UPADATE III: Fox News And Its Truth Deniers (Left-Libertarianism)

Business, Economy, Founding Fathers, History, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, Ron Paul, Socialism

The following is excerpted from “Fox News And Its Truth Deniers,” now on WND.COM:

“The dueling perspectives political panel is compatible with the aims of CNN, MSNBC, and the other progressive broadcasters. Here is how it works: You invite a member of the Republican establishment; often a RINO—preferably a bimbo—to do battle with a lefty from similar circles. The sides are ideologically so close, that, in all likelihood, the panelists hang out after the show.

This format is positively postmodernist. Why? Because, by presenting the public with two competing perspectives—you mislead viewers into believing that indeed there are two realities, and that it is up to them to decide which one is more compelling.

The one parallel universe is represented on Fox Business by the likes of Nancy Skinner, Caroline Heldman, Tara Dowdell, Carl Jeffers, Joe Sibila, Erika Payne, and others. …

The philosophical filth spewed by such characters – almost nightly on freedom-promoting programing, no less – is that government can spend and lend to good effect; that it can tax without discouraging and disrupting production; and that our overlords in D.C. can regulate “better” (read energy-squandering) industries into being by steering capital and labor away from bad (energy-efficient) industries (oil and gas). …

The truth is that truth is immutable, never relative. The little truth there is in mainstream media should not be diluted or presented by its adherents as dueling with untruth.

The above Fox News fixtures no more represent truth or promote it than does your average Holocaust denier.

With an exception: Libraries have long since engaged in a robust debate as to how to classify Holocaust-denying literature. While admirably advocating for unfettered free access, Professor of Library Services John A. Drobnicki has suggested moving Holocaust denial out of the History section in US libraries and closer to the ‘Bigfoot books,’ so that Holocaust denial’s Dewey Decimal designation is with ‘hoax materials.’

Indeed, hacks are not historians. Although the dueling-perspectives panel format would suggest it is—the economic bunk spewed by the likes of Skinner, Heldman, Dowdell, Jeffers, Sibila, and Erika Payne is no version of the truth, but a perversion of it.” …

The complete column, “Fox News And Its Truth Deniers,” is now on WND.COM. Read it.

My book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” is available from Amazon. (Don’t forget those reviews; they help.)

A Kindle copy is also on sale.

Barnes and Noble is always well-stocked and ships within 24 hours.

Still better, shipping is free and prompt if you purchase Into the Cannibal’s Pot from The Publisher. Inquire about an Xmas special on bulk buys.

UPDATE I (Nov. 18): MSNBC has just inaugurated the nauseating “NOW,” which utilizes the dueling-perspectives panel discussed in my WND column to great effect. Here is the little RINO Lolita S. E. Cupp making a weak case for the right of a man to hire a lawyer, in a pathologically litigious country, which jails more individuals than any other: the USA. By “a weak case,” the hallmark of an establishment Republican (or whatever one chooses to dub this political species), I mean that grimaces, gestures, and a paraphrasing of the host replace serious argument. In particular, earlier in the debate, Cupp picked up on a catchy phrase the host had used, and repeated it again and again (“precipice politics) in order to conceal her vacuity. In the loud talking (for it wasn’t intelligent debate) about the Super Committee, Naomi Wolf was the only individual to zero in on the issue of a soviet-style politburo making decisions in a so-called representative democracy. (Wolf didn’t put it this way, but she made the point effectively. And, of course, the US was supposed to be a republic, not a mobocracy.) Otherwise, everything is all very friendly and flirty.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE II: Via Facebook: What uncharacteristic intellectual pettiness it is to zero in on a trivial convention used in the column, instead of addressing the issue of natural law and reality, also the core of the column. This is what the column is about. However, maybe some here disagree that “truth is immutable, never relative.” And that “the little truth there is in mainstream media should not be diluted or presented by its adherents as dueling with untruth.”

UPDATE III: LEFT-LIBERTARIANISM. To the “there is nothing wrong with Judge and Stossel” crowd: ‘Cmon: They are the best we have, but there is plenty wrong. They are left-libertarians. For a while, Paul was teetering there too, but was pulled back from the brink by the conservatism of the his base, the majority of whom do not think that, at 1 million a year, the US needs more immigration and that anchor babies are dictated by the Constitution.

Treason Lobby

Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Private Property, Taxation

If you’ve worked smart and hard and are making more than a million dollars a year, you’ve lucked out: Garrett Gruener, leader of the Orwellian “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,” is lobbying Capitol Hill today on your behalf, to have your taxes increased. You’re working way too hard; you can’t take time off to defend private property. Not so Gruener; who is very very rich. Gruener has all the time and money in the world to bend the president’s big ear. And, naturally, lap dog to the left, NPR’s Jeffrey Brown, is all ears:

JEFFREY BROWN: First, I want you define this group. Who are you, how many, and where do you come — where do the members come from?

GARRETT GRUENER: These are about 200 folks so far who make a substantial amount of money and who believe that the — it’s time to roll back the Bush tax cuts, that essentially what we need to do for the sake of the country is to tax folks like ourselves more.

JEFFREY BROWN: And is there a consensus on how much more when you talk about — you’re talking about the marginal rate?

GARRETT GRUENER: That’s right.

We are talking about moving back to the marginal rate that prevailed under President Clinton of 39.6 percent on, in this case, folks who make more than a million dollars a year.

JEFFREY BROWN: What’s the argument? Why?

GARRETT GRUENER: Well, simply, first of all, the country needs the money, and we think it’s the right thing to do.

We think that, you know, like other Americans, we love this country, and that those in the upper 1 percent essentially have been treated too good for their own sake, too good for the sake of the country. We have all done very well, and it’s time to give back. …

[SNIP]

AND perhaps Gruener’s biggest non sequitur: “…the relentless desire on the part of the Republicans to push down marginal rates was causing us to have an excessive deficit, which we believe is a big problem, and to under-invest in things that we think are critical for a good society.”

In other words, merely thinking about leaving more private property with its original owners can collapse the welfare state (“which is critical for a good society”). Is there anything more repulsive than a left-liberal man, as he dreams up ways to give what’s not his away?

MORE.

‘Math for Morons’

Economy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Free Markets, Healthcare, Trade

Having just feasted on an excellent, fresh, Chilean orange, here is a reminder, via the one and only John Stossel, that eating organic, local produce must not turn into an irrational fetish. Read “Math Lessons for Locavores”:

the local food movement now threatens to devolve into another one of those self-indulgent — and self-defeating — do-gooder dogmas. Arbitrary rules, without any real scientific basis, are repeated as gospel by “locavores,” celebrity chefs and mainstream environmental organizations. Words like “sustainability” and “food-miles” are thrown around without any clear understanding of the larger picture of energy and land use.

The result has been all kinds of absurdities. For instance, it is sinful in New York City to buy a tomato grown in a California field because of the energy spent to truck it across the country; it is virtuous to buy one grown in a lavishly heated greenhouse in, say, the Hudson Valley.

The statistics brandished by local-food advocates to support such doctrinaire assertions are always selective, usually misleading and often bogus. This is particularly the case with respect to the energy costs of transporting food. One popular and oft-repeated statistic is that it takes 36 (sometimes it’s 97) calories of fossil fuel energy to bring one calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the East Coast. That’s an apples and oranges (or maybe apples and rocks) comparison to begin with, because you can’t eat petroleum or burn iceberg lettuce.

It is also an almost complete misrepresentation of reality, as those numbers reflect the entire energy cost of producing lettuce from seed to dinner table, not just transportation. Studies have shown that whether it’s grown in California or Maine, or whether it’s organic or conventional, about 5,000 calories of energy go into one pound of lettuce. Given how efficient trains and tractor-trailers are, shipping a head of lettuce across the country actually adds next to nothing to the total energy bill.

MORE.

UPDATED: Lincoln Myth Busting

History, Neoconservatism, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Republicans, States' Rights, War

I was one of the folks who contacted Tom DiLorenzo asking him to dispel any developing myths about Bill O’Reilly’s new book, which deals with that killer, Abe Lincoln. After all, who better to dispatch O’Reilly and his Abe-adulating Killing Lincoln, than the Lincoln Myth Buster himself? Writes Tom at LRC.COM:

“Quite a few people have emailed me begging me to critically review Bill O’Reilly’s new book, Killing Lincoln, about the assassination. They do this not because they have read the book, which is a big, boring bag of nothingness, but because they’ve heard O’Reilly spout the neocon party line about ‘Father Abraham’ on his television show and they smell a rat.

I’ve read the book, and it really is a big bunch of nothing. All it is is a narrative of the events leading up to the assassination. Over 100 books are already in print on the subject, and all O’Reilly and his coauthor do is cut and paste what others have written on the subject, but without including a single footnote! The authors also have the annoying habit of writing things like, ‘in his mind, he was thinking that . . . ‘ as though they could know what Lincoln was thinking when he did this or that 150 years ago. This is a standard practice of the ‘Lincoln scholars,’ who also constantly claim to know what was ‘in his heart’ (nothing but love and kindness, of course) in their writings.” …

MORE.

UPDATE: Thanks, Mari, for the Salon link. Of course, liberals would never pan a Lincoln book because it lauds a mass murderer who sundered the Constitutional scheme forever and sicced brother against brother:

“A reviewer for the official National Park Service bookstore at Ford’s Theatre has recommended that Bill O’Reilly’s bestselling new book about the Lincoln assassination not be sold at the historic site “because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication.”

Rae Emerson, deputy superintendent at Ford’s Theatre, which is a national historic site under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, has penned a scathing appraisal of O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever.” In Emerson’s official review, which I’ve pasted below, she spends four pages correcting passages from O’Reilly’s book before recommending that it not be offered for sale at Ford’s Theatre because it is not up to quality standards.