The Filter of the Press

On Meet the Press this Sunday there was discussion of the Bush Administration's frustration with an apparent filter on news from Iraq. It seems to them, and to me, that good news is censored and bad news is sent through. Immediately after the other three panelist bemoaned any and every piece of bad news William Safire pointed out that the previous answers were a classic example of the filter in question. Even after highlighting the existence of the filter, Katty Kay from BBC talked about how the race for the Democrat nomination would have to be resolved on something other than the bad news that Iraq was. She's clearly deluded by her own propaganda.

The war in Iraq was a success and the current situation there is much better than before we evicted the Dictator. The fact that we have yet to find massive quantities of WMDs doesn't change this. Yet according to the press this failure is much more important to harp on than the numerous mass graves and the fact that these will no longer be made.

Another failure according to the press is the large amount of money needed to reconstruct Iraq. The reason we have to spend billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq has much less to do with the damage from the war than it does with billions of dollars Hussein put into his palaces, his weapons programs and crates of cash scattered all over the city instead of maintaining the road, hospitals and schools.

In Support of My Opinion about Terry Gross

{see my post Oct 9, 2003}

NPR : The Ombudsman at National Public Radio

As I admitted in my earlier Blog about Terry Gross, I only heard the end of her interview with Bill O'Reilly. According to the NPR Ombudsman,

Finally, an aspect of the interview that I found particularly disturbing: It happened when Terry Gross was about to read a criticism of Bill O'Reilly's book from People magazine. Before Gross could read it to him for his reaction, O'Reilly ended the interview and walked out of the studio. She read the quote anyway.

That was wrong. O'Reilly was not there to respond. It's known in broadcasting as the "empty chair" interview, and it is considered an unethical technique and should not be used on NPR.

This is exactly what caused me to radically change my opinion of Ms. Gross. Not only did she do an empty chair interview, but the quote was purely an ad hominem attack from a book reviewer for People magazine. I later read the complete review in People. Half of the "book review" was used to attack O'Reilly personally. That's hardly a source that I would find important or compelling enough to wrap up a contentious interview.

More key quotes from the Ombudsman:

[B]y coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop.

and

By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly.

finally

I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias.

Even an NPR representative has to admit that this is clear proof that there is a bias at NPR. No surprise to anyone, really, despite the protestation of those on the left to the contrary.

Cost Based Optimization of our System of Government.

When did we move from building a system of government around principles to building it around costs? Let's look at a few examples.

Maryland has a mandatory helmet law for motorcycle riders. The pro argument is that when motorcyclist have accidents, brain injuries cost the government a lot of money. For now, I'll stipulate that is a fact. My question is, when did this become an acceptable reason for the State to eliminate freedom? Of course, it was the state who decided that they would take on the responsibility of public health care. It is disingenuous to use this choice as the basis for the right to restrict freedoms. Either it is the job of government to ensure the health and well being of every citizen or it is not. Even if we, as a society, explicitly give the State that responsibility, it does not follow that it is also endowed with the power to eliminate any other freedom which makes that duty more costly or more difficult. For example, the State is, most definitely, charged with maintaining law and order. This task would be made much simpler if the state was allowed to torture suspects, to search without warrants or to eliminate jury trials.


If one argues that our state-financed medical system would be less expensive if motorcyclist were forced to wear helmets, you might as well argue that our justice system would cost less if freedom was eliminated. The very idea that we value freedom so much as to allow 100 guilt men go free so as to avoid 1 innocent man going to jail, has a tremendous cost associated with it. If economics becomes (continues as) the yardstick by which freedoms are allowed or revoked by the government there is no end to the revocation process.

Some Libs Just Don't Get It

Every Monday during the last hour of the Ron Smith Show, a local Democrat wonk, Frank Defilipo, participates to offer a counter-point to Ron's decidely conservative bent. Frank attracts caller who wish to test him and his view points. This usually involves criticizing his big-government ideas. Hardly a barb goes by that Frank doesn't ask the caller whether or not he enjoys having roads. Ugh! Every time I here this, I go through the roof. The constitution, a document written to severely limit the power of government, authorizes Congress to establish Post Offices and Post Roads. The most ardent Libertarian recognizes that governments have a basic responsibility for civil infrastructure. Offering up roads as justification for big government is sheet folly. Frank also uses roads as justification of high taxes. Again he's so far off the mark as to warrant ridicule. Roads are paid for by direct taxes or user fees. The price of every gallon of gas sold includes a very large tax which (in theory) directly funds roads. Gas guzzler or heavy trucks pay more in user fees than small cars or hybrids -- it's proportional to use. The more you drive, the more you pay for the upkeep of roads. I'm not exactly sure of the math. In other words, the gas tax may not be enough to subsidize roads completely or it might be more than enough. Regardless that is only one source of direct revenue related to driving. Car registration, driver's license renewal fees, revenue from speed tickets, toll booths, sales tax on cars and now the infamous red-light cameras are all ways the users of roads directly pay for this infrastructure. What Flip seems to miss is that we Libertarians are for limited government not the absence of any government.

The Music Industry

Vivendi is cutting about 11% of the staff of its music division due to slumping sales. If sales are slumping, why haven't we seen drops in prices? While then the cost of producing CD's has fallen to pennies, they are still selling them for $15. Why? Eight to nine dollars for a new CD is fair, should stimulate sales and reduce pirating.

USA Patriot Act

We continue to hear propaganda from the administration that the none of us should be scared of the powers, additional powers, being usurped by the government. I originally wrote granted to but then I couldn't figure out who was granting these additional powers. "They" tell us that they only want the ability to chase terrorists with the same laws used against drug dealers -- what's wrong with that? The inherent assumption is that the laws the government uses against drug dealers are fine and dandy with the population. After all , everyone hates drug dealers, so any law designed to catch these bad people must be a good thing. Unfortunately for thousands of law-abiding citizens and even State and Local governments, the warnings of the Constitution and the Founders are going unheeded. The entire point of the Constitution is that power in the hands of the {Federal} government needs to be finite and express. When a government is allowed to grant to itself more power, it will do just that and this usurpation has no limit so long as the Constitution is seen as a "living" document. Try to play poker with "living" rules -- ones which change with the will of the powerful. It's not much fun, unless you're in charge


State News - StatesmanJournal.com
Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon attorney general's office, said that although residents who participate in the state medical marijuana program are operating legally under state law, they still risk federal prosecution. According to the Tenth Amendment this should NEVER happen. One government or the other has been granted the authority over the administering of drugs; the other has not.

Please raise your hand if you want these Gordian knots to be applied to even more violations. Imagine if the California recall petitioners were classified as enemy combatants by the Feds. Their crime under Federal law could be something nicely ambiguous like Subverting the Democratic Process -- a rhetorical charge actually made by some. Therefore, they could collect signatures while sheriffs and police officers walk right by, but then get arrested by a clean cut guy in a suit and dark glasses: an agent if you will.

If you read the anti-federalist papers you find that there were many objections to the power of taxation, granted to the Federal government for the sole purpose of raising money for self defense. It was argued that this narrowly construed power would eventually be expanded to serve the passing fancy of the elite. Sure enough, it has. This has occurred, as it was bound to do, with every power given the Federal government. The power to regulate interstate commerce now means that anything that is remotely connected to a service or product which may at some time cross a state boundary is fair game for government regulation and oversight. The power to guard the nation's borders means that now any crime which may involve the crossing of national borders can be regulated in any manner which the rulers see fit. The case in point: If marijuana sometimes arrives from outside the US, the Feds have the right, duty and moral obligation to make sure that legal (so Oregonians think) users of Medical Marijuana should be jailed.

If the drug war and it's bevy of laws is the role model for the USA Patriot Act, we may as well bury the Constitution far, far away where it's message won't get in the way of making us all safe.

Asner's an Idiot of Titanic Proportion

WorldNetDaily: Ed Asner: 'Hannity's next ... just like we
went after Limbaugh'

The next thing we know, Mr. Asner will be interviewed as a political wonk on Meet the Press and This Week.

Let's review Stalin's key statistic.

Based on recently declassified Soviet archival data, the estimate of the number of "excess deaths" due to terror for the entire period from 1927-1937 (10 years) ranges anywhere from 4 to 11 million, most likely in the range of 4 to 5 million. 1 Stalin's in a league with Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler, yet this is inconsequential to Mr. Asner.

Is Demonization the Only Answer?

On Sixty Minutes the articles on SUV's was just more of the same rhetoric the left is so good at. Was there a single voice asking if the Federal government has the authority to regulate gas mileage? Was there any discussion of the fact that even the best performing cars get 0 miles per gallon while they sit in traffic jams or at backups due to toll facilities? In order to explain the increasing oil requirements of the US, do they look to the increasing distances Americans are commuting? Of course, that would just cloud the demonization efforts of the Left to denigrate individuals exercising freedom of choice. People are choosing to live farther away from their jobs in order to satisfy other needs: bigger or cheaper house, better schools, safer streets, lower taxes.

Rather than use the government as a tool to limit the choice of automobile I can drive, why not attempt to achieve the same goals by increasing my freedoms. Eliminating toll booths would increase the gas mileage of every car which has to endure these abominations. I'm more than willing to see the gas tax increase in order to make up for the difference in revenue so as to make my proposal revenue neutral. But it's better than revenue neutral, not paying for toll booth attendants or maintenance is a positive revenue flow.

Increase the number of traffic circles and decrease the number of stop lights. Circles are far more efficient at keeping traffic moving which also increases gas mileage. Not to mention that circles have no expensive equipment to maintain and do not require electricity to function. Needing no electricity means less oil but also means that it works during blackouts.

Build more and better roads. The idea that Americans will be persuaded from their cars and onto buses by making commuting intolerable has been shown to be a complete pipedream. We don't live a European lifestyle that makes living on public transportation pratical. We don't shop in small butcher shops and bakeries that are on every block. We shop at Warehouse clubs and buy packs of toliet paper that physically require an SUV to get them home. Instead of perpetuating the idea that if we don't build it, they won't drive we should try to get people to their destination as fast as possible.

Another possible way government can be used to create more freedoms rather than restrict them is to provide strong tax incentives for allowing employees to telecommute or work condensed schedules. Four 10-hour days or working from home one day a week reduces commuting by 20% which increase the effective gas mileage.

Gun Fantasies

On CSI, there was a story that started with a little boy shooting himself in the foot with a gun he claimed he found. When the investigator asked the mother if the little boy could have gotten the gun from anyone in the house the mother replied, "Oh, no. My husband and I don't believe in guns." Huh? I don't believe in the tooth fairy; there's no proof such a creature exists. But I can assure you that guns do exist and residing in a state of disbelief will not make them go away. In fact, living in a state of denial is exactly what precipitated the little boy's injury. If the parents had a clue they would have taught him respect for firearms not ignorance. They would have taught him that if he were to ever see a gun, not in the hands of a competent adult, that he should leave the gun alone and immediately report it to the closest authority figure. Of course this is the message of the National Rifle Association's Eddie the Eagle program, but someone who doesn't believe in guns wouldn't believe in gun safety either.

Terry Gross

I heard the end of the Terry Gross (of NPR's Fresh Air) with Bill O'Reilly. I must say that I've lost a lot of respect for Ms. Gross. When O'Reilly confronted her with the question of whether her interview with Al Franken was as confrontational, she said answered no and explained that Al wrote a book of satire. Puh-lease. Franken's vicious assaults on those who lean to the Right are anything but satire. So Ms. Gross decides to softball a Franken interview because he hides his political dogma inside a wrapper of comedy? Give me a break. Franken deserves to be treated equivalently to O'Reilly. It was clear from the few answers Ms. Gross gave that she didn't see it that way.