Thursday, August 28, 2008

No fair analysis of DNC in old media

I mentioned this in a few comments to other blogs, but I honestly think the democratic party couldn't have scheduled a worse time for the democratic national committee.

I say this because this is the last week of summer vacation for most kids, and moms and dads would much rather spend time with their children than listening to a bunch of bloviating and political pandering in the speeches at a political convention.

So, that in mind, I took a break this past week from politics and blogging. Not because I'm not an Obama fan, but because I have better things to do.

Today, however, it is time to break out of my week long slumber and read the transcripts of the Bill Clinton speech. I'm nerdy that way.

And sometime after he finishes his speech, I will read the Barack Obama speech when I have a slow time at work.

Or, perhaps if my patient's have the speech on when I am giving a treatment, I will catch some of it live, and get the reaction from all the millions of his supporters. I suppose getting the reaction is a good thing when analyzing.

I love analyzing political speeches. Like many of you guys, I am geeky in that way. I think I started doing this in the 1990s during Clinton's speeches because I thought the media didn't do of very good job of it.

I learned in journalism school that it was the job of the media to analyze, but good analysis we did not get (or no longer got, as my teacher would say).

When I was in RT school I had a room mate named Bill. He and I would sit and watch Clinton's speeches, and I would take notes. He made fun of me for this, but I would use these notes and jot down in the margins my analysis of what Bill Clinton said. Then my friend Bill and I would debate.

My friend Bill would set me in my place every time. He WAS a true, good debater. Or so I thought. When I would tell him how frivolous the idea of increasing taxes was, Bill would tell me that tax hikes were needed to raise money to help the poor.

Then, when I told him that the best way to raise money for the poor was to "A" Cut taxes, and "B" teach the poor how the rich got rich instead of teaching the poor how to be victims, he would get really mad at me and make ME feel all the idiot.

However, since then, I have learned politics Rule #1:

Politics Rule #1: If the person you are debating gets all upset and starts personally attacking you, then you win. If he gets mad, smile and walk away, because YOU are the winner.

I know that rule now like the back of my hand. And that's why I smile whenever someone bashes my head in during a good debate.

There was also something else that my friend used to say during our debates: "If you don't believe me, just read the newspaper."

I read the newspapers, and they usually did agree with my friend. But something is fishy about this, I thought. Why is it that everything I read agrees with my liberal friend Bill.

The media may not be wrong by some people's standards, but by mine they were not fair.

I was not far off base back then. While I KNEW that Conservative analysis was void in the media, I couldn't really put my finger on it. It was fishy, almost as though I knew I was right but could not find anyone else who agreed with me other than those in my circle who happened to share the same views as me.

Of course, then came Rush. Then came Fox News. Then came the Internet into my life, and basically in that order. Then came blogs. And now I can get plenty of both liberal and conservative analysis.

So now I do not have to listen to speeches at the DNC or RNC and do my own analysis. I simply go to the many places that do give fair analysis, because there are now many available -- like blogs.

I no longer limited to the evening news, the Detroit Free Press, and my local paper for news analysis.

Now of course many blogs participate in partisan pandering themselves, including this one at times, and that's fine too. But as this is the case, there are many blogs out there that provide fair and balanced analysis of the news.

And just for fun, and if I find time, I'm going to read it and analyze it myself. Because I can. I might give a fair and balanced analysis, and I might be partisan.

Most people simply don't have time to do their own analysis, so they rely on others. That is why it is so easy for liberal view to become popular, because people have no choice but to read the analysis provided by the old mainstream media.

ME: I'm still skeptical of the old mainstream media after they let me down when I was debating my good friend. And even when the old media does analyze, I don't trust them any further than I can spit.

Anyway, I'm back from my vacation.


Anthony Palmer said...

This is the key part of what you wrote:

"The best way to raise money for the poor was to "A" Cut taxes, and "B" teach the poor how the rich got rich instead of teaching the poor how to be victims..."

It makes sense. And I agree with it. However, the reason why I think so many people rail against Republicans (notice I used the word "Republicans" instead of "conservatives") is that there's too much of an emphasis on "A" and not enough of an emphasis on "B."

Republicans talk a lot about cutting taxes. But then what? Who will teach people how to manage their money? Who will teach people how to save? If you live in a poor community where nobody is investing anything, then what? I doubt these Republicans would want to introduce financial literacy programs because "that would be expanding the size of government," which they are presumably against.

Republicans may then counter that people should look to themselves to help each other out. But not everyone is a member of a church or has a family member capable of helping them out financially or teaching them success. Some people really do need a helping hand. They're not lazy--they need guidance. But all too often, they are left to fend for themselves and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" even though many of them don't have any boots at all.

Some people do manage to rise from the lower class to the middle and upper classes. They are true Republican success stories. But many more of them are falling behind because of a lack of resources, and that affects the larger society in other ways, such as rising crime, poor health, and lower levels of education.

This gives the impression that Republicans simply don't care about the poor. Everyone hates taxes. I hate them too, but I pay them because I do think the government has a role in supporting our society. Also, TAXES WILL ALWAYS BE TOO HIGH FOR SOME PEOPLE, so I think the debate has been skewed a bit. "Taxes" is a silent enemy that politicians (of all stripes) need in order to gin up or scare the electorate. ("He wants to raise your taxes. I want to cut them.") But you can't keep cutting taxes forever. Notice the yawning federal deficit.

As for people who get angry when you talk politics and begin attacking the person instead of their argument, I agree. I've stopped visiting news sites and blogs where that happens because it's a waste of time. I go to these sites to learn something and exchange information, not to be called out or watch other people be called out for their opinions. That's not a political discussion. That's a stupid fight on the internet, and I don't have the time for it. There's too much of that in politics these days, and I think that's unfortunate.

Freadom said...

Anthony, your answer is too intelligent for me to disagree with. You are right. And I think most good, honest Americans have no problem paying some taxes to help people out. I don't mind paying taxes per se.

However, I cringe when I see my money getting wasted. I cringe when I see all this money going into the war on poverty and the # of people on poverty not decreasing significantly.

That, I think, is the big difference between the rebs and dems. Dems want to keep funding these programs because it makes them feel good and look good. Reps want to allocate the money some other way, or give it back to the people, rather than see it wasted so.

I sometimes wonder if people were able to keep more of their money, if they would give it to the charities of their choice, which are of far better use to the poor than a gov. program.

I read somewhere that while taxes were really low in the 1980s, that charitable contributions skyrocketed to record levels.

This is why I think, why most reps think, the people are better at solving their own problems as opposed to the gov.

Either way you look at it, though, reps and dems will continue to disagree on this issue, which actually is not a bad thing.