Tag Archives: Big Media/Big Tech

Critique of Bill Moyers Show

I’m a long-time fan of Bill Moyers, but I think he’s been completely off the mark on economics. I posted the comments below on his website. After a couple hours, they vanished.



0:00 – Don’t even get me started about Michael Moore’s movie. He blames Capitalism for government bailouts of wall street, even though that’s the opposite of capitalism. Then he tries to make a point for socialism at the end without providing any support for it, or acknowledging the ruin it has sowed all over the world.

4:15 – SIMON JOHNSON: Remember Wall Street convinced us that trading derivatives without any regulation, that all these kind of crazy housing loans, which are very dangerous for consumers. That all of this was sensible. All of this was a good way to sustain growth.

My reaction: Trading derivatives would not have been a problem if the traders were allowed to fail. GOVERNMENT did not let anyone fail. That’s why there was recklessness. We don’t need more regulation. We need to let irresponsible people fail. The example of “crazy housing loans” is even more glaring. GOVERNMENT REQUIRED BANKS to hold a certain portion of bad loans, mostly in minority neighborhood. REQUIRED! Also, almost all loans were subsidized by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These institution were run by government regulators – thousands of them working forty hours of week. It is government intervention that failed, not a lack of regulation.

4:45 – BILL MOYERS: ‘Does this crisis reflect something about the disproportionate influence of a few incompetent investment bankers or a deeper breakdown of capitalism?’

This is not capitalism. It’s socialism for the rich.

6:10 – SIMON JOHNSON: . . . the Obama Administration has is leaning in a better direction.

WTF? Obama, Bush W., McCain were all unanimous is supporting the bank bailouts. Obama is running the biggest deficit in history, he’s appointing the same banksters to top jobs, and he’s ignoring the most important opportunity for ‘change’ which is Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

7:30 – MARCY KAPTUR: [story about JP Morgan Chase]

Instead of encouraging people to break the law, how about encouraging Congress to STOP GIVING JP MORGAN OUR MONEY.

12:00 – MARCY KAPTUR: . . . And we know the basic rules of economics. Housing leads us to recovery. Housing was the precipitating factor in this economic downturn. Unless you dealing with the housing sector, you aren’t going to have growth in this economy.

This statement is nonsense.

12:30 – SIMON JOHNSON: This is capitalism, Bill.

No, it’s not.

15:00 – PRESIDENT OBAMA: . . . Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

You should not have given them MY money to begin with.

16:30 – MARCY KAPTUR: . . . with the largest financial crisis in American history, in the largest transfer of wealth from the American people to the biggest banks in this country, that every committee of Congress would be involved in hearings, that this would be on the news, that people would be engaged in this. What we’re seeing is– tangential hearings on very arcane aspects of financial reform . . . rather than hearings on the fundamental new architecture of reforming the American financial system, so that we have prudent lending, capital accumulation at the local level again; that we encourage savings and limit debt by the American people. Our country needs this. Those aren’t the hearings that are happening.

I don’t doubt her sincerity but I doubt her understanding. This conversation seems almost irresponsible with it’s non-mention of the money printing federal reserve. If she wants to encourage savings, stop printing money (end the fed), so that the purchasing power of somebody’s savings will be preserved. If she wants to limit debt, stop printing money (end the fed).

To me this interview seems like a “tangential hearing on a very arcane aspect” of the financial crisis.

17:15 – MARCY KAPTUR: If you want a marker at the Federal level of how serious we are to get justice out of this financial crisis, look at the F.B.I. Look at the number of people who are really prosecuting and investigation mortgage fraud and securities fraud. It is so small . . . And until those numbers increase, we will not begin to get justice.

Much easier (and cheaper) than prosecuting people is simply letting them face the consequences of their irresponsibility. Stop subsidizing bad loan, stop bailing out corrupt banks.

21:00 – MARCY KAPTUR: . . . When they messed up during the 1980s, they put their bill through the savings and loans crisis on the American people. $140 billion. . . . But that, you know, it opened the flood gates. They go, ‘Oh, we can get away with $140 billion?’ This time how many trillions have they gotten away with?

Here the conversation swing sooooooo close to the truth. The next sentence should be “We need to stop bailing them out,” or “The problem is government involvement,” or, “If we only let people fail . . .” Instead, the next sentence is a call for more government.

25:30 – MARCY KAPTUR: [discussion of cover contracts with the Federal Reserve]

Say the words, Congresswoman. END THE FED. or, at least AUDIT THE FED. SAY IT, Dammit!

27:30 – MARCY KAPTUR: [talks about restricting fundraising]

If government wasn’t controlling everything, industry wouldn’t need to lobby.

In general, this discussion is grossly incomplete. It completely ignores the federal reserve, and the cause of the financial crisis. The crisis was not cause by corrupt banks, although they certainly had a lot to do with it. The crisis was caused by artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve which flooded the world with cheap money and created an unsustainable boom. This is the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle with has predicted this and many other crashes caused by artificially low interest rates. It is almost universally ignored by governments and media.

Jim Rogers on letting people fail, and why we don’t need even more regulation:

War monger, party hack, torture apologist, liberty trampling Sean Hannity jumps on the “I’m a libertarian” bandwagon

Didn’t know Sean Hannity was a die-hard libertarian? Why, because he still faithfully supports the wars, loves the PATRIOT Act, thinks water-boarding isn’t so bad, and says our military is too small?

Well, today on his radio show he tried to persuade a caller he was a libertarian, mostly just by repeating, “Look, I’m a libertarian, buddy” over and over. Not terribly convincing. Apparently, this isn’t the first time he’s said it either.

So two of the most listened to conservative talk show hosts have converted to libertarianism? First Glenn Beck, now Sean? There are still many skeptical about Beck and his true views, but it seems safe to say that there is no way Hannity is a libertarian. So why say it?

Glenn Beck’s ratings have soared as of late, passing Hannity on Fox in popularity. Beck has actually been speaking out against the war, though, and of course, calling himself a libertarian all the while. Does Hannity think that by just saying the word, Glenn Beck viewers will tune in to his show, too? Some will no doubt say that this is further proof that Fox is trying to hi-jack the true liberty movement underway by placing neo-conservatives, cloaked as libertarians, at the head of the Tea Party movement. (Read more from examiner.com)

Trampling the 10th Amendment

I posted this video a while ago (here), but have found some good criticism of it.

I hate his implication that this fight for Constitutional rights is racially motivated. The shit you have to put up with when you believe in liberty . . .

Here’s a criticism of the video from blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com:
1. Turley is absolutely correct that “decades of precedent” in the courts oppose the view that the federal government is not authorized to enact a national health care plan. But, what he fails to point out, is that under the original meaning, intention and understanding of the Constitution – these kinds of powers would have been unthinkable. The court is, in plain English, wrong. Learn more here.

2. Neither the host nor Turley seem to have any clue about nullification – or its current efforts. Nullification has nothing to do with getting a positive ruling from the Supreme Court. It’s when a state passes a law simply refusing to implement a federal law. In fact, it has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been used to resist laws against free speech, fugitive slave laws, the use of the militia in war and more. Hardly “right-wing” at all. Learn more here.

3. Nullification has also been used quite recently – and effectively too. Approximately two-dozen states refused to implement the Bush-era Real ID act. And guess what – the courts aren’t needed, and neither is Congress. The law is a dead letter. Null and void.

4. Oh, and that pesky general Welfare clause. It doesn’t mean what they’re implying – at all. In fact, it was meant as a strict limitation on power. Here’s what James Madison had to say about it – “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

If my choice is the opinion of James Madision vs Jonathan Turley, I think I’m safe going with Madison.

Here’s what I think is most important…What both Olberman’s stand-in and Professor Turley get wrong is this – the 10th Amendment Movement is not about asking politicians to follow the Constitution. It’s not about getting permission from the Supreme Court to exercise our rights. It’s not about going to the federal government at all. Those are all failed strategies.

This movement is about moving back towards Constitutional governance whether they want us to or not.

Whether it’s 20+ states nullifying real ID, or 2 states nullifying some federal gun regulations, or 13 states nullifying federal marijuana laws, or states nullifying a national health care plan, this is about state-level activism. And, if enough states do it, the feds can’t do anything to stop it. (Read more from blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com)

Obama: We Need To Bail Out Newspapers Or Blogs Will Run The World

. . . . and my handlers will have an even harder time controlling the people.

Obama yesterday expressed concern at the sorry state of the news industry and said that he will look at a news paper bailout, because otherwise, blogs will take over the world, and that would be a threat to democracy, The Hill reports.

“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” he said.

He said he would be happy to look a bills that could give tax newspapers tax-breaks if they were to restructure as 50 (c) (3) educational corporations. One of the bills is that of Senator Ben Cardin, who has introduced the “Newspaper Revitalization Act.”

(Read more from businessinsider.com)

I think they are scared . . . . I am a blogger, hear me roar!

U.S. News attacks 9/11 truther Charlie Sheen

An acerbic attack on Charlie Sheen for the crime of questioning the official story behind 9/11, a sentiment shared by the majority of Americans and indeed the majority of the 9/11 Commission itself, appearing in U.S. News and World Report this morning relies upon cliched and completely unfounded terms of reference in a poor effort to smear Sheen as part of a “conspiracy fringe”.

In his hit piece, author Peter Roff labels 9/11 truth as an “extremist theory” and compares its adherents with those who believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing Kennedy.

So that’ll be over two thirds of the entire population of the U.S. then, Mr. Roff! In what possible way can this be described as “fringe” thinking?

An ABC News poll conducted on the 40th anniversary of the JFK assassination found that 7 in 10 Americans believe that the murder of Kennedy was the result of a wider plot, not the lone actions of Oswald.

The establishment media are still operating under a deluded and contrived perception of public opinion that has no correlation whatsoever to reality itself.

Roff goes on to reference Van Jones and dismiss 9/11 truthers as a “fringe element” but concedes that they are politically influential and that establishment Democrats and Republicans “need to deal with them”.

Just by coincidence, while arguing that 9/11 truthers represent a “fringe element,” Roff fails to mention that the majority of American citizens doubt the official government version of events.

He also fails to acknowledge the fact, as strongly emphasized in Charlie Sheen’s letter to the President, that the majority of the 9/11 Commission members publicly denounced the official story and stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth. (Read more from prisonplanet.com)

Bailout Propaganda Begins

Nearly a year after the federal rescue of the nation’s biggest banks, taxpayers have begun seeing profits from the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid that many critics thought might never be seen again.

via As Biggest Banks Repay Bailout Money, the U.S. Sees a Profit – NYTimes.com.

It was inevitable that the same people who pushed through the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street would come out later on and tell us what a great idea theirs turned out to be, in retrospect and under the light of evidentiary examination. And we’re getting that now, with a pair of reports, the above one in the New York Times and another in the Financial Times, telling us the bailout is working because the government has made some money on TARP. They came to this conclusion by quoting Fed officials, who apparently calculated how much interest the Fed earned on TARP investments above what it would have earned on T-bills. The amount so far, according to these worthy gentlemen: $14 billion.

This is sort of like calculating the returns on a mutual fund by only counting the stocks in the fund that have gone up. Forgetting for a moment that TARP is only slightly relevant in the entire bailout scheme — more on that in a moment — the TARP calculations are a joke, apparently leaving out huge future losses from AIG and Citigroup and others in the red. (Read more from trueslant.com)

Children’s books about our dear leader, chairman Obama

Here is the description, direct from the Publisher’s Website:

Ever since Barack Obama was young, Hope has lived inside him. From the beaches of Hawaii to the streets of Chicago, from the jungles of Indonesia to the plains of Kenya, he has held on to Hope. Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn’t quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together.

a few choice paragraphs:

His mama, white as whipped cream; his daddy, black as ink…

He was there in Chicago because he cared about these people. They were his family. People in Kenya were his family. Indonesians were his family. And no matter where he was, the world was his home. And who he was could be summed up in one word: loveable.

and

When Barack wasn’t studying he liked to jog along the Hudson River. He couldn’t help but notice the river of hurt and hate and history that separated blacks and whites. Being both, he could not take sides. Don’t worry, said Hope. I will be your bridge. In time you will be the bridge for others.

but that’s not all, there’s more:

When his classes came to an end, he raced to Chicago to join hands with the church, to learn new lessons: Not how to be black or white, but how to be a healer, how to change things, how to make a difference in the world.

of course, no book about Vladimir Lenin would be complete without talking about his days in the trenches as a community organizer:

The work was grueling, with stretches of failure, and puny patches of success. Door-to-door Barack went, early mornings, late nights, pleading and preaching, coaxing strangers to march together, to make life better for everyone. He worked hard as a farmer, planting the words “Yes, we can!” like seeds in spring.

but that’s not all, there’s still more good stuff:

Before Barack chased his future, he visited his past, traveling to Kenya to find his family, his father’s bones, and his own place in the circle of Africa…Finally, Barack knelt in the soil at his father’s grave, listening to the still, small voice that spoke to his heart: Go now. Fly free. Become the man you were meant to be. Live in hope.

Having gotten the blessings of his father’s spirit, Barack set forth…

Hope may be slim and beautiful, but she is no weak thing…[Barack] proved it again when all of Washington, D.C., wondered what this skinny kid with the funny name could offer a nation in need. But the hope that lived in Barack burned bright, and on the night he became a senator, everybody felt the flame.

but that’s not all! He had a date with destiny, and:

One sun-drenched day, as his wife Michelle stood by, Barack smiled on a sea of faces from Wichita to Waikiki. He saw whites and blacks, rich and poor, Christians and Muslims and Jews; he saw the ghosts of his parents, of Gramps and Toot, of Martin Luther King, Jr. and JFK. And on that special day Barack was the bridge that held them all together. “I want to be your president,” he said. “Can we make America better? Can we work together, as one?” With a single voice the crowd called out, “Yes! We can!”

And that’s just one book. I personally think we need to change the calender to BB (Before Barack) and AB (After Barack). I mean it is undeniable that the man is the second coming. But, that’s not all, let’s look at the other tome on Barack Obama for children:

(Read more from aipnews.com)

John Stossel – a Libertarian in Manhattan (and on television!)

“I don’t agree with the conservatives who want government to play the role of morals policemen, and I don’t agree with the nanny state liberals. I’m a libertarian.

If you live and work in Manhattan like I do, it can be tough to be a libertarian. It means I’m surrounded by people who vehemently disagree with me – especially in the mainstream media. My kids went to school with Senator Al Franken’s. I went on his radio show thinking I could have a decent argument with him about economics, but no. He wouldn’t entertain a fair debate. He just yelled at me and called me a liar.

Georgetown University Professor John Hasnas has this take on what it feels like to be a libertarian these days:

It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events.

Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work.

Imagine continually explaining that markets function because they have a built in corrective mechanism; that periodic contractions are necessary to weed out unproductive ventures; that continually loosening credit to avoid such corrections just puts off the day of reckoning and inevitably leads to a larger recession; that this is precisely what the government did during the 1920’s that led to the great depression; and then, when the recession hits, seeing it offered as proof of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.

Yup. It often feels bad. But so what? It’s our job to fight for freedom.” (Read more from blogs.abcnews.com)

Calorie restrictive eating for longer life? The story we didn’t hear in the news

I grow more and more comfortable with my conclusion that Television’s job is to tell us who to hate and what to fear, and the less we listen to them, the better.

“This should have been the lead:

The long-awaited research on the effects of calorie restriction on aging in rhesus monkeys from the University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin National Primate Research Center have just been released. It found no statistically significant difference in the number of deaths among the monkeys who’ve been eating a calorie-restrictive diet for more than 20 years compared to the monkeys who’ve been allowed to eat ad lib all day as much as 20% over their normal calories.

But that’s not what made the news, of course. Instead, we’ve been bombarded with a thousand news stories all reporting in lockstep that low-calorie diets have been proven to add years to our lives.” (Read more from junkfoodscience.blogspot.com)