CNN has blackballed our founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Why? Because in his new book The Death of Liberalism , Bob Tyrrell labels President Obama a — gasp! — “Stealth Socialist.” Specifically, his book publicist reports that CNN actually disinvited Bob from a show because the network felt calling the president a “Stealth Socialist” was — are you ready? — “Rude.” Oh nooooooooooooooooooo! Imagine actually discussing such a concept on CNN!!!!! OMG! Why… why… the nerve of Tyrrell to espouse a serious conservative thought on a liberal network. Or, as our friend and colleague Jed Babbin calls it in his column today , “the Gatekeeper Media.” Says Jed — with an unerring accuracy, considering he wrote his piece without knowing of Tyrrell’s dis-invitation: Yes, they’re at it again. Or I should say, “still.” The Obama media — the Gatekeeper Media who try to control what people know based on what fits their narrative — are proving almost daily that they’re not in the news business. They are in the business of political activism, aimed solely at getting their guy another four years in the White House. That is exactly what is going on here. So Bob Tyrrell, founder and editor-in chief of a magazine now 45 years on the American scene, selected in the 1970s by Time magazine as one of the rising stars in American media, recently interviewed on Sean Hannity’s Fox and radio shows, and by Mark Levin, and with his recent talk on the book to the Manhattan Institute carried by C-SPAN — is out at CNN. Why? Because in the course of the Great American Debate he has a book calling Barack Obama a “Stealth Socialist” — based on an actual record in the White House. A record that manifests all manner of socialist behavior, from buying General Motors with taxpayer money, to dishing even more taxpayer bucks to favored companies like Solyndra — and that’s before one gets to Obamacare and the socialist saga of the imaginary Obama heroine named Julia, who is feted with cradle-to-grave socialism. You can’t make it up. This kind of incident with Bob Tyrrell is exactly why CNN is barely afloat in the ratings, losing big time to Fox. And why it will drown if it isn’t careful.
See the article here:
CNN Blackballs Tyrrell for Calling Obama "Stealth Socialist"
[Posted by Karl] At the NYT, Richard W. Stevenson claims that it is: [T]he months between the end of the primary season and the formal start of the general election at the conventions are an especially perilous period for candidates in Mr. Romney’s position. It is then that challengers to an incumbent are most susceptible to being defined on terms other than their own, because despite months on the campaign trail they are still not yet terribly well-known by many Americans. Unflattering characteristics, new elements of their record, gaffes and embarrassing biographical details – all can take on outsize importance as rival campaigns labor through the spring and summer to create perceptions that stick with voters through Election Day. *** The risks of failing to win the spring-summer narrative battle are substantial. Just ask Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole or John Kerry, all of whom failed to establish strong positive images during this period and allowed their opponents to brand them in ways they never overcame. Oddly enough, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza recently noted that in elections with an incumbent since 1980, Mondale, Dole and Kerry all had high favorable ratings and lost, while Bill Clinton won with middling favorable ratings. And unlike Stevenson, Cillizza actually shows you the numbers that back him up. Stevenson is engaged in some zombie journalism about the effectiveness of negative campaigning. At least Cillizza was good enough to state his premises openly, even if he tended to bury them, e.g. : Political scientists would have you believe that the data is determinative. But the data is subject to how each side conducts their respective campaign. Actually, political scientists who stress that campaigns tend to turn on the fundamentals almost always concede that campaigns matter. Their argument is simply that they don’t matter as much as journalists who make their living covering them think. Mondale, Dukakis, Dole and Kerry all ran against incumbents (or a sitting Veep) who benefited from recovering or healthy economies. The only winning candidate in those cycles who substantially outperformed what the economy would suggest was Clinton, who still failed to reach 50% of the vote. BTW, this problem is not limited to political coverage. Last week, the NYT magazine profiled Joe Weisenthal , the lead financial blogger for Business Insider, including this anecdote: Last summer, amid rising concern that the economy would tip back into recession, Weisenthal repeatedly highlighted contrarian chunks of evidence suggesting that we were actually on the verge of stronger growth. It was a lonely view for a long time. It was also correct. In a post last November titled “Everyone Is Wrong About What Is Driving the Market These Days,” Weisenthal reproduced a Google search showing a slew of articles describing the stock market as “headline-driven,” meaning that prices were responding to the latest news. Then he showed a chart he created illustrating the close relationship between movements in stock prices and a basic economic indicator. “So it’s a ‘headline-driven market’?” he wrote. “Nah, not really. . . . The market is just moving with the fundamentals, week in and week out. The headlines are mostly a distraction.” Most political journalists figured out that the rise in Obama’s approval rating had something to do with this. However, they still seem trapped into pretending that when the real swing voters finally start paying attention to the campaign, the result will not largely converge with the fundamentals. The history of head-to-head polling suggests that about half of what we see now is noise, that the curve mostly flattens out at this stage of an election and that polls don’t really start to suggest the outcome earlier than August. The evidence for mid-May being a quiet turning point in the campaign is wafer-thin. –Karl
Read more here:
Is the 2012 campaign at a quiet turning point?
Technical note: This was written Friday night, but due to technical difficulties at RedState, was only posted Saturday afternoon I know many RedState readers are big fans of Jim DeMint, so in my coverage of the Retransmission Consent debate, I’ve focused on him. However he’s not the whole story. This Congress, due to the TEA party-driven Republican majority, it’s been the House where our major regulatory reform successes have happened. And it’s Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana and Bobby Jindal’s successor in the House, who is the champion of the Next Generation TV Marketplace Act there. However I know that there have been skeptics on this reform, so I was fortunately able to snag some of the Congressman’s time, and ask him a few questions about the proposed reforms. Catch his answers below the fold. Tech at Night: Retransmission Consent is one of those terms of art that few are familiar with. Why should we be concerned about these long-standing rules? How could they possibly be harming us if they’ve been in place for so many years? Congressman Scalise : Retransmission consent rules were enacted in 1992, and you only have to compare a cell phone or computer from that era with today’s smart phones and tablets to realize how far technology has advanced, yet the laws haven’t changed to keep pace with the technology. For years, we’ve been limited by archaic laws that still don’t account for the current scope of the Internet or modern, on-the-go, at-your fingertips devices like the iPhone. Unfortunately, these and other obsolete regulations have held back innovation and growth while forcing pay-TV providers to carry programs and stations irrespective of consumer interest, for example. The ’92 Cable Act and ’76 and ’88 compulsory copyright licenses suppress economic liberty and restrict free market innovation in TV programming, yet they still represent the most current laws governing video. Tech at Night: Weren’t the rules passed to stop free riders? If we change the rules, won’t people just retransmit their streams for free? Congressman Scalise : The Next Generation TV Marketplace Act re-establishes personal property rights and also starts a dialogue to allow the modern telecommunications marketplace to return to true free market principles. By returning to a free market, which we don’t have in today’s video marketplace, the only way someone will be able to exhibit a copyrighted video signal is through a mutual agreement between the party that owns the content and the party wanting to show it. Under my bill I have no doubt that commercial programming, demanded by consumers, will be carried by pay-TV providers at a fair market price. This bill repeals both the compulsory copyright licenses and retransmission consent together, which will encourage free market principles by giving broadcasters a new ability to seek compensation for the carriage of their content under traditional copyright law. Doing so maintains a dual revenue stream that broadcasters currently enjoy, but does so through a free market mechanism, rather than the current set of outdated laws and FCC rules that include rate regulation. Claims that changing the rules will necessarily result in pay-TV providers exhibiting valuable broadcast programming for free are simply false and have been disproven by many respected outside organizations. Tech at Night: Do the proposed changes tilt the playing field toward big companies like Comcast? Would we be better served simply by deregulating and letting the market decide? Congressman Scalise : The government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers within the telecom industry, and my bill presents an opportunity to shift to a free market where consumers’ voices and decisions, not federal bureaucrats, determine success. Letting the market decide is a hands-down better solution for consumers and job creators than deferring to the federal government as under current law. The regulatory environment under current law encourages businesses to turn to unelected federal bureaucrats at the FCC to tip the scales in their favor, and that heavy handed approach needs to end. We need to change this 20 year old way of doing things and free up this overregulated and outdated marketplace. I’m proud to lead the charge to modernize this segment of the telecom industry so we can promote more innovation and competition in a free marketplace. It’s as I’ve said all along. This is about fixing laws that try to pick winners and losers. This is about an old situation where one side of a negotiation was favored. The industry losing its favored status will complain about this, but it’s time for fairness. In other news: Pirate Bay founder was fine with hosting a service to aid the dissemination of other people’s information, but keeps his own health issues secret . Do as I say, not as I do! Funny how it works: Government spending gets a multiplier. Private doesn’t. ISPs aren’t protected by rights against Net Neutrality, but Google is against Search Neutrality. Do as I say, not as I do! Then again the FCC itself is where economic logic does not penetrate . I’m calling it now: Sprint will go from progressive cause to villain next week when the firm’s shareholders vote down the same Net Neutrality Verizon’s and AT&T’s did . What happens when judges make law, on their own, without the foggiest understanding of how tech issues work? Self-contradcitory rulings like this , which simultaneously say that downloading an image to view it is legal and illegal. How do you prove a download was active or passive? You can’t. Data is data. Downloads are downloads. Files on disk are files, whether they’re “saved” or “cached.” Credit where it’s due: After I shamed them enough, some of the anti-CISPA crusaders have awakened to the dangers of Lieberman-Collins . I’m glad. Good on groups like EFF for taking a stand where it’s needed. Should government step in to preserve failing business models? That seems to be the argument broadcasters make against Aereo and something to watch as Wireless revenue streams change thanks to Facebook. More Republican support for the Marketplace Fairness Act interstate compact for the states to cooperate to collect sales taxes across state lines: Rick Snyder of Michigan . Again, all I say is give it some firm precautions against a national sales tax, and we’re good to go.
See original here:
Tech at Night: Q&A with with Steve Scalise on Retransmission Consent; Snyder backs Marketplace Fairness Act; Lieberman-Collins gets opposition
Proponents of the charter movement as a quick fix for broken urban schools got some please-God-no news last week. The Missouri State Board of Education pulled the charters of all six Imagine schools in St. Louis. This means a third of charter schools that have opened here since 1999 have closed shop. Virginia-based Imagine Schools Inc., the nation’s largest for-profit charter school operator, was done in by the same academic, financial and leadership failures that have finished off other charters here. At times, Imagine seemed more interested in its remunerative and successful real estate deals than in its mandate to educate inner-city children. As pathetic as exam scores have been at the city’s unaccredited public schools, Imagine’s scores were worse. (I know!) Meanwhile, the city’s other large for-profit charter operator, EdisonLearning, which manages a handful of mostly low-performing schools, is reportedly on its way out, too. Indeed, despite receiving more taxpayer dollars per student than regular public schools and operating with considerably less regulation and oversight, most St. Louis charter schools perform worse on standardized tests than government schools. Charters managed by nonprofit groups appear in better shape academically and financially, though here too there has been failure and corruption aplenty. One problem for parents trying to unravel the charter mysteries is that the line between nonprofit and for-profit is blurry. The schools themselves must be nonprofits; though sometimes they are founded by small, local nonprofit groups, sometimes by large, out-of-state nonprofits, and sometimes by large, out-of-state for-profit corporations, as was the case with the now-defunct Thurgood Marshall Academy, which was shuttered after its president — brought in to save the failing school — was convicted of stealing more than $7,000, including $800 in lunch money, before it closed in 2005. Nor is small and local nonprofit status a guarantee of success. Back in 2001, state Sen. Pete Kinder and several local pastors opened two tuition-free charters. Paideia academies soon became two of the lowest performing schools in the city — and that is saying something. The schools finally folded in 2010, and its chairman stands accused of looting more than $250,000 of public money to use for a side business. Across town, the now-defunct Ethel Hedgeman Lyle Academy charter schools were so deeply in debt they were taken over by the unaccredited public school district, while owing 100 creditors more than $5 million. CHIEF AMONG THE SUCCESS stories is Construction Careers Center (managed by the public school district), and Gateway Science Academy (operated by Chicago-based Concept Schools, a large nonprofit consulting group) whose students tested twice as high on average as regular public school students. St. Louis Charter School, managed by a large Delaware-based nonprofit, has scored slightly better than government schools. Also showing promise is the Grand Center Arts Academy, managed by the Chicago-based nonprofit American Quality Schools. (Acceptance there requires an audition and parents’ signature on a commitment form, including a promise to check the child’s homework every night.) The local newspaper, no friend of charters, recently praised the local Knowledge is Power Program charter school, managed by the nonprofit KIPP Foundation, as “the right sort of charter …” “KIPP does charters right,” wrote the editors. “It… will be a part of the solution.” Following the Imagine fiasco, charter school proponents, among them Mayor Francis Slay, were at pains to point out that this is how alternative education is supposed to work. Good schools survive, bad ones are shut down. Contrast that to the public schools, where no matter how bad they fail, they continue to operate. Imagine’s closure by no means signals the end of charter schools. In fact, state lawmakers are set to vote to extend charters statewide. Rural Missourians, tired of years of school consolidation or hungry for alternative forms of public education, are demanding the same choices as their urban counterparts. Though hopefully they will meet with better success. Here, at least, the lesson seems to be that large, out-of-state, for-profit corporations may not be your best bet for a sound education. However, the fact that any schools have succeeded in this chaotic urban environment is more miracle than judgment on the failure of the free market to turn things around. In the end, this business of school choice and charters and vouchers seems to me mere pruning round the edges, rather than hacking at the roots of the problem, which is, as we all know, the breakdown of the traditional family. When we come up with a quick fix for that, the rest may take care of itself.
Read the rest here:
Education’s Elixir
On rare occasion, my wife and I get some kid-free time, long enough to take a short trip somewhere. So it was for the past several days with her parents, in from Australia, watching the kids at our home while we drove down to Santa Fe and a nice, relaxing few days at a hot springs “resort” in northern New Mexico. It’s an interesting part of the country, sparsely populated, with intricate reddish cliffs crossed by canyons small and enormous, and occasional rivers and streams traversing an otherwise very dry landscape dotted with shrubs and cacti. It is peaceful, and although I can’t claim to be a big fan of Georgia O’Keeffe’s art, I understand her attraction to this area; her home and studio of nearly forty years are about half an hour away. It’s great to have even a few days to relax. One doesn’t realize how tense one’s life is until the tension is given a chance to dissipate, even if briefly, and even if I avoid making the most of it by checking on the stock market during the day. This morning, we took a hike through some hills to some old mica mines. Quite fantastic seeing gigantic intrusions of the often paper-like mineral, jutting out from dark, white, and rose quartz, gleaming in the sun. I’m bringing some pieces home for my daughter who is the most amateur of mineralogists, thinking most pretty rocks are some form of diamond. I don’t have the heart to correct her, especially as she collects diamonds to feed her collection of unicorns. Many of you have seen the beer commercial featuring “The Most Interesting Man in the World.” I’m having dinner tonight with a man who is the most interesting I’ve ever met. I’m very glad that Eddie — who will turn 90 this year — is my friend, and if you ever have the chance to read his story , you will agree that it is remarkable that such a life has existed in modern America. Last night, my wife and I had dinner in Taos, about 45 minutes north of Santa Fe. If you’re ever there, I can offer a wholehearted recommendation for a little restaurant called the Dragonfly Cafe . The interior is like a cozy dining room in a small, old European house. Karen, the chef and owner, takes great pride in her cooking, not just the quality (which includes home-grown herbs, her own chickens’ eggs, even home-cured pancetta), but also the creativity. These meals are labors of love (and reasonably priced for the high quality.) Our waiter, Joel, was quite a character, showing us some of his work doing hand-set letterpress type to making greeting cards, business cards, etc., under the business name ” Cowboy Printer .” Even if he couldn’t quite remember whether a particular dessert had blueberries in it or not — which he more than made up for by offering us some fresh berries and cream on the house, which we somehow also managed to eat — Joel is a colorful, ultra-friendly guy and made the evening that much more memorable, not least due to his Salvador Dali-style mustache. Next paragraph for foodies only… Our dinner started with a salad of lettuce leaves topped with lentils, crostini, a poached egg, grated Parmesan, and truffle oil. Next was a big bowl of mussels in a light Indian curry sauce reminiscent of tikka masala. We ordered two extra baskets of bread and soaked up and ate almost all the sauce, before moving on to a “Moroccan lamb” plate, sort of like a fancy deconstructed gyro, with local lamb, home-made tzatziki, hummous, diced tomato and onion, and pita bread. While all that was great, the desserts really take the cake at Dragonfly Cafe. My wife’s was a tart, but more of a scone/shortbread consistency, made with orange marmalade and cheddar cheese. I think it’s technically called a “crostata” and it was fantastic, served warm with fresh whipped cream. And my desert was a dulce de leche creation: gooey caramel inside a hard chocolate shell, served with creme anglaise. I may have literally licked the place clean (or maybe just thought about it.) Really, the trip to Taos might be worth it just for this restaurant; the food is fantastic, and the ambience is the food’s equal. Monday night, as my wife and I were eating dinner at the bar in the hotel (does it seem like our lives revolve around dinners?), the couple who were sitting next to us stood up to leave. The guy, perhaps in his early 40s, said to me “you look so familiar…where could I know you from?” After figuring out that we probably wouldn’t have met in any place I lived, my wife mentioned that this was my second time in New Mexico, with the first being our wedding, near Santa Fe almost 8 years ago. The gears clicked in the man’s brain: “I photographed your wedding!” he said, and he proceeded to tell us that although he photographs about one wedding a month, our wedding still stands out in his mind as one of the best he’s ever been involved with. I didn’t disagree — our wedding was small and beautiful and designed to bring people together, not overwhelm them with glamor. It’s still one of the best days of my life, second only to when my children were born…and barely second to those. Speaking of children, I’d like to share a moment with you that only a four year-old child could create. My wife and I were talking with my son on the phone last night before he went to bed. He was telling us about the new toy cars his preschool got, including two convertibles and a race car and a truck. I said to him “Mom doesn’t like convertibles because she thinks they’ll mess up her hair.” My son, without missing a beat — and without trying to be funny — said “Tell mom don’t worry: convertibles don’t drive on her hair; they drive on the road.” Is that not one of the best pieces of toddler logic of all time? I’m off to enjoy my last day of vacation, wishing I could completely put aside markets, writing, business, and the various worries of daily life. But even though I may not be relaxing as completely as my wife is, and even though life remains somewhat stressful, days like the past few remind me of how fortunate I am with the life and family that I have.
Go here to read the rest:
Thoughts From New Mexico
