by

News/Politics 11-20-12

What’s news today?

Let’s start with this.

From Pew Research’s  Journalism.org

“During this final week, from October 29 to November 5, positive stories about Obama (29%) outnumbered negative ones (19%) by 10 points.”

“For Mitt Romney in the final week, the tone of coverage remained largely unchanged from the previous two weeks. Negative stories in the press outnumbered positive ones 33% to 16%.”

“But Romney may have suffered in final days from the press focusing less on him relative to his opponent. After receiving roughly identical levels of coverage for most of October, in the last week of campaigning Obama was a significant presence in eight out of 10 campaign stories compared with six in 10 for Romney-one of the biggest disparities in any week after Labor Day.”

And here’s another from Journalism.org

“Throughout the campaign, the two most popular cable news channels, Fox News and MSNBC, stood out from the rest the media coverage. Fox News was much more positive about Romney than the press as a whole and substantially more negative about Obama. MSNBC was even more overwhelmingly negative about Romney and offered mostly positive coverage about Obama.”

“At the same time, when Romney was receiving negative coverage in the final week from the rest of the press, Fox was different; 42% of its segments about him were positive while only 11% were negative. This was more positive than the earlier part of October when 34% of Fox News’ Romney coverage was positive and 9% negative.

MSNBC moved in the other direction. MSNBC’s coverage of Romney during the final week (68% negative with no positive stories in the sample), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28 when 5% was positive and 57% was negative.

For Obama, meanwhile, the coverage improved in the last week. From October 1 to 28, 33% was positive and 13% negative. During the campaign’s final week, fully 51% of MSNBC’s stories were positive while there were no negative stories at all in the sample.”

This should shut people like me up. This so obviously shows they’re unbiased. What was I thinkin’?

If not for Fox and it’s Right leanings, it’s obvious where the bias mostly leans. And it’s Left. Or if you prefer, MSNBC’s term, Forward.

Then this. Who’s up for some waste/fraud/abuse?

From Senator Coburn

 A lovely little pdf where you’ll learn what the govt. wastes your money on. Think flying dinosaurs, beef jerky, studying fish to see if ignorance can save democracy, robots as playmates for your kids, and millions to further “green” the military. But don’t worry, there’s useful stuff too. I learned that the Air Force did a study and the first bird probably had black feathers. And I also learned that they waste a lot of the military budget on things that have nothing to do with the military. Perhaps some reasonable cuts could be made to the DoD budget. This pdf is an excellent list of where to start.

You can also learn how the military has more “green” projects going than the Dept. of Energy. More on that here,

From TheFreeBeacon

“The Department of Defense has launched more green energy initiatives than any other federal agency and many are duplicative and wasteful, according to a report released Thursday by Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.).

The Coburn report details nearly $68 billion in defense spending that appears to have little to do with national defense and instead focuses on issues ranging from beef jerky to studies of flying dinosaurs. Included in the report is $700 million in green energy initiatives.

“The Department of Defense launched more than 100 renewable energy-related initiatives in 2010, more than any other federal agency including the Department of Energy,” the report says. “Many of these DOD renewable energy projects were so poorly planned, they failed to be cost effective or even produce power, wasting millions of national security dollars.””

And this one. Tsk, tsk, tsk……….

When will you people learn. It’s almost like you got what you voted for or something. You knew what you were getting, didn’t Brown burn ya’s on taxes last time too? Good thing we don’t vote for people who think like this on the national level.

Oh wait, we just did.  😯

From Breitbart

“California Governor Jerry Brown hailed his signature tax-hike to fund education—known as Proposition 30—as a towering achievement that will ensure educational excellence in higher education and spare those trapped in poor and failing K-12 California public schools from budget cuts.

“I know a lot of people had some doubts and some questions: Can you really go to the people and ask them to vote for a tax?” said Mr. Brown on election night. “Here we are…We have a vote of the people, I think the only state in the country that says let’s raise our taxes, for our kids, for our schools, and for our California dream.””

From CaPoliticalReview.com

“Millions of dollars in new tax revenue earmarked for the University of California system as part of the state’s recently passed Proposition 30 will instead be routed to major financial firms, because of bad bets made by a Wall Street-influenced UC Board of Regents.”

“However, according to a new report written by five doctoral students at UC Berkeley, in the years preceding the 2008 financial collapse, members of the Board of Regents themselves had overseen “a qualitative shift in the financial practices of the University of California” by employing the same kinds of exotic financial instruments that precipitated the meltdown on Wall Street — primarily, bond issuances hedged by interest rate swaps.”

But, but, but…….  It’s for the KIDS!

In other Cali. news,

From the AP/MiamiHerald

“There’s no room for the baby Jesus, the manger or the wise men this Christmas in a Santa Monica park following a judge’s ruling Monday against churches that tried to keep a 60-year Nativity tradition alive after atheists stole the show with anti-God messages.

U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins rejected a motion from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the religious display this season while their lawsuit plays out against the city.

Collins said the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers – from Christians to Jews to atheists – and provided other avenues for public religious speech.”

And if you’re flying this Thanksgiving, remember the TSA has rules. You can’t bring dinner with you.

From TSA.gov

“Not sure about what you can and can’t bring through the checkpoint? Here’s a sample list of liquid, aerosol and gel items that you should put in your checked bag, ship ahead, or leave at home if they are above the permitted 3.4 oz.

  • Cranberry sauce
  • Cologne
  • Creamy dips and spreads (cheeses, peanut butter, etc.)
  • Gift baskets with food items (salsa, jams and salad dressings)
  • Gravy
  • Jams
  • Jellies
  • Lotions
  • Maple syrup
  • Oils and vinegars
  • Perfume
  • Salad dressing
  • Salsa
  • Sauces
  • Snowglobes
  • Soups
  • Wine, liquor and beer

You can bring pies and cakes through the security checkpoint, but please be advised that they are subject to additional screening.”

I’ll translate that last part for you.

We will eat your pies and cakes, that’s how we test them to make sure they’re safe.

33 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-20-12”

  1. In the last few years of his life, my Dad became concerned that part of the Defense Department had just become another welfare program. Why am I not surprised that it also has become part of the green boondoggle? You can be sure that the enemies of the US are paying attention.

    Like

    Reply

  3. One of my relatives is a fund raiser for the University of California and has been urging me to donate. I sent him the above article yesterday and simply asked, “tell me again, why I should donate any more?”

    He wrote back to say with the passage of Prop 30 (which another relative explained meant the LA City School district did not have to cut 20–that’s right, 20–days out of the school year), he’s now trying to figure out how to get his business out of California and won’t be donating any more money himself.

    Both business owners I’m close to have been saying the same thing–they really can’t afford to do business in California anymore.

    Now with our supermajority Democratic congress in California, we’re pretty much at their mercy and their eyes are set on repealing Prop 13. Not in a harmful way, mind you, they’ll just make businesses pay more taxes on their property.

    Or, as the facility manager relative said, “kick them when they’re totally down. That will solve all problems.”

    I suppose I could ask God where he’d like us to move, but I’m pretty sure the answer is, “stay right where you are” . . . somebody has to help pick up the pieces.

    Like

    Reply

  7. Michelle @10:24
    Ephesians 6:13 has been running through my mind a lot lately–Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. I know God relocates people sometimes. I’ve been relocated many times. But it’s reassuring and encouraging to know that God has people everywhere—even in the dark places.

    Like

    Reply

  9. The journalism article assumes that both candidates were equal and thus the stories should be balanced. However, the candidates were not equal and thus the reporting didn’t need to be the same.

    Using a ridiculous example I can demonstrate the absurdity of demanding equal stories. When comparing stories about serial killers and nuns, I don’t expect the same levels of positive and negative stories. Obama is not a saint nor is Romney a serial killer but Obama had a much better last two weeks. Obama (and Christie) looked good reacting to Hurricane Sandy while Romney stomped around Ohio making patently false claims about the auto industry.

    Its easy to shoot the messenger but Romney truly did not have a good last two weeks and he can only blame himself, his campaign and the FOX/Republican bubble he operated under.

    Like

    Reply

  10. The military has always been a source of corruption and waste. A look at the reports on war profiteering in WWI should convince anyone.

    However I will grant the military a little leeway on their green programme. The military was/is attempting to find alternatives to fossil fuels as a strategic necessity in case of fuel shortages in war. It actually does make sense to look at alternatives. Part of the reason behind the German defeat in the battle of the bulge in 1944 was a lack of gasoline.

    Like

    Reply

  11. And how do you know that HRW,

    Well duh, that’s what the media told you. What they didn’t tell you about was the standing room only crowds out to see Romney. You only know what they told you. Which is the problem, and the links clearly show. Biased news reporting is why you think that. They told you only what they wanted. Obama good, Romney bad. And you seem to have fallen for it.

    Like

    Reply

  12. Michelle, some years ago I had dealings with a really LARGE real estate firm in San Diego. The owner of the company also ran and investing group. They were 4-5 years ago taking note of the one way moving van rentals OUT of the State of California. They were liquidating their California properties and buying Commercial Real Estate in other states.

    Really, if you know what you are doing and observe, the market will give you hints to know what is happening. I believed them then and you just confirmed it. Too bad I didn’t have money to invest.

    Like

    Reply

  13. “Obama (and Christie) looked good reacting to Hurricane Sandy while Romney stomped around Ohio making patently false claims about the auto industry.”

    Funny they weren’t able to make Bush look good when he did the exact same thing in a much timelier fashion with a worse disaster. BTW I think most of the Katrina victims were fed and warm by now. The Sandy victims OTOH have served their purpose so the media is done with them.

    Like

    Reply

  15. AJ — I was wondering if I would receive a response like yours. Its a bit of a circular argument: Obama looked good because the press made him look good because he did look good because the press made him look good etc etc. In part he was better at generating the better optics which the media swallowed but he did actually perform better.

    I’m reacting against this notion to be fair the press must give equal positive comments. I write report cards and I don’t give equal positive comments for all my students but rarely do people argue that I should. Some parents and students say, that I (like the media) am biased. I used to fight that notion but now I freely admit I am biased in favor of hard working quiet students who give me the right answer and produce grade level work. The media works the same way — they don’t give equal positive comments to all candidates (they even ignore some) but generally favor the candidates who do all the right things to get positive attention.

    I thought the right was against this notion of equality for equality’s sake……

    Like

    Reply

  16. Admittedly, most politicians fly into a disaster relief for a photo op and then leave. In this case, Obama looked good conferring with Christie saying the right things and ensuring the agencies were up and running. Meanwhile, Bush flew over New Orleans while thousands were stuck in the Superdome. After that terrirble photo op, he said heck’va a job to Brown. The actual results may or may not be similar but the optics were certainly different.

    And to be honest, Obama was probably lucky Bloomberg was in charge of NYC not Nagan.

    Like

    Reply

  17. So you admit it all came down to the perception of the media. What good would it have done for Bush to fly in for a photo op and take responders away from rescue to protect him? That’s what Obama did because he needed the PR.

    Like

    Reply

  18. The reporting needs to be balanced–and that doesn’t mean all positive one way and all negative the other (see, apparently, MSNBC). It’s hard to get traction when you’re the challenger, but if there is only one and when news items are being manipulated by one side (see Benghazi, for example), you have a problem with the media.

    The media needs to behave professionally and pay attention to their ombudsman; I believe the Washington Post’s ombudsman finally called the paper on their poor performance vis a vis Benghazi. (But don’t quote me on that . . . ).

    Again, as I noted during that time, it was a sign of the weak fourth estate and that is a problem. Period.

    Like

    Reply

  20. The reporting doesn’t need to be balanced, just right. My report cards aren’t balanced but they are right, at least to the best of my ability. Sure some may argue I make mistakes, I may favor some over others etc but in the end its in my best interest to be fair and correct, job security and credibility wise. Its not much different with the media. To maintain credibility and job security, they need to be right more than they need to be balanced.

    The right wing portion of the media looked really bad in miscalling the election …. they didn’t need to balanced but they lost credibility by failing to be correct even when it was fairly obvious . As a side note, it was a disservice to Romney that the right wing bubble universe ignored reality as it sent them off to Penn while they should’ve stayed in Ohio.

    As for Benghazi, the situation struck me as too muddled to actually catch traction in the news cycle. Furthermore, Romney blew any opportunity to benefit from it by jumping on it for political advantage before fire was out and the bodies cold. As for the right’s intent on getting to the bottom of it, they lost all sincerity points when McCain held a press conference instead of attending a security briefing which was giving the details he sought. In the end, it appears there was hardly anything to write home about.

    kbells — the president (and the governor) bring their own security and thus the first responders are not redirected away from their work. There is a legitimate reason for politicians to make appearance in terms of ensuring that the agencies are on the ground and things are running smoothly. And to provide moral support to those affected — Clinton and Obama do this really well, it wasn’t Bush’s strong point (Romney would’ve been horrible at it but I was surprised how well Christie performed)

    Like

    Reply

  22. (Romney would’ve been horrible at it but I was surprised how well Christie performed)
    This shows your bias. Without any evidence you assume a Republican would have been terrible at and are surprise that there is evidence that a another Republican was good at it. I assume you got that bias from the media.

    Like

    Reply

  23. KBells nailed it. I think we were all surprised at how well Christie kneeled at Obama’s feet and sang his praises. That certainly provided moral support to all liberals.

    Like

    Reply

  24. Lets face it Christie isn’t easy on the eyes so first impressions leave you with low expectations but he showed why he was able to win elections. As for Romney I watched him in the primary debates and then try to work a room — he had no charisma. He couldn’t work a room. He had none of that “I feel your pain” which Clinton specialized in. In the case of charisma and working a room, the media is merely the messenger not the creator.

    Like

    Reply

  25. “Lets face it Christie isn’t easy on the eyes so first impressions leave you with low expectations:”
    Exactly the kind of shallow thinking the MSM has instilled in it’s disciples.

    Like

    Reply

  26. Conservative actually expect people to listen to what someone is saying rather than watch how well they say nothing. I figured this out when I was 12 years old. I was watching the 1968 Democratic convention with my father. I watched Ted Kennedy speak and as the crowd went wild I looked at my father and said, “but he didn’t say anything.”

    Like

    Reply

  27. study after study has determined that people make judgments based on irrational factors not the technical soundness of a person’s argument. This applies to every political persuasion. What you said about Ted Kennedy, the left said about Reagan. The msm did not create human nature it merely activates it.

    Like

    Reply

  29. HRW: study after study has determined that people make judgments based on irrational factors not the technical soundness of a person’s argument.

    This is essentially a nihilistic argument. Some people actually seek truth and to the best of their ability try to articulate it. These “studies” are a crock for anyone who values objective truth.

    In the case of Romney, he made an honest attempt to tell political truths. He was overcome by a smooth and corrupt Chicago political machine that pandered to a base of blacks, Latinos, single women, and Muslims along who smeared Romney’s character and wealth. Playing minority, gender and class politics may win an election, though it is a fundamentally crass exercise unworthy of any respect. Obama has proven to be a thoroughly incompetent president who has run serial $trillion deficits and presided over a groveling, weak foreign policy.

    Like

    Reply

  30. There’s a whole sub-genre of books to suggest otherwise. Thinking Fast and Slow and Situations Matter are the two latest I read both suggest a search for truth isn’t in our everyday decision making.

    Romney was an OK candidate but he was hampered by contradictory messages and an inability to get his message straight. It became relatively easy to search the internet to find earlier statements which contradicted his later message.

    Coalition politics is the principle means to win an election. FDR’s New Deal coalition of southern whites, farmers, and the urban working class was broken by Nixon’s silent majority which was supplemented by Reagan’s own coalition of businessmen, white working class, and evangelicals. And now Obama has managed to outvote this coalition as demographics change. In terms of strategy, it is indeed worthy of respect and supplemented by an excellent ground, it demands admiration and any honest Republican has admitted it.

    As for Obama, the jury is yet out but his foreign policy is not weak and grovelling as Romney admitted in the foreign policy debate. And in fact its quite credible and Romney demonstrated no intention to change. In terms of spending, the turning point in the US fiscal situation was the decision to have a war economy with no intention of paying. This was compounded by a second war in 2003. And finally, a decision to bail out banks in 2008. Both parties are to blame here.

    As for stimulus spending, I’m a fan of Krugman and I’ll go with his assessment that more should have been spent. And I will also go along with his call for greater taxation on the top 1%. His latest column in the NYT is worth reading

    Like

    Reply

  31. “it is indeed worthy of respect and supplemented by an excellent ground, it demands admiration and any honest Republican has admitted it.”
    No, I do not have to respect dirty politics, race baiting and slander.

    Like

    Reply

  32. The question really comes down to whether reporters’ personal views color their reporting and writing of the news (not consciously, mind you — but SUBconsciously).

    It’s an honest question — and especially has relevance considering most journalists lean liberal.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nyt-public-editor-charges-liberal-bias/

    I think there is a distinct liberal bias – but it’s not a ‘conspiracy’ and most reporter certainly don’t “see” it. Thus, when the charge is raised, they’re either dismissive or outraged.

    But I think the charge has merit.

    Now what does the profession do about it?

    Like

    Reply

  33. I’ll have to agree with HWesseli that Democrats are better politicians. Wait that’s not what he said and not correct. To be a good politician you have to do something positive for the electorate. Let me try again…

    I’ll have to agree with HWesseli that Democrats are better campaigners. To do this you only have to say the right things with charisma. Or at least use charisma. Or at least smile in a pleasing way.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Debra Cancel reply