Jim Morin for January 13, 2010

Yet another reason to avoid Fox

GLADIUS: You Betcha!

Eh, she will do fine there. I can’t help but think “She dropped being a governor of Alaska for that?” though.

Y’know, it’s funny that Fox seems to be the place where conservatives go when they’ve fallen out of grace with the rest of the world…

With Fox trying to raise the fees it takes from the Cable Companies, and eventually the subscribers. I’d like to see my cable company conduct a poll, raise fees or drop Fox. I’d vote to drop Fox.

av8or, I don’t hate her. I just think she is not smart enough to run the State of Alaska, and most certainly not smart enough to run the US.

She may be the perfect example of the Peter Principle in action. I’m glad she resigned. Now if only she’s go away too.

Palin represents politics as a reality show. I don’t hate her, and I don’t want to drive her away. I hope she tries to run for the Republican nomination. Even if she doesn’t win, she could help to fracture the party even more.

Well, av8torGenius, don’t you know? Libs hate everybody that fails to promise you everything, at no cost, except to the top 4 percent of the highest income people in the country.

4uk4ata, no one ever talks about Alaska. Lots of people talk about Fox News. If McCain hadn’t picked her would you have ever heard of her? I agree that being Governor of a state should be a bigger deal. But highly watched network news gets attention from people in every state.

Pick a state that’s a couple away from your own. Do you really know what the governor is up to there? I admit I know Blagovich is doing stupid things….but only because he makes national news by doing stupid things. That’s why she took the job at Fox News. Now everyone knows what she’s working on. Not something I want for myself but that’s her call.

Seems that old tail-gunner Joe was quiet popular in his time and about as much concerned with the truth of what he said.

More fair and balanced reporting.

obambi’s nemesis

Fox news is more profitable than CNN, MSNBC and the evening news broadcasts of CBS, NBC and ABC- all combined! Somebody must be watching.

@HOWGOZIT: But, of course! Liberals do what conservatives can’t (at least won’t) do… study the problem, and consider others’ views to find the root of a problem, instead of relying on the advice of one’s circle of suck-ups, going on gut feelings, prejudices, the “bottom line,” testosterone overload, and overly-simplistic proverbs (in other words, “good old conventional wisdom”) to justify throwing money, resources, and blood to bring a problem to crisis stage, hoping Jesus the Conqueror will intervene and make everything alright.

My dislike of Palin and Fox has nothing to do with a rabid love of liberal issues. I dislike her for adding to the Republicans poor image. I do NOT want the Republican party fractured because I would like a real choice in elections. I do not vote a straight ticket. I don’t want to be put into the position of leaving a voting space blank because I can’t stand either candidate.

I dislike Fox because I can’t trust their accuracy. Their political slant is not an issue for me. However, I need my news to be accurate even if the viewpoint is skewed.

I have to handed to you, the lefties.

You have been on the wrong side of history - for ever.

You have absolutely nothing to show for your efforts, except millions of people murdered or otherwise persecuted.

And yet, everyone that does not agree with you is an idiot.

What is it that makes you so enlightened?

“A lady who is no longer holding a public office, who from her kitchen writing on face book caused a wave of concern over death panels.”

Oh yeah, she’s good at what she does. She gained both public fame (or infamy) and political influence with that. Only what she made politically toxic was the idea to subsidize end-of-life counceling, , which already exists and has supporters on both sides of the aisle. Funding for that existed in the 2003 health care bill the GOP was pushing, btw. (source: http://tinyurl.com/mw8pko) . Where was the “death panels” cry then?

Oh, and the idea had supporters much more recently than 2003. It was in a bill co-sponsored by Charles Boustany, a Republican, earlier in 2009. ( source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-17-deathpanel_N.htm ) . I don’t remember anyone making death panel remarks there, either - it was a rather low-key affair, all in all.

Sarah Palin is an opportunist, and a very, very skilled one at that. That’s not necessarily a bad quality in a pol, you just need to recognize what you are getting.

At least she has some credentials for Fox television: she has some experience broadcasting, knows how to smile for the cameras, and can state open malarky with deep sincerity. By the way, folks, FoxNews ITSELF refers to almost everyone named on these posts as “opinion,” not news. “Fair and balanced,” right. I’d respect them more if they didn’t pretend to balance.

Peter, was winning WW II on the wrong side of history? Don’t forget- it was Henry Ford and Prescott Bush who were supporting the rise of the “other side”.

It was bound to happen after she resigned from the governorship of Alaska. She is after the money during this time frame of fame. So what else is new?

A beauty queen that does not want world peace?

Fox News is more profitable because all their reporting comes straight from the RNC talking points.

Let’s see, a few “left” issues that weren’t on the wrong side of history –

child labor laws consumer protection laws minimum wage laws the abolition of slavery the extension of the vote to women civil rights for all citizens social security national health insurance (everywhere in the industrialized world except the US) Deposit insurance

That’s just off the top of my head. Anyone got any additions?

Notice that this list s not intended to be partisan – some of these were supported by the Grand Old Party when it was The Grand Old Party. The point is that these were progressive in their time, though most are now simply part of what we take for granted in a modern civil society.

lonecat, yes, we need the left, but have you ever heard of the pendulum-swing analogy? Just because policies originating on the left are helpful, doesn’t mean we should continue forevermore moving to the left.

“One that does not have to use chants of hops and change. One that has held a position of authority. One that has faced issues of real life. One that got to where she was without the Acorn Chicago political machine. You know the corrupter machine that put Obama into power because Shirrerlly was to polarizing. But I will give it to you she is a Obama but with a back ground.”

Oh, really?

Anti-Obama? To a point, her schtick is that she does the same thing from the other side. From then on, though, I’m afraid you are being biased at best. She does bring her “hope and change” - she is considered the rising star of the GOP, and she does promise the same kind of hopes and dreams - that you’d get your country back, that you’d get people’s respects, that you’d get the vision of American you have realized. It’s not the same change as the one Obama’s supporters want, obviously. Her audience is different. Their hopes and their changes are different, too.

Positions of authority? Real life issues? She isn’t exactly leading Obama by much here, and that was debated well enough during the presidency. She was a mayor of a city and a state governor, he was a state and US senator. You mock Obama for being a community organizer, cool - he did it before graduating. So what, Sarah Palin was a sportscaster and was winning beauty pageants before she went into politics, not much better. ACORN? She had no less in common with Ted Stevens, someone with a record no less sketchy than ACORN*.

So yeah, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama’s careers have quite a few similarities. Yet what you wrote underneath is just the kind of effort to advertise Sarah Palin as the new best thing that I find laughable.

I am 4uk4ata, and that’s my opinion.

*: ACORN’s biggest scandal: several employees submit erroneous voter registration cards to show better performance, effectively defrauding ACORN. These votes are not counted, and guess who blew the whistle on the whole thing? ACORN itself.

One could consider many Fox News programs the 21st century equivalent of gladiators in the Roman Coliseum games. Equally effective in distracting the public from real issues, too.

sclark – yes, and I will also say (as I have said before) I don’t scorn serious thinkers on the right. F. A. Hayek and Leo Strauss and Robert Nozick come to mind (though Nozick is perhaps a little complex, not simply on the right). I think David Brooks is a serious political commentator, and I always listen to him with great interest.

What I was reacting to was the claim in a previous post that the left is always on the wrong side of history. As I read history, the left has done a lot of good. But because people are not being taught any history any more. they may not know how child labor laws came about, or consumer protection laws, or deposit insurance, and so on. We take these things for granted now, but at one time they were controversial, and people had to fight for them.

There are still fights to be fought. For instance, we need to work for the rights of women and children around the world. We need to see the whole world as our community, rather than as a resource we can plunder.

Jim Morin’s self portrait.

There is a difference between a liberal and a leftist.

JFK was a liberal, leftist, not that much.

I dare say that most of the lefties would vehemently disagree with much of what JFK stood for - check out his speeches …in many respects he was to the right of Reagan.

Peter – I agree that JFK was not much of a leftist. But you made the claim that the left was always on the wrong side of history. I raised several points which I claim demonstrated that the left was not always on the wrong side of history. Do you respond to these? Do you oppose child labor laws? Do you oppose consumer protection laws? Do you oppose women’s right to vote? Do you oppose school desegregation? Do you oppose voting rights protection? Do you oppose federal deposit insurance? All these were left positions.

fennec – I know about Marxian socialists, and I know about democratic socialists, but I didn’t know about manic socialists. Sounds fun. How do I join?

Real socialists are turning into manic-depressive socialists, because center-right Democrats are being called socialists, and that means they aren’t even on the political spectrum!

I have witnessed American Liberalism morph into some concoction of leftist ideologies.

The transformation was accelerated by the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Communism.

Indeed, during the Cold War era, a guy that openly admitted to consorting with Marxists, could not be elected a dog catcher, much less into a national office.

There are certain ideals that are almost exclusive to the real left, and thus it defines it, such as collectivism and statism, and … .

The ideas of human rights, child labor and such, are universal, and thus hardly leftist prerogatives.

I do have to take issue with minimum wage though, for it is spectacularly counterproductive, and hurting the very people espoused to help. As a result, the teenage unemployment is chronically high, and unskilled young people have limited avenues for an entry-level job.

Child labor laws were hardly a universal ideal – there was a long campaign to get them, and it was the left that led that fight. And of course in many parts of the world today there are no child labor laws.

I bet quite a few “universal ideals” once were fought for by the left against strong opposition until they became accepted as “universal”. For example the abolition of slavery is now universally accepted (well, except for some places) but certainly it wasn’t always universally accepted. In my own lifetime I knew people who fought for school integration and voting rights and civil rights in general against fierce opposition. Maybe now everyone accepts (perhaps grudgingly) these rights, but it was the left that fought for them.

I understand your point about the minimum wage. But when there were no minimum wage laws employers would pay less than a living wage to adults with families quite happily. Probably it’s a question to be examined in concrete detail rather than in abstract principle. Were more people better off when there were no minimum wage laws, or now that there are such. My feeling is that overall minimum wage laws are better.

It is true that a some on the left have believed in collectivization. But not all. I don’t. And there are degrees. I do believe that there is a role for the government to govern, to establish certain regulations, and even sometimes to intervene directly. But that doesn’t amount to collectivization.

I also grant that the right has had some good ideas, and I will happily steal any good idea they come up with and claim that it is universal and therefore not their property.

I’m glad that we seem to have moved towards a conversation, with give and take. I look forward to your response.

lonecat:

I hate to tell you this, but you are not a leftist.

You might be a liberal, you probably voted for the big 0, but it still does not make you a leftist.

I suspect that you don’t think that Mao, Castro or Hugo Chavez are good role models, as many in the big 0’s administration think.

things I’d add to lonecat’s list (a few “left” issues that weren’t on the wrong side of history)

worker safety laws environmental protection laws

(think toxic chemicals being dumped into streams and rivers, buried underground and seeping into water supply)

age discrimination prohibitions

(remember the time when there was a pattern of companies laying off people just before they fully vest in pension plans, etc.)

I don’t want a nanny state, but I do believe in regulations that protect people when the powerful abuse their power

Peter – well, my leftist credentials are actually not in doubt – but that’s not important.

Here’s a point I think is more important – Marxists don’t own the left. Some Marxists would like everyone to think that they own the left, and some on the right go along with that for various reasons. But there is a part of the left – which goes way back to Marx’s day – which grants much of Marx’s analysis of capitalism and neo-imperialism but disagrees with his program.

BCS – thanks for your additions to the list. Good ones.

Actually, if you read Lincoln’s speeches, you will find language strikingly similar to Marxist concepts of the importance of labor over capital. Well, peter?

harley, you ignored Obama’s two terms as an Illinois state senator. I’ve noticed the right does that frequently. Here it is again: Obama was elected to and served two full terms as a state senator.

harleyQ, I think the practice of voting “present” is a bit odd.

You may see the president “putting his finger up for a day to weeks to see which the wind blows”; I see a president seeking diverse input and undertaking deliberation before making decisions with extraordinary consequences. (BTW, it’s nice to see those two behaviors after two years of not.)

I recently heard Mullens, Chairman of the Jt. Chiefs of Staff, appointed by Bush and now serving under Obama, offer his opinion that he thinks the “dithering” comments are nonsense. He said he was impressed by and supported the width and depth of the process Obama created to make decision on next step in Afghanistan.

Suggestion: when you next want to criticize Obama, try to find an actual issue you disagree with, not just style.

Good try, Harley; but I think it’s a waste of time with these robots.