SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (633512)10/28/2011 7:02:43 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576612
 
The Facts of Life Are Conservative, Even in Zuccotti Park

By
Joseph Ashby

Peeking through Occupy Wall Street's cloudy drum sessions, group speeches, and celebrity visits are a few rays of reality's sunlight. These glimmers of the real world show that even the campers of Zuccotti Park aren't immune to Margaret Thatcher's famous declaration that "the facts of life are conservative."

Conservatism is the natural political outgrowth from the real life experience. Humans are naturally flawed, greedy, and untrustworthy. Conservatives recognize that fact and promote the market system and divided government in order to pit one greedy person against another.

Conversely, the left continually denies and fights against human nature (inevitably losing to it). For leftists, it's always a matter of finding the right human to rule -- the disinterested regulator, the consumer-protecting bureaucrat, the messianic president, etc. That is the nature of the OWS protests: to replace one group of self-interested people on Wall Street with another group of magically not self-interested people in government. But because government isn't magic, utopias never quite work out in real life -- not even in Zuccotti Park. In one news story after another, Thatcher's "facts of life" are on display. Let's look at four examples.

Conservative Fact of Life: Give a man a fish, and he'll stick around for another.

Providing for folks in need is a good thing, but handouts are dangerous tools. At any point in the giver-receiver relationship, there's a risk of doing more harm than good. If the recipient becomes dependent or feels entitled to his benefits, his initiative atrophies like an unused muscle. Too often the receiver is left less prepared and less likely to succeed in the future. Thus long-term well-being is sacrificed in the name of short-term "help."

The negative effects of welfare can appear quickly, as OWS recently learned. Zuccotti Park has become a hotspot for vagrants in search of free food. Protestor Lauren Digioia recently explained to reporters that OWS has "compassion toward everyone," but that "there are rules and guidelines." Specifically, "f you're going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back." Digioia added, "There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled."


Conservative Fact of Life: Everybody is wealthier than somebody, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take from others.

Protestor Nan Terrie allegedly came to Zuccotti Park with a $5,500 Mac laptop (near the top 1% of portable computers, perhaps). One night after Terrie succumbed to fatigue after a long day as a kitchen volunteer, preparing meals for fellow protestors, a thief made off with the high-end computer.

Stealing is just redistribution of wealth.

"Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment," Terrie told reporters. A problem indeed. Suddenly it didn't matter that the computer was $2,000 more than even the most tricked out MacBook Pro available in the Apple online store. Or that scores of laptops exist at a fraction of the price (the computer I'm using to write this article was 1/10 the price of the Terrie's stolen Mac). No, the only thing that mattered was that taking something that someone else earned was wrong. That fact holds for a college student's electronic devices as well as a hedge fund manager's compensation.

Conservative Fact of Life: Rugged individualism is the only sensible approach to life.


America was built by people who refused to wait around for someone else to make them a living. From the frontiersman who left everything to chase his dreams in the American West to the entrepreneurs of the Forbes 400 list, Americans who make their own way are the most successful.

It didn't take long for protestor Peter Hogness to learn whom he could trust. Angry about empty promises regarding the protestor status in Zuccotti Park, Hogness stumbled upon true wisdom. "One thing we have learned from this is that we need to rely on ourselves and not on promises from elected officials," Hogness told reporters.

Conservative Fact of Life: Though she's a seductive mistress, Utopia never quite works out as a wife.

Conservative author and columnist Dr. Thomas Sowell once said that he would love to live in the kind of world envisioned by the left. In such a world we would have few inequalities, few wants, and men would act as angels, working for the common good. The problem for the left is that their vision is based on a premise that does not exist in the real world.

Men aren't angels. None of them.

The longer the OWS protests last, the more they confront the real world. As money has begun to roll in from supporters ( reportedly $500,000), life has only become more complicated. "F**k Finance," said Bryan Smith when he couldn't get access to the funds he wanted. "I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction and demands to see the movement's books."

When Elija Moses requested $8,000 to replace his vandalized drum set, he was turned down. "We don't have the power for [purchases that large]," explained Finance Committeeman Pete Dutro. "They have to go to the General Assembly."

Moses put it best when he simply said, "I'm really frustrated." Yes, Utopia can be quite frustrating for anyone who believes it can exist. Alas, an earthly Eden does not exist, and its mortal imitations are no more than an unwieldy collection of committees, assemblies, and frustrated citizens.

It's unlikely that these experiences will change minds among the Occupiers. (But there's always hope -- even Sowell was once a committed Marxist.) Unfortunately, once Occupy Wall Street has picketed its final bank, sung its last rendition of Cumbayá and gone home, it will take just one sentence to define the movement: "The truths of conservatism stared them in the face; sadly, they failed to notice."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/the_facts_of_life_are_conservative_even_in_zuccotti_park.html




To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (633512)10/28/2011 9:02:47 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1576612
 
James O'Keefe Scores Another Hit On the New York Times, Jay Rosen, and Clay Shirky.

Rosen and Shirkey are professors of journalism at New York University. O'Keefe made what appears to be an undercover video of a classroom setting. Rosen and Shirky are openly discussing the New York Times strategy to legitimize President Obama during the 2008 campaign, their strategy to help Occupy Wall Street, tax loopholes for NPR, their unwillingness to cover Michelle Bachmann, and a strategy to generate revenue for the Times that involves disparaging conservatives.

Funny to hear them talking in private exactly like conservatives imagine they would.

The most striking thing about this is the lack of any ethical consideration whatsoever. And the hubris.

Lot of Good Stuff In Here... [ace]: Clay Shirky discusses the issue of bias in coverage, and how it's done.

Regarding Obama in 2006 and 2007, he notes -- at this point in time, at least -- there really was no very credible reason to cover Obama seriously. He was a little-known very inexperienced freshman Senator. And black. The odds of him becoming President were less than 100:1.

And yet the Times realized (correctly) that he could be a viable candidate. But that itself is not supposed to be news; that is, the Times can't "create the news" with a headline like:

Thirty Out of Thirty-Two New York Times Editors Agree: Obama Would Be A Good Democratic Candidate

Now that's actually what they want to say. That is, in fact, the news
: that a major influence-leading liberal news organization is impressed by a liberal politician (and so of course will be giving him favorable coverage in the future).

But they can't say that, because supposedly they're not liberal (wink) and because they are supposed to report the news made by others, not report the "news" of their own beliefs and opinions.

So what do they do? They begin covering stuff like Obama Girl, noting the cultural phenomenon of Barack Obama (which wasn't really a phenomenon when they began treating it as such). Without expressly running a story with the headline, Reliably Left-Liberal News Organization Has Decided To Give Barack Obama Favorable Coverage Because They Like Him, that was in fact what was going on, as evidenced by their choice to elevate a little-known freshman Senator into Someone You The Reader Should Be Taking Seriously Because All These Smart People (Not Us!) Are Taking Him Seriously.

It's an interesting observation by Shirky, and undoubtedly true.

Later in the video he discusses the opposite of that -- the Times' decision to not bless Michele Bachmann with Serious Candidate Coverage.

I can't say I disagree with their opinion on that, but then, I'm an opinion writer. I can say "She's not serious." The NYT is supposed to not show that sort of editorial bias in its straight news stories.

At 7:27 begins the most damning stuff. Among the statements (admissions contrary to evidence) Shirky makes are:

1. Most people can't tell their hometown newspaper is super liberal because 95% of the country has only one hometown newspaper and ergo have no basis for comparison. (He seems about 50 years behind the Times on this -- most people have FoxNews now.)

2. The media's business model relies upon the deception that they are unbiased. So while they freely admit their liberal biases among "other elites," they will not admit this to the public. Because (per admission 1), I think he means that the sales pitch of the media -- we give it to you straight and unbiased -- is in fact still fairly effective, due to the prevalence of one-newspaper towns, and thus media liberals would be diminishing their influence and their business reach by confessing this.

He goes on to crow how everyone in the room are all "elites," to which NYU professor of "journalism" Jay Rosen jokes, "We are the one percent!"

But that's a joke like many things are jokes -- a difficult, tendentious admission is confessed to in a jokey format, to lessen the impact.

Good video. Shirky adds a little something to my understanding of bias with his explanation of how the NYT communicated what shied away from communicating expressly (i.e., "We at the NYT are gay for Obama!!!").

Although Shirky is himself a liberal, and a big NYT booster, he's adept at explaining how media bias is actually practiced.

And, as they say in the law, this is admissible in court as Statements Against Interest.

(They actually sit around and refer to themselves and their readers as elites. Good grief. Bask in the warm rays of glorious self-regard, dude.)

Thanks to guest blogger Jammie Wearing Fool for the tip.

ace.mu.nu