Frum: Wikileaks A Good Thing…I Agree

Those that know me know that I am not a fan of Wikileaks.  I am in full favor of the beat down of Julian Assange and fully believe the guy is a traitor to allied nations in the war against terror.  And while in advance of the most recent leaks, I obviously wouldn’t have supported them, David Frum has made the case post leak that the latest leaks actually improve the positioning of the allied and U.S. case against Iran instead of hurting us in the worlds eyes and protecting Iran as it is assumed Assange was hoping.

Based on the information that is coming out, I have to agree with Frum.  This doesn’t mean that there isn’t ogles of information contained within these leaks that could lead to the capture or death of many of our informants in the Middle East.  It makes me ill to think that Assange knows that he is sending men and possibly their families and friends to death every time he releases these documents, and this just doesn’t seem to be a factor in him keeping secret documents…well, secret.

In the grand scheme though, this will likely pull in international support to put more pressure or possibly use military action on Iran.  Check out Frum’s post here and you can decide for yourself.

The Rand-Slide… and Other Tuesday Lessons

Is THIS what pwned means?

I have a good friend (well a couple, who would have thought it?) that is into video gaming and all of the online sophistication that our dear editor Nick is into.  Some time back, I noticed the use of the term “pwned” which my friend Andrew pronounced as “Poned” with particular stress on the P.  Over drinks at a favorite stomping ground in Maryland (Fingers & Claws - plug!) I attempted to gain a good understanding of the proper context in which to use “pwned”, which is about the same as using “owned” which I use.  However, I guess techies got bored and had to invent a new word during the downtime they acquire from “hours” of mindless stimulation (I kid, I kid!). 

I found two really good examples of when someone can use the term “pwned” which entails being destroyed by a superior power. 

Over a week ago, Jon Stewart was ‘pwned’ by John Yoo, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under George W. Bush.  Stewart is a smart cat, of course, but when engaged in this really good, thoughtful discussion on enhanced interrogation he gets beat by someone who obviously thought this out fully and not as half-heartedly as liberals would have you believe (bear in mind, Stewart should decide sooner or later if he is going to be a legit news reporter or journalist, or when he gets called out for being extremely biased, if he will continue to cower behind the now hackneyed “I’m an entertainer!” argument). 

[Video from HuffPo here which includes the three clips]

Last night, Marc Thiessen, author of the new book Courting Disaster, could be said to have “pwned” Christiane Amanpour (and whoever the tool box on the TV was as well).  Once again, the Conservative is trying to have a down to Earth discussion about a serious topic and the two left-leaning-friends take it to eleven and try to not even let the man talk.  In the end, Christiane should have felt embarassed if such a sentiment still exists in a CNN “reporter’s” lexicon. 

[Marc Thiessen pwnes CNN part one]

[Marc Thiessen pwnes CNN part two] – “They’re only doing training as you know” Great demonstration of ineptitude.

-rj

Big News of the day or BIGGEST News of the day?

Read the article below and let me know what you think in the comments section:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. taxpayer profits from bank bailout investments are being offset by estimated losses from American International Group and automakers and mortgage payment cuts for struggling homeowners, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Monday.

The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.

The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.

These were much larger than a $15 billion profit registered from the Capital Purchase Program for banks and $4.4 billion in profits from other bank investments, asset guarantee and lending programs.

A senior Treasury official said the bank investments will ultimately produce a positive return for taxpayers. But the department was not yet ready to update its estimate of the final taxpayer costs for the bailouts.

The official said the Treasury would update its cost estimates on a quarterly basis as the bailout program shifts its focus toward small business lending and housing relief in its final 10 months of operation.

The Treasury in November said TARP’s ultimate cost estimate had been reduced to about $141 billion from $341 billion earlier in the year. Further reductions in the final cost estimate could aid the Obama administration as it faces pressure to produce a new budget that starts to show deficit reductions.

(Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Unfortunately, this story was not the lead anywhere today, though Fox did have  a related one on their top three stories. Drudge’s lead story today is about Scott Brown, the candidate for former Senator Kennedy’s seat (okay, that one’s fairly important). Yesterday, he had an accusation that Senator Reid (D-NV) had a facelift or something. Drudge did have this story, but buried several stories down. Meanwhile, cable news is failing as badly as usual to provide important news. Fox has the “tell-all” story about Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) as their lead story, and CNN has David Frum’s newest column as theirs. MSNBC actually has the most important lead story of the three, with an article about the death of an Iranian opposition leader. ABC is also not doing their job, with a massive lead story about President Obama allegedly playing favorites regarding the race card. 

Once again, I’ll ask Americans to look at the important news. Who really cares if Sarah Palin is on Fox? Is anyone surprised? Reid has said two racial statements in recent weeks. Why are we letting our elected officials waste our taxpayer money over his comments? (Note- every time they go after or defend Reid instead of doing their job they are wasting taxpayer money.) We are losing billions of dollars to corrupt government, business and other officials and executives…and we care about something stupid Reid said or the common-sense career move of Sarah Palin? Give me a break. Let’s worry about the troops dying overseas, our sovereignty, the education of our youth and the other critical issues facing this country. Our mainstream/professional media certainly won’t do it, obviously, but in the age of the Internet and other technologies, we the people have no excuse.

Why Not Bail Out Buggywhip Makers?

I’m a little behind the times on this one- I had National Guard duty this past weekend- but late last week Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) supported the idea of bailing out newspapers. As a guy who likes newspapers- you know, printed instead of online- I sympathize with the fact that newspapers are going out of business quickly. Unfortunately for my personal desires, that is part of the beauty of creative destruction. As we improve technology, we eliminate inefficiencies in our system, and that is what newspapers increasingly represent.

There is some argument that losing newspapers would lose the generally quality, in-depth reporting that papers pride themselves on. After all, blogs and other online media are not generally renowned for their quality of reporting or in-depth research; they have other strengths, instead. That said, Huffington Post, Fox News, CNN, The Foundry, CNS News and many other sites and news sources are doing a good job of changing that stereotype through hard-hitting reporting, opinions and interviews. As advertising swings more and more online, I suspect old-fashioned reporters will be doing their fine reporting online instead of on paper more and more often. Best of all, they will be able to do it without the government’s money hanging over their heads, subtly or not-so-subtly influencing every decision that is made.

One other flaw with Waxman’s argument: ?There needs to be a consensus within the media industry and the larger community it serves? before the government acts, Waxman said. ?We have to figure out together how to preserve that kind of reporting.? Which media industry will he stop at? The television industry? The online industry? Talk radio? Newspapers? Magazines? Movies? Pornography? Mixed Martial Arts? CNN’s IReporter? If you bail out one, you open the floodgates to bail out the rest. Who’s to say The Economist is more important to society than Sports Illustrated? Both have large readerships, after all, and both represent industries worth billions to the American economy. They provide valuable news to America’s citizens.

Huffington Post has written numerous pieces this year alone defending the value they bring to news and decrying people like Rupert Murdoch for not adjusting to what consumers want. As much as I hate to say it, its writers are correct. Print newspapers provide news a day late, they update once a day and they are just one more thing to carry. Given their support for environmental legislation such as cap-and-trade and fuel standards, liberals such Waxman should be ecstatic that this is happening. Going online saves trees, lowers emissions from vehicles and saves on printing press use (though the servers would need electricity, which causes some harm), among others. The argument that going online will cause harm to our republic is a false one- who says online sources can’t (or don’t, or won’t) continue to use professional journalists? The transition is from print to online- news is still news, though to be fair Americans prefer shorter, less detailed news articles than we used to. But that has been happening even before Twitter and blogs became household names.

Real News Left Behind

It was 10:10 on Sunday evening, and I decided to see what the leading?news stories were on CNN?s and Fox?s respective websites. Having seen Yahoo News? top story being about Tiger Woods? car accident the other day, I suspected I knew what the answer was. Turns out, I was right. The stories were in spots designed to get major, first–or-second-glance attention.

Now, to be fair, Fox and CNN also had big stories about the police shooting (both), a woman who is helping women get mammograms (CNN), a story about AIDS guidelines (Fox) and Fox had its required “Support a Republican” story about Senator Lugar (R-IN) and his?thoughts about delaying health care reform until?”next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change, and talk now about the essentials: the war and money.” However, Fox had the Woods “story” on its top four list on its site, and CNN had it first on its “Latest News” list. (Oddly enough, MSNBC had the Woods “story” listed as third in its Sports section, and I actually missed it the first two times I scanned the page. MSNBC’s main section covered the police shootings, the economy, Afghanistan, Detroit’s economic needs, where investors are focusing this week and the Steelers-Ravens game. Not too bad for a liberal rag of a “news” source.)

Money drives news, as it should- news needs money to survive, after all- but once again our news is showing just how misplaced American priorities and dollars are. Stories that cover Honduras, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, China, the recession, the police shootings, health care reform efforts and other important news should be at the top of the list the vast majority of the time. Instead, they are pushed aside by non-news and entertainment.

This is an old rant, and says nothing new (except that MSNBC actually did a good job at something). Should those of us who care keep hammering at America’s lack of real world knowledge and news awareness, or are we wasting our time? Will we as a nation pull our heads out of *the clouds* and at least try to be aware of the world around us? Please?

Senator Reid Releases Senate Health Reform Bill

Various news sources have information for the willing:

Congress.org has five interesting provisions about the bill, as well as a link to the bill itself.

CNN has an article, a political analysis of sorts as well as a link to the bill.

NRTL blasts the bill, according to Politico.

AP, NYT, and NPR compare the House and Senate bills.

Remember- this bill does not include the more-than-quarter-trillion dollar “Doc Fix” bill that failed in the Senate a month ago. So whatever the Congressional Budget Office says…add that to it. The current CBO score is $849 billion, which includes Medicare cuts and raising some taxes, and will reduce the debt by $127 billion. So, in reality, the debt will increase by $118 billion, unless the government and CBO estimates are underestimates, which is generally the case.

Either way, the CBO score is great momentum for Senator Reid (D-NV) with fiscally conservative Democrats- who may ignore the “Doc Fix” numbers for the final vote on the Senate bill- and bad for those of us opposed to many of the Democratic health reform concepts. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, abortion is covered in the bill and there is a public option. This is bad because they are bad ideas, but good because it will allow moderate Democrats to oppose the bill if abortion and the public option are included, as some have said they will do. Whatever else happens, let’s at least hope the public option and abortion are eliminated. Contact your Senators.

One last note: this is the preliminary CBO score Democrats are all excited about. The final one is supposed to be out today.

Weekly Team-Up: Dobbs & Fox A Match Made for Democrats?

Lou Dobbs has suddenly resigned from CNN effective immediately.? Given the recent?Biblical exodus of sorts of conservative journalists from all the major networks to Fox News in the last 12-18 months, will Dobbs be the next to make his arrival on Rupurt Murdoch’s ever growing conservative juggernaut?

MarketWatch seems to think he is headed to Fox Business Network, which would most likely be very fitting.? It would also allow for him to be a guest commentator on Fox News, and do drop in segments on Fox News from the Fox Business studios.

We have to ask once more: is?this a good thing? Sure, it’s great for Fox News Network and its profits, but is it good to be pulling all conservative influence from the other networks? Check out Dustin’s articles on this?here and here.

-nick

———————————————————————————————————————-

Following up on Nick’s comments, a liberal friend made a point recently?that made a lot of sense- namely, that with Lou Dobbs on Fox, the Republican Party and conservatives will further be known as the “white party” and the “white movement.” If Dobbs is brought onto Fox News, conservatives and Republicans stand to lose a massive number of potential voters and supporters they are already struggling with- minorities in general, and Hispanics in particular. Dobbs is despised by many Hispanics, and if he comes to Fox, this will do great damage to the conservative movement and its ability to convince minority voters to support its candidates and policy viewpoints.

Before the accusations start, no- I am not saying we should be politically correct. I am saying, however, that good tactics are needed to spread a message, since many people associate a message with the messenger in both positive and negative ways. Example: my friend Rachel Sheffield, a researcher at The Heritage Foundation, is a much better representative for?social conservatives?than someone like Rhode Island Governor Carcieri, for many reasons. These include the fact that Sheffield comes across as sincere and constructive when supporting heterosexual marriage (full disclosure: she’s a friend of mine), whereas Carcieri is appears bigoted and hateful in his most recent defense of heterosexual marriage. Likewise, someone like Dobbs could cause major damage to the conservative movement’s attempts to show immigrants and minorities how conservative policies are better for both of those groups of people as well as the country as a whole.

Personally, I don’t pay attention to Dobbs, so?I don’t know the truth of the accusations against him regarding race and prejudice.?However, since Hispanics dislike him, my opinion doesn’t matter- theirs does. After all, a movement can have strong views without alienating a large number of American citizens, but Dobbs is not able to do that for the conservative immigration policy supporters. Thus, the question remains: is Dobbs an effective voice for conservative immigration policies, or is he a liability to the movement?

-dustin

Fox News vs. Everyone Else

A few weeks ago, after it was announced that John Stossel was going to Fox News, I wrote that conservative commentators are flocking to Fox News far too often at the detriment of the country. Now it appears that CNN?s Lou Dobbs is being eyed by Fox Business. I’ll repeat what I said then: conservative voices on Fox News are going to absolutely destroy all other TV stations in ratings, money and every other category?except for influence. Yes, Dobbs, Stossel and others will bring some of their fans and followers from the other stations over?but the majority non-conservative viewers won?t follow. For example, Stossel?s 20/20 had over six million viewers last year- almost twice as many as long-time cable kind Bill O?Reilly. Yet there is no speculation that O?Reilly would lose ground to Stossel in the four hours a week Stossel is anticipated to be on the tube.

Obviously, Fox holds the top ratings in cable slots, and does well in non-cable viewing. However, given that nearly every news and entertainment station besides Fox is more liberally-biased (such as GE’s NBC, ABC, Ted Turner’s CNN and Comedy Central), conservatives are going to lose out in the grand scheme of things. Influence, as opposed to power, is increasingly in the liberals’ favor on TV. To paraphrase an acquaintance, conservatives need to infiltrate everywhere, because flocking to Fox will not bring lasting electoral or cultural change to America.

There may, however, be hope yet for conservatives to influence moderates and liberals through the medium of television. Continuing the current Democratic habit of personally targeting those who displease them (see Rep. Waxman’s heavy-handed letters to insurance companies, President Obama’s comments in January about Rush Limbaugh, the White House’s targeting of Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli and the AIG tax attack this spring for just a few examples), President Obama?s White House has decided to essentially declare war on Fox News, and nothing breeds viewers in the USA like controversy. This may be the last best chance for conservatives on television to really draw in the non-conservatives so crucial to winning elections in America, as well as to influence the national mindset regarding the place and size of government, military action, social values etc. I fear, however, that aggressive, activist-engaging voices will continue to dominate Fox news, and few enough George Wills, Jonah Goldbergs and Charles Krauthammers (one quick note: the latter IS on Fox every weeknight) will be on hand to build the kind of coalition that can last for the next generation.