 13, 2011
After the hangover... more on hate speech
Funny you should come back now, Ray. When I awoke from the hangover of yesterday's post, even I felt it was reactionary, premature, maybe even immature. I was thinking all day about posting something to that effect, but when I read it again, I noticed how short I stopped from drawing any direct link between the right's hate speech and political violence. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I simply extrapolated Krugman's point: that there's a difference between strong rhetoric (even emotionally charged strong rhetoric...even if it's less than researched, ie opinion) and inciting violence. One is common only to the right. One is ubiquitous.
It doesn't take long to Google Limbaugh or Beck and find either carefully couched but obvious, or downright violent samples...here are the initial hits:
RUSH:
"It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here..." (April 2008)
BECK:
"...let's line em up and shoot em in the head..."
"I'd like to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel..."
"I put poison in your (nancy Pelosi's) wine..."
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore..."
Not to mention the calculated build ups that don't actually come right out and say it but leave little to the imagination...
"the president is a racist...has a deep seated hatred of white culture..."
(How do you think Beck expects Klansmen to receive those remarks?)
Or how about "The razor wire is coming." after a riff on the American Revolution and how it only took 12% of Americans to start it... and at least 30% of today's Americans don't want to live inside the razor wire, do we people? Sure, that's not a direct call for violence, but if you don't see Beck's call for revolution (and NOT just in the voting booths) in this speech, you're blind.
Show me samples like this from Olberman or Maddow... (do I even need to include Williams, Brokaw, Rather??) or even Stewart or Colbert (who are clearly comedians... a title Limbaugh and Beck deny for themselves vehemently)
Nope, I stand by this one. Reactionary? Sure. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I should trust my reactionary gut more often.
True, there's no direct link, but I'm sticking with the notion that if a lefty said these kinds of things, he or she would be shunned by the Democrats. The Dems thus endorse CIVIL discourse NOT violent elimination of the opposition.
The GOP has embraced violent rhetoric. Most of the Arizona Tea Bag politicos would rather bankrupt the state than write a gun law, let people with brown skin walk their streets without papers, or raise taxes. Palin tweets about pitbulls, mama grizzlies, and reloading. There's no denying the Beck/Limbaugh connection and the way actual Repubs talk. That's the difference. That's endorsement. That's what foments cultural shifts. That's the link, indirect as it may be, between violent acts and Beck/Limbaugh cum Republican hate speech. This kind of endorsement is undeniably absent from the Dems and even the Left's cable media.
We're not talking about emotions or strong language here. Those have a place in debate/argument. You should be passionate about what you believe, but you should be able to argue for it on its merits, not by calling for the elimination of your opponents. You're allowed to get angry during the course of a debate, but you don't specifically name someone you'd hit with a shovel.(that's often referred to as "assault") I think even you can see the difference between that and invoking the expression (with no PERSON as the target) about bringing a knife to a gunfight when speaking VERY clearly about FUNDRAISING.
There's a slight difference between direct speech and figurative language...even if the direct speech is presented as a tasteless joke, it's direct, almost literal, NOT about fundraising. Calling for a Chicago'68-like riot at the Denver Democratic Convention is NOT a metaphor. It's a direct call. Poisoning Pelosi's wine or killing Charlie Rangel by hitting him in the head with a shovel may be just jokes, but they are also explicit, violent statements. I guess that's what makes them funny... among a circle of like-minded friends, but not in a public broadcast.
There's also a considerable difference between a psychopath stating some connection for his acts, and a culture that condones the acts. John Hinckley shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because it somehow fit with his world view based on The Catcher in the Rye. So are Foster and Salinger to blame? Uh, no, but that's not quite the same as Klansman, encouraged by their culture and their political leaders, lynching blacks in the 50s and 60s now is it. I think it's fair to say there's a connection in the latter, but not in the former.
Richard Nixon and his buddy, then VP at CBS, had the Smothers Brothers removed from television for far less inflammatory, far less specific, and far more sophisticated humor than what Beck and Limbaugh have gotten away with for years. And THAT was when the Republicans still pretended to be civil. Today, they don't even bother pretending anymore. Do you honestly think it's not just a matter of time? If this kind of thing DID go on in the left, it would have been outlawed in Arizona by now!
Luth
Out
It doesn't take long to Google Limbaugh or Beck and find either carefully couched but obvious, or downright violent samples...here are the initial hits:
RUSH:
"It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here..." (April 2008)
BECK:
"...let's line em up and shoot em in the head..."
"I'd like to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel..."
"I put poison in your (nancy Pelosi's) wine..."
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore..."
Not to mention the calculated build ups that don't actually come right out and say it but leave little to the imagination...
"the president is a racist...has a deep seated hatred of white culture..."
(How do you think Beck expects Klansmen to receive those remarks?)
Or how about "The razor wire is coming." after a riff on the American Revolution and how it only took 12% of Americans to start it... and at least 30% of today's Americans don't want to live inside the razor wire, do we people? Sure, that's not a direct call for violence, but if you don't see Beck's call for revolution (and NOT just in the voting booths) in this speech, you're blind.
Show me samples like this from Olberman or Maddow... (do I even need to include Williams, Brokaw, Rather??) or even Stewart or Colbert (who are clearly comedians... a title Limbaugh and Beck deny for themselves vehemently)
Nope, I stand by this one. Reactionary? Sure. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I should trust my reactionary gut more often.
True, there's no direct link, but I'm sticking with the notion that if a lefty said these kinds of things, he or she would be shunned by the Democrats. The Dems thus endorse CIVIL discourse NOT violent elimination of the opposition.
The GOP has embraced violent rhetoric. Most of the Arizona Tea Bag politicos would rather bankrupt the state than write a gun law, let people with brown skin walk their streets without papers, or raise taxes. Palin tweets about pitbulls, mama grizzlies, and reloading. There's no denying the Beck/Limbaugh connection and the way actual Repubs talk. That's the difference. That's endorsement. That's what foments cultural shifts. That's the link, indirect as it may be, between violent acts and Beck/Limbaugh cum Republican hate speech. This kind of endorsement is undeniably absent from the Dems and even the Left's cable media.
We're not talking about emotions or strong language here. Those have a place in debate/argument. You should be passionate about what you believe, but you should be able to argue for it on its merits, not by calling for the elimination of your opponents. You're allowed to get angry during the course of a debate, but you don't specifically name someone you'd hit with a shovel.(that's often referred to as "assault") I think even you can see the difference between that and invoking the expression (with no PERSON as the target) about bringing a knife to a gunfight when speaking VERY clearly about FUNDRAISING.
There's a slight difference between direct speech and figurative language...even if the direct speech is presented as a tasteless joke, it's direct, almost literal, NOT about fundraising. Calling for a Chicago'68-like riot at the Denver Democratic Convention is NOT a metaphor. It's a direct call. Poisoning Pelosi's wine or killing Charlie Rangel by hitting him in the head with a shovel may be just jokes, but they are also explicit, violent statements. I guess that's what makes them funny... among a circle of like-minded friends, but not in a public broadcast.
There's also a considerable difference between a psychopath stating some connection for his acts, and a culture that condones the acts. John Hinckley shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because it somehow fit with his world view based on The Catcher in the Rye. So are Foster and Salinger to blame? Uh, no, but that's not quite the same as Klansman, encouraged by their culture and their political leaders, lynching blacks in the 50s and 60s now is it. I think it's fair to say there's a connection in the latter, but not in the former.
Richard Nixon and his buddy, then VP at CBS, had the Smothers Brothers removed from television for far less inflammatory, far less specific, and far more sophisticated humor than what Beck and Limbaugh have gotten away with for years. And THAT was when the Republicans still pretended to be civil. Today, they don't even bother pretending anymore. Do you honestly think it's not just a matter of time? If this kind of thing DID go on in the left, it would have been outlawed in Arizona by now!
Luth
Out
Monday, January 10, 2011
Hate Speech and The Right
Let's start with this link to Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1
From there, let's talk about the real difference between emotional, biased reporting... say the kinds you'll find plenty of examples of on MSNBC, and hate speech, the kind you find examples of on Fox. Or better yet, let's let Krugman sum it up with a few quotes from the article at that link:
Krugman begins by asking this question:
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
By way of an answer, Krugman pieces together some crazy shit that Fox and the right will certainly begin to wildly explain away, but a few of the more salient points follow (from Krugman's piece):
As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
... there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
I know... I know... Krugman, like so many Yale and MIT trained, Harvard Published, and Stanford, Yale, and Princeton-employed economists is clearly one of those liberal wackos who's long since fallen off the left end of the flat earth...nevermind the Nobel Prize, or the John Bates Clark Medal. He's clearly an idiot who knows not what he's talking about! Right.
I don't even know how to respond to the kind of blindness that doesn't allow folks to see exactly where the rhetoric of the right has led us. If you can't or won't see it for yourself, there's likely no changing your mind, but the fact remains that incitements to, and the use of the language of violence, and all out calls for it are found on just one "news" network, and, at least as far as a cultural swing, just one end of the political spectrum... and one end alone.
There may be childish, emotional arguments, name-calling, and jabs coming from the MSNBC end of the spectrum, but folks there don't protest funerals or urge their followers to pick up guns or behead people... they don't Tweet for them to "reload."
In order to avoid having to use the F-word in this post, I'm going to finish with some more from Krugman's piece:
Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
...Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
I gotta tell ya, to hear this ivy-leaguer point out many of the same observations I've noticed throughout my years of surveying Fox, CNN, and MSNBC kind of makes me feel a little better about the state U diploma I FINALLY got in the mail this week. I also gotta tell ya these observations are about more than a little disagreement based solely on one's political bias. They represent a decisive difference in one's actual respect for one's fellow man. I suspect this difference may have something to do with some kind of ulterior motive... say, perhaps, a reward in another life...one that justifies all manner of horrible behavior in this life, eh?
Ah, but that's a line Krugman will not cross. Our current paradigm is such that social scientists, no matter how dismal, would rather fail to explain a phenomena than suggest there may be a religious cause to it. And with that, before I either use, or incite use of the F-word...
Luth
Out
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1
From there, let's talk about the real difference between emotional, biased reporting... say the kinds you'll find plenty of examples of on MSNBC, and hate speech, the kind you find examples of on Fox. Or better yet, let's let Krugman sum it up with a few quotes from the article at that link:
Krugman begins by asking this question:
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
By way of an answer, Krugman pieces together some crazy shit that Fox and the right will certainly begin to wildly explain away, but a few of the more salient points follow (from Krugman's piece):
As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
... there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
I know... I know... Krugman, like so many Yale and MIT trained, Harvard Published, and Stanford, Yale, and Princeton-employed economists is clearly one of those liberal wackos who's long since fallen off the left end of the flat earth...nevermind the Nobel Prize, or the John Bates Clark Medal. He's clearly an idiot who knows not what he's talking about! Right.
I don't even know how to respond to the kind of blindness that doesn't allow folks to see exactly where the rhetoric of the right has led us. If you can't or won't see it for yourself, there's likely no changing your mind, but the fact remains that incitements to, and the use of the language of violence, and all out calls for it are found on just one "news" network, and, at least as far as a cultural swing, just one end of the political spectrum... and one end alone.
There may be childish, emotional arguments, name-calling, and jabs coming from the MSNBC end of the spectrum, but folks there don't protest funerals or urge their followers to pick up guns or behead people... they don't Tweet for them to "reload."
In order to avoid having to use the F-word in this post, I'm going to finish with some more from Krugman's piece:
Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
...Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
I gotta tell ya, to hear this ivy-leaguer point out many of the same observations I've noticed throughout my years of surveying Fox, CNN, and MSNBC kind of makes me feel a little better about the state U diploma I FINALLY got in the mail this week. I also gotta tell ya these observations are about more than a little disagreement based solely on one's political bias. They represent a decisive difference in one's actual respect for one's fellow man. I suspect this difference may have something to do with some kind of ulterior motive... say, perhaps, a reward in another life...one that justifies all manner of horrible behavior in this life, eh?
Ah, but that's a line Krugman will not cross. Our current paradigm is such that social scientists, no matter how dismal, would rather fail to explain a phenomena than suggest there may be a religious cause to it. And with that, before I either use, or incite use of the F-word...
Luth
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)