Right Wing News Interview With Andrew Breitbart
— Ace

Regarding his new book, Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save The World!

One thing you do thatÂ’s pretty unique is consistently re-tweet the nasty attacks made on you by liberals on twitter. Why do you do that?

Because it exposes what leftists are — that they claim to be hippy dippy and live and let live, but at the end of the day, I have found that leftists are intolerant, hateful, and totalitarian and they don’t like to hear other people’s points of view. They, in the name of tolerance, call me gay all the time, too many times for it not to be called a trend. The media does a great job of creating the perception that hope and change is the mindset of the lefty, but I see people whose first tendency when they get into a rally is to throw a trash can through a Starbucks window. When a camera is on them they say we want a revolution. They wear socialist T-shirts, hand out socialist and communist literature at their events, and my goal is to expose the Left. Re-tweeting is a very, very effective tool for exposing the Left and it’s more fun than you can possibly imagine.

He also talks about the media's control of the narrative -- that that's where the fight is usually won or lost.

According to Gallup, Americans are still by a two-to-one ratio, conservative to liberal. Because, for all of the dominant propaganda IÂ’ve seen, the American people have a more sensible underpinning. The Right makes the fundamental mistake of expecting the political class to make everything right, where I believe that itÂ’s the media class that dictates what happens in Washington and dictates what happens with cultural ties.

I go back and forth on this: Of course he's right about that. But I go back and forth on how much energy should be expended on trying to expose bias. I think it's pretty clear that the media will never change, and in fact will court bankruptcy and dwindling influence rather than change.

There are pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits to any profession. In the case of the media, you get to have a very outsized say in the country's basic trajectory towards liberalism socialism and state control or towards freedom and equality. The people in the media have, by and large, chosen the profession for those non-pecuniary benefits, and will do whatever is possible to keep them.

Plus, only liberals/lefties get promoted to the top positions, and their decisions force all lower staffers into compliance if they want any hope of a career. That's why we have a conservative media in the first place: Because a lot of conservatives in the media find they either have to fall in line with a hostile, rank point of view or else they have to depart the main of the profession entirely.

Obviously the media does everything it can to present liberal/socialist/Democratic movements as both moderate and, crucially, as attractive. People have a natural tendency to support people they find attractive, whether in terms of physical appeal or cultural affinity or the virtues of honesty, intelligence, and integrity. The media establishes a double default position to take if neither side has clearly won a debate: either choose the position deemed "moderate," because hey, split the difference in unclear cases, or support those who are attractive in one way or another. The media always decides, on your behalf, that the more liberal candidate is both espousing the more moderate position and is more worthy of emulation and respect.

People are aspirational, and wish to be attractive themselves, and are naturally drawn to those deemed attractive by an authoritative voice such as the media.

And when the media doesn't want your position to win, it's deemed radical and strange, and the people espousing it are painted as hateful, ignorant, uneducated, and stupid.

In a straight contest, there would be only one way for either side to prevail: Win on the merits. But in the media-constructed false world, liberals have three outs: Win on the merits (unlikely), have your position win as the default "moderate" position if the debate isn't clearly won, and have your position win not due to its intrinsic merits but because the people espousing it are (supposedly) more attractive.

Conservatives can only win that one way, by and large. Oh, every once in a while we get lucky with a candidate who has strong attractiveness in one way or another -- Reagan, of course, and Sarah Palin, and even George Bush, who you might forget was at one time a pretty appealing figure -- but damn if the media doesn't work overtime to make those people seem as stupid and ugly and crazy.

Watching the media strain to find weirdness and ugliness in the Tea Party highlighted this as clearly as anything else before: Are their no weird, ugly, stupid or hateful people in the left's various rabbles? Of course there are, but oddly enough the media always focuses like a laser-beam on the more physically attractive, "straighter" (i.e., has normal stuff like family and full-time job), and so on.

All successful tv shows require "relatable" main characters, and the media is running a 24/7 drama called The Eternal Struggle of The Attractive, Vital, Wise and Intelligent Against the Forces of Stupidity, Hatred, Violence, and Ignorance.

Great show, really. It's obviously successful, as tens of millions of people still watch it on a daily basis. Like most reality tv shows it's cheap to produce; and like most reality tv shows, you discover your storyline in the editing room.

I can't find fault with the production quality of this reality tv show, whether it's the dramatic editing or the sound casting choices of which Heroes and Villains to focus on, but I will note that a reality tv show is not actually "news," and watching a reality tv show does not (or at least should not) dictate the trajectory of American politics.

All of this is true, and yet I still don't know: Is Breitbart right that this should be the main (or at least a very major) focus of the movement?

I'm undecided about that, as I said. Some days I want to do little else than scream at the media. Other days I wonder what the point is of that, apart from catharsis, and the pleasing feeling of knowing you've called out a liar.

Breitbart, I'm sure, makes the case for full engagement in his book, available at Amazon.

Posted by: Ace at 08:02 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 1104 words, total size 7 kb.

Quoth the Raven: DOOM!
— Monty

Another signpost on the way to DOOM!: student-loan debt, at $1 trillion, overtakes credit-card debt. Instapundit has been writing about the higher-education bubble for a while now. I suspect that this is another kind of "magical thinking" at work -- the notion that getting a degree in, e.g., sociology or women's studies or medieval French poetry or even "business" is a sure path to success in the workplace. But this boils down to basic questions of supply and demand, as do so many things: if the supply of college grads goes up while the demand for those graduates goes down, the value of the college degree drops.

There is also the problem that an undergraduate degree is no longer a sure sign of knowledge or accomplishment -- the relentless grade-inflation and watering-down of the curriculum has debased the college-education coin. If we achieve the cherished dream of nearly every child having a college degree, then what real value would a college degree have? It's like that line from The Incredibles where Mom says, "Everyone is special, Dash," and Dash says, "That's just another way of saying that no one is." (Chuckit sends this little bit of gallows humor on the subject.)

E. J. Dionne, the reliably-ridiculous leftist hack at the Washington Post, asserts that the rich have a "duty" to the rest of us. This kind of nonsense fills me with a positively Randian outrage. Savor the stupid:

An enlightened ruling class understands that it can get richer and its riches will be more secure if prosperity is broadly shared, if government is investing in productive projects that lift the whole society and if social mobility allows some circulation of the elites. A ruling class closed to new talent doesnÂ’t remain a ruling class for long.

Somehow, the rich bastards are keeping the poor folk down! The government tries to open the doors (notice the fawning "government investing in productive projects" line) but the rich bastards keep slamming it! Dionne is an Alpha fool among the legions of lesser fools, and deserves heaps of ridicule for this festering carbuncle of an essay. But Dionne, as a well-heeled pet of his Democrat overlords, does neatly encapsulate the hypocrisy of so many rich lefties who opine for higher taxes: it's not that they want to pay higher taxes (they could simply write a check to the Treasury if that were the case); they want everyone else to pay higher taxes.

And as far as American companies paying their "fair share" (how I hate that term!) in taxes: American companies pay the 6th-highest effective tax rate. (Via Insty.)

If you try to regulate the risk away from many enterprises, you tend to drive away the risk-takers. Anything worthwhile in life carries risk; a risk-free life is a boring, narrow, impoverished, and colorless life. Success implies the possibility of failure.

Greece denies that a "debt restructuring" (read: default) is in the works. Translation: a debt-restructuring is imminent. Given Greece's recent history, once something has been officially denied it's almost certain to happen.

The newest inductee into the Loyal Order of the Terminally Boned (LOTB): Maine! Let's give them a big hand! California looks on approvingly, and hands Maine the LOTB's official WELCOME TO THE RANKS OF THE BONED! lapel pin.

[UPDATE 1]: S&P changes US debt ratings to "negative outlook". I have to say that I'm not particularly fond of the ratings agencies, given their miserable performance over the years. They've been rating stuff at investment-grade for years that I wouldn't use as bung-wipe. The ratings agencies are the C- students of the finance world. Still...it'll be interesting to see what kind of pressure this puts on Geithner and Bernanke. Their "We'll print more!" plan to end the Great Recession is encountering some pushback from the bond vigilantes. [Thanks to Andy and Guy Fawkes.]

[UPDATE 2]: China on the verge of a banking crisis? Chinese finance (being government-controlled to a large degree) is so opaque that the only answer is, "Who knows?" It's obvious that Chinese banks are carrying enormous amounts of bad loans on their books, but since Chinese banks are de facto owned by the government, they can continue to do this kind of thing indefinitely.

[UPDATE 2]: I'll just let this quote speak for itself.

For the first time since the Great Depression, households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes.

I don't call him "Uncle Sugar" because he's stingy!
more...

Posted by: Monty at 05:08 AM | Comments (216)
Post contains 804 words, total size 6 kb.

Top Headline Comments 4-18-11
— Gabriel Malor

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:53 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— Maetenloch

Finally.

200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes

Here Swedish doctor and statistician, Hans Rosling, presents how development has affected different countries over the last two centuries in a very unique way. Industrial and technological development may be bad words among many people these days, but there's no question that they've been the greatest mechanism for improving life quality in the history of the human race. Things really are getting better. And will keep getting better if we don't let the neo-luddite elite stop it.

This may have appeared on the blog before, but if you haven't watched it take the four minutes to do so. And if you have 20 minutes, here's the full original TED presentation. Thanks to David D. who sent this to me a long time ago.

more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:58 PM | Comments (584)
Post contains 1017 words, total size 10 kb.

Obama's Plan To Have A Plan Relies 60% on Tax Increases (But That's Not How You Get Him)
— Ace

Via Hot Air, Pethokoukis looks beyond Obama's dishonest words to the hard numbers.

He claimed his plan was 3:1 in favor of spending cuts to tax increases; in fact it's closer to 2:3 in favor of tax hikes.

As I keep saying, this is not how you get him though. Oh, this helps. The dishonesty -- because it shows he's not about hope and change but deceit and socialism.

But the American public continues to think (as they think that foreign aid is a major spending requirement) that "raising taxes" just means raising taxes by 5% or 10% on the truly rich, and then everything will be just dandy.

Now, the public has a reluctance to do that, because they understand that higher tax rates tend to lead to a worse economy and are somewhat unfair in penalizing success, but if the options are between a tax hike on the rich, which they are reluctant to agree to, and reforms to elder welfare, which they are exceedingly reluctant to agree to, they'll choose the former, ten out of ten times.

They won't do so gladly but they will do it.

Which is why the drumbeat has to be sounded that only tax hikes on the middle class is a plausible way to raise the excessive size of the government Barack Obama is determined to have.

That they will not agree to.

Republicans must, must, must accept, for hypothetical purposes, the existence of Obama's proposed tax hikes, and show they are not nearly enough to balance the books, and ask, over and over, "And then what?"

The public likes easy options. Everyone does. Unfortunately, they also like easy options which in fact are not even options. This tendency accounts for their desire to balance the budget by cutting the 1% item of foreign aid. Sure, foreign aid should be cut, but this is not a serious plan to reduce the deficit, unless you define "serious" as "along the order of one half of a percent."

It's only when they're disabused over convenient evasions and happy illusions will they focus on the real options, which do in fact involve pain, whether it's Ryan's pain or Obama's pain.

Obama's a politician (and nothing else -- not a statesman, for certain, and not even, I don't think, a particularly good man), and of course he is selling the easy but illusory "solution" of tax hikes on other people as the nation's panacea.

Ryan's painful prescription looks very unappealing indeed compared to Obama's supposedly pain-free platitudes.

We can only win (on this or on anything) if the public is made aware of the facts -- that Obama's real plan is extremely painful; he's just lying about what that pain is.

Either the pain will be significant tax hikes on the middle class -- from 25% to 35% (about what the rich are taxed at now) -- or hyperinflation, default, and depression.

Those are the actual options Obama is offering. A or B. He is lying that there is some Magic Choice C that avoids both.

There is a choice c, but it's not magic -- it comes at the expense of touching the hitherto untouchable elder welfare programs. There is going to be some actual reductions in benefits here, but not really all that much, because market forces will tend to deliver more for less.

But all choices on the table involve pain. Obama's just lying about it, whereas Ryan is upfront about it.

If the public thinks they can tax the rich and not suffer themselves, they will, in a heartbeat. Of course they will. Who wouldn't?

Except for those committed ideologically to freedom, a distressingly small group, everyone else would choose "inflict pain on someone else, not me."

If Obama is able to dishonestly sell that as an option, the public will buy it, at least until the New Depression hits.

And what next. And what next. And what next. It must be the GOP's mantra.

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Comments (851)
Post contains 699 words, total size 5 kb.

Fareed Zakaria Shows He Is Still A Dishonest Liberal Tool [CDR M]
— Open Blogger

Last week over at Clarion Advisory, I talked about Zakaria and his post on why Ryan's plan won't work. I thought at the time that I couldn't wait to see how he would respond to what Obama was going to say at his speech. Well, Fareed has responded and I'm not surprised. He loves it. Or at least he loves Obama. Shockingly (sarc) Fareed does not say that Obama's plan won't work like he did with Ryan.

This last feature may be the most important specific proposal in Obama’s plan, and a sign of its credibility, because it addresses the glaring flaw in almost every budget proposal: magical assumptions about economic growth, tax revenue, efficiencies and cost reductions. On paper, of course, these assumptions show the deficit falling drastically. A fail-safe ensures that if the assumptions don’t work out — which is highly likely — and the deficit expands, Congress is forced to act.

Um, why aren't you slamming Obama's proposal because it IS full of flaws in regard to magical assumptions about economic growth, tax revenue, efficiencies and cost reductions? Hasn't EVERYTHING he has predicted budget and economic wise been WAY off the mark? Heck, this is the second time Obama has strayed from the standard 10 year outlook to stretch the data to fit his statements. His new proposal goes out to 12 years vice Ryan's 10. Shouldn't that make you question the proposal and the validity of its assumptions? I assume the only reason why you like this is because of this magical failsafe but as Keith Hennessey points out, that is nothing more than a tax being levied at taxpayers who itemize their deductions which is a very small percentage of taxpayers. Worse, this failsafe only applies to 10% of the federal budget. 90% of spending would be EXEMPT from across the board cuts. If we are in dire straits and a trigger is enacted to raise taxes, shouldn't ALL spending be affected? Why is it acceptable to have elected officials fail at balancing the budget in your eyes and instead rely on the taxpayers who itemize to pay for their egregious dereliction of duty? It really is pathetic of you Fareed to go after Republicans and then take a pass with Democrats when they absolutely fail to address things in the budget that you say are important. This failsafe is a JOKE and you are a joke for endorsing it. Where IS the incentive for lawmakers to address budget shortfalls if the ONLY penalty is to raise taxes on a select group of taxpayers and only cut spending in 10% of the budget??? more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:06 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 840 words, total size 6 kb.

Open Thread
— Monty

If the ongoing meltdown of the United States has you so distracted that you find it hard to focus on books, this thread can be used as a place to practice primal-scream therapy and other stress-reducing techniques.

Posted by: Monty at 05:55 AM | Comments (138)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Sunday Book Thread
— Monty

I've been doing a fair bit of remedial reading in economics over the past couple of weeks to refresh my memory, all so I wouldn't make any rookie mistakes in my "Economics at AoSHQ U" series (Part One - The Economy, Part Two - Money, and I haven't finished Part Three yet).

The very best introductory book on basic economics is Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lessson. It's a slim little book first published more than fifty years ago (though updated since) that is simply the best primer on basic economics ever published. If you only buy one book on economics, this is the one to buy. It's also appropriate for younger readers -- I've long thought it should be required reading in high schools across the land.

A step up from Hazlitt's book is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, now in its fourth edition. This really should be the standard introductory text on the topic -- it's not a short book, but neither is it a difficult one. It's as lively and engaging as Sowell's other books.

I've also touched on Murray Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking, since the topic of Part 3 of my econ series will involve banking.

And since I like Wall Street soap-opera, I got the Kindle edition of Fatal Risk: A Cautionary Tale of AIG's Corporate Suicide. AIG, you'll recall, was the chump-sucka in the game being run by the investment banks during the runup to the 2008 subprime meltdown -- AIG was selling loads of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) that they had no possible way of ever paying off should the worst come to pass. AIG (and one of its counterparties, the investment bank Lehman Brothers) are classic examples of corporate delusion and failure to adequately manage risk.

What's everyone else reading?

Posted by: Monty at 05:17 AM | Comments (83)
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

CAC'S Bacon Review: The Breakfast Cupcake (LATE NIGHT Edition for good reason)
— CAC

Art, schmart. You guys care about bacon, so I will deliver (art thread tomorrow for my fellow Volvo-driving morons).

This week, I traveled to a sacred place, My Delight CupCakery in Ontario, California. I made the mistake of coming here on their Event Saturday (complete with DJ, food trucks, and hundreds of patrons), so upon arrival I was greeted by a massive line that would take over an hour to slog through.
Dispirited? Are you kidding me?

WARNING. This review that follows is literally pure bacon-novelty porn. If bacon items had a Jordan Carver, this would be it. I use strong, very suggestive language in the following review, with lots of graphic images. If you want to avoid the embarrassment of your taste buds spooging (a phenomena that, I assure you, happens during consuming this product), I suggest you skip this. There is also video that some viewers may consider disturbing and my fiancée would consider extremely embarrassing. Enjoy, but don't say I didn't warn you. Graphic images below. more...

Posted by: CAC at 07:24 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 658 words, total size 5 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— Genghis

Seattle Skool Repurposes Easter Eggs as “Spring Spheres”

If only this shit was made up. But it's not.

"A sophomore at a local private high school thinks an effort to make Easter politically correct is ridiculous. Jessica, 16, told KIRO Radio's Dori Monson Show that a week before spring break, the students commit to a week-long community service project. She decided to volunteer in a third grade class at a public school, which she would like to remain nameless."

"At the end of the week I had an idea to fill little plastic eggs with treats and jelly beans and other candy, but I was kind of unsure how the teacher would feel about that," Jessica said."

Cue ominously stoopid music...

She was concerned how the teacher might react to the eggs after of a meeting earlier in the week where she learned about "their abstract behavior rules."

"I went to the teacher to get her approval and she wanted to ask the administration to see if it was okay," Jessica explained. "She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat 'spring spheres.' I couldn't call them Easter eggs."

Rather than question the decision, Jessica opted to "roll with it." But the third graders had other ideas. "When I took them out of the bag, the teacher said, 'Oh look, spring spheres'and all the kids were like 'Wow, Easter eggs.' So they knew," Jessica said.

The Seattle elementary school isn't the only government organization using spring over Easter. The city's parks department has removed Easter from all of its advertised egg hunts."

We are so fucked.

Swiped the egg pic from here where there are other humorous egg-related pics.

Did you think you'd be getting off easy tonight? No. No you will not. You will go below the fold and face your demons, tribbles and hedgehogs... more...

Posted by: Genghis at 06:06 PM | Comments (642)
Post contains 1077 words, total size 8 kb.