Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Random Media Notes

First off, Fox News, you are a bunch of perverts and pederasts. How can one justify excluding Ron Paul from a debate while inviting Rudy Giuliani. Last I checked Paul got more votes in Iowa than Giuliani and is leading in money. Comparatively, I would consider him viable. Now he is a crank and has some positively loony ideas, but that hardly distinguishes him from the rest of the field. Is slavish devotion to a discredited idea like the gold standard worse than embracing the fair tax (Huckabee), or advocating the invasion of half of the world (Giuliani), or the doubling of Gitmo (Romney)? Paul is being excluded because he is anti-war and this is not consonant with Fox News editorial position. I would be ok with his exclusion if Fox News simply owned up to this. Bias is inherent and the media will always have its positions and axe to grind, just own up to it. Give up the fair and balanced schtick and just say that you are an appendage of the RNC and that you are following in the great tradition of political propagandists from pamphleteers to Leni Riefenstahl.

Next rant item, NY Times has just hired Bill Kristol I gather as William Safire's permanent replacement. Now, I actually think Bill Kristol is sort of smart when it comes to political commentary although in the big picture policy world he is basically batshit crazy. This is not an anomalous result, I am sure Stalin would have been a great grassroots organizer. That said his viewpoint is essentially the same as David Brooks: "Compassionate Conservatism" or "Big Government Conservatism" or "National Greatness Conservatism" or whatever you would like to call it. A Kristol column is as if Brooks rewrote one of his own columns after frontal lobotomy was performed on him. NY Times would have served its readers much better if they had hired somebody with a small-government or libertarian orientation, or at least somebody smarter of any political persuasion. Maybe just run a dilbert comic strip right there instead? Ok that's all, I am running out of steam.

3 comments:

crackerjaxon said...

Why do people support an unbacked currency that can be created at will by politicians? Have they repealed the law of supply and demand?

Anti-Everything said...

Most of the currency that is created is actually created due to the "law" (not really a law so much as it is a model) of supply and demand.

When there is a demand for a greater amount of available credit, currency is created through loans and other forms of lending.

xtrachromosomeconservative said...

I don't understand the allure of the gold standard. Since moving to a fiat currency in the 20th century expansions have been longer and recessions shorter. Win win. Or as Michael Scott would say win-win-win.