You may not finish Atlas Shrugged in 10 days. I compared my paperback to more standard novels by counting the number of words on a line and number of lines on a page. It's the equivalent of a 2500 page novel. The font in my copy is really small and it's still almost 1100 pages.
Parliament of Whores by PJ O'Rourke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Whores Parliament of Whores is an international best-selling political humor book by P. J. O'Rourke published by Atlantic Monthly Press in 1991. Subtitled "A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire US Government", Parliament is a scathing critique of the American system of governance from a right wing conservative perspective. The hard cover version was a #1 New York Times bestseller, sold over 150,000 copies in its first two months of release, and earned over $1 million in revenue in the same time period.[1] Parliament reached the top 5 on Canadian best seller lists.[2] The paperback release in 1992 was a similar commercial success. The book received an overwhelmingly positive critical reception. Time Magazine called it "a riotously funny and perceptive indictment of America's political system."[3] The New York Times called it "a funnily savage attack on the political authorities of the United States."[4] In a piece about its 1992 paperback release, USA Today described it as "the anthem of this political year."[5] [edit]
If it's all about media bias, there are fairly reasoned and scientific measures. Like watching every news cast and counting the positive/negative stories about Obama and Romney. If you find NBC does 90% positive about Obama and 10% positive about Romney, you might come to the conclusion there's some bias there. Or you can look at campaign donations. http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/o...utions-by-tv-network-execs-writers-reporters/ (and why is this information not reported on CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, and all the left-leaning media?). How about the treatment of Alberto Gonzales vs. the treatment of Eric Holder? Both caught outright lying to congress under oath. Gonzalez rode out of town on a rail, while Holder was found in contempt of congress (a first) and I rarely see anything about it in the press. Anecdotal? I think back on all the AGs in recent memory and they all did some pretty bad things (Janet Reno bombed the cult compound Waco, for example). How about during the impeachment of Clinton, TBS showed "The American President" back to back to back to back. Don't know the movie? It's about a democratic party president, a widower, who dates a woman and becomes part of a scandal drummed up by republicans for no good reason. What's the message behind showing the movie over and over? (That republicans have drummed up this impeachment for no good reason).
Or you might look at coverage of Romney's 47% remarks (from a months old fund raising event) vs. coverage of the coordinated terrorist attack on our embassies in several middle eastern nations in September, around the anniversary of 9/11. One of those was actual news that was effectively buried because the Obama campaign was spiking Bin Laden's head like a football player in the end zone after a touchdown (Bin Laden's dead, GM is alive). That's anecdotal, of course. What's even worse, to me, is that administration officials, such as UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on all the Sunday morning talk shows, went out and lied about it, claiming that some months old youtube video was the cause of a populist protest type gathering that ended up in violence. Seems like this is a very big story that a Woodward/Bernstein type investigating team would find trivial to make a career from. Google search "Romney 47%" and I get 49 million hits. Google search "Susan Rice lied Libya" and I get 420,000 hits. Administration lied gets 22M hits. Romney 47% in news only gets 52,000 hits. Administration lied about Libya gets 6,000 hits, Susan Rice lied gets 1000 hits.
Reality does have a liberal bias. If stories are 90% positive about Jesus and only 10% positive about Hitler, that doesn't mean the media has it in for Hitler. Sometimes bad is bad. barfo Or you can look at campaign donations. http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/o...utions-by-tv-network-execs-writers-reporters/ (and why is this information not reported on CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, and all the left-leaning media?). How about the treatment of Alberto Gonzales vs. the treatment of Eric Holder? Both caught outright lying to congress under oath. Gonzalez rode out of town on a rail, while Holder was found in contempt of congress (a first) and I rarely see anything about it in the press. Anecdotal? I think back on all the AGs in recent memory and they all did some pretty bad things (Janet Reno bombed the cult compound Waco, for example). How about during the impeachment of Clinton, TBS showed "The American President" back to back to back to back. Don't know the movie? It's about a democratic party president, a widower, who dates a woman and becomes part of a scandal drummed up by republicans for no good reason. What's the message behind showing the movie over and over? (That republicans have drummed up this impeachment for no good reason).[/QUOTE]
Interesting you bring up Hitler. He was pretty good at using propaganda and the media to drive public opinion. [/QUOTE]
Radio There is a morning show called “The Morning Rush”. It is basically unlistenable. They talked about some conspiracy with Homeland Security buying all these hollow tip bullets and sending them to the social security offices around the nation. Apparently this is for the citizen repression after Obama when the election Sean Hannity has a show in the afternoons. He actually had some people on that disagreed with him which is rare for the echo chamber that this station is for the right. He basically talked about how Romney kicked Obama’s ass in the debate. Hannity focused more on the contrasting styles rather than the issues that were discussed. WSJ has a radio show called “The Daily Wrap” which is pretty balanced. Market news is scant though which is strange for a business publication. They do a good job of covering domestic and international news as well. Internet Some of the major headlines taken from the internet sites over the past 3 days: Corruption: Exposing Barack Obama’s Illegal Foreign Campaign Money Obama Succeeds. Salafists Move To Gain Power in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. GALLUP: 5-POINT ROMNEY BOUNCE Parsing the Plethora of Polls: Are the seesawing numbers reliable? Gingrich: Obama's Campaign Would Have Been Over if Not for Friday's Jobs Report Film 2016: Obama’s America This movie is terrible. It’s not entertaining and it’s not good propaganda. D'Souza, the filmmaker is basically preaching to choir on in this one. His premise is that the president has adopted this anti-colonialism mindset in an attempt to impress his dead, absentee father. He has this single theme to explain all of the complex actions of the President. His arguments are not convincing and complex. His evidence is essentially Obama’s autobiography and opinions of acquaintances of the President. Worst of all, the movie is boring. There are long interview scenes where interviewees speak into cell phones when D'Souza was not himself present, and then to cut on occasion to D'Souza, on a grassy lawn, asking his questions. There are also these awful dramatizations of events in Obama’s life like his father’s funeral. They are just badly acted and poorly filmed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157907/romney-narrows-vote-gap-historic-debate-win.aspx Do explain who the 39% of Democrats are that actually thought Obama won (or "did the better job" in) the debate. Or even the 19% of independents. One word comes to mind. Delusion.
I’ve noticed a focus on foreign policy the past few days. Obviously, Romney’s speech has a lot to do with it. Some of the recent headlines: Foreign Policy: Is Romney the New JFK? Lara Logan: The Idea Al Qaeda Is Weak is a Major Lie Israel Deploys Missile Defense Unit Against Hezbollah Sean Bielat (Candidate, MA-4) Remarks on Benghazi Chávez vows to keep 'socialist path'... 36 Hours of Obama . . . and his failed foreign policy. Everyone urging Romney to talk foreign policy must think doing so can help get him elected, but unless the campaign has some fascinating internal polls, there's no evidence for that. The idea that a soaring foreign-policy speech is a good use of the candidate's time has two interlocking problems: a) voters don't care about foreign policy in this election, and b) when asked, they prefer Barack Obama by 10 or so points. To make inroads, Romney would need both to make voters care and to make them prefer him. Spending even as much time as he has on the subject is hard to understand.
Obama is sitting on a 4 legged stool. The economy leg has been kicked out from under it. What happens if the foreign policy leg is kicked out from under it, too? (What, exactly, would be Obama's redeeming qualities as presidential candidate?) And there's the strategery.
BTW I think this is by far more interesting, coming from Fox News. http://video.foxnews.com/v/1886110993001/debate-response-democrats-call-romney-a-liar/ I'm not sure if that video shows it, but there was a stream of Obama surrogates (like David Axelrod http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBXijXnU2g) on the Sunday talk shows, literally calling Romney a liar. I'm trying to figure out the strategery in this plan. Sure makes the president look a bit on the slimy side. Makes the campaign look petty and like sore losers. Plus, if they want to play that game, how effective would a "gitmo is still open, obama lied" and "they said it was about some youtube video, obama lied the ambassador died" commercial be? Sure enough, Rachel Maddow dedicated about 15 minutes of her show to "Romney is a liar." Is she paid by the campaign for that? And doesn't it really demean her as a news person? I think so.
The startegy is pretty easy to figure out. Romney sold a lot of people on his ideas during the debate. If the democrates are successful in showing it was all a lie, then independents will give less importance to the debate. I like what Romney was saying . . . was it all lies?
On the first, you are confusing a broken campaign promise with a lie. On the second, if you can find a reason why Obama would profit from first saying it was protesting the video and then changing the story, I guess you'd have a good case. It falls under her regular contract with Giant Liberal Conspiracy, LLC. So you think politicians shouldn't be called out in the media when they lie? barfo
