In an interesting post at Gates of Vienna, the Baron bemoans the ignorance of the American electorate and its consequences–consequences that are rapidly shaping up as tragic:
We, the readers of Gates of Vienna, and other members of the VRWC live in a rarefied atmosphere. We’re relatively well-informed, and vacuum up information wherever it can be found, not relying on news filters and conventional sources.
But most Americans don’t pay much attention. They have only the most superficial grasp of political issues, yet many of them vote. When they pick up any political information at all, it is from the soundbites on the network news, or from the headlines in the national dailies. And in the last two decades these organs of the Fourth Estate have gone from being biased towards the liberal to being outspoken shills for the Democrat party.
He notes–as do I, only with considerably more alarm–that even the most moderate Americans, including friends and relatives I thought would know better, appear to have been brainwashed by ‘common knowledge’ to a degree I would not have believed possible.
…when they talk about current political issues, their positions are almost word-for-word from the headlines in the Washington Post or the soundbites from the evening news. You can hear them say “Bush is a moron†or “Republicans only care about rich people†without any idea of whose party line they are parroting or where they picked it up.
Shortly after the election, I wrote Melanie Philips to rebut her post, Meltdown at the Core, in which I felt she attributed the Democratic mid-term victory to the wrong cause.
The cause is quite clear:
I say that it’s nothing less than brainwashing. I have several perfectly nice friends and relatives, for example, who voted Democratic without having any idea that 1) the NYT confirmed a week ago that WMD were present; and that 2) the NYT admitted that exposing the classified anti-terror NSA program was wrong. Thus, two of the major canards against Bush that have been used to villify him have been thoroughly disproved: Bush did not ‘lie as people died’, and Bush did not pose a threat to our constitutional rights. Yet that is what many Americans went to the polls believing.
And I do not think brainwashing is too strong a term. How else to explain the fact that most Americans can read in black and white print that the Dow surpassed 12,000–a historical high–yet can still labor under the false impression the American economy is bad? Repeat a message often enough and it becomes reality. And the message is carried subtly in all media including women’s magazines, children’s books, movies and television shows.
In fact, one major side effect of the Information Age is that history can be re-written on the fly. I’d refer to newsbusters.org for countless examples of this effect. You may also have noticed in the last year or two that events appearing in plain view for all to see are subject to constant denial, revision and even disappearance.
John Kerry, for example, clearly stated that only uneducated people ended up in Iraq. It was as clear as crystal. Within minutes, his utterance was re-written and presented as reality. Later, it was spun as a joke. Half of America has now convinced itself that it was a joke gone bad. The effect is similar to that observed in the Rodney King trial where, by constant repetition, unscrupulous attorneys managed to convince a jury of 12 people to disbelieve the evidence of their senses: from his position on the ground, Mr King was controlling his own beating. I suddenly feel as if I am living in the Soviet Union of Stalin.
In short, the West is at war with those on the Left who own the means of information transmission, Unless we wake up to this alarming fact, it is likely to be the end of us.
The Baron ends his post on an up-note, forecasting that the pervasive influence of the MSM will end within a decade as it is replaced by a variety of more reliable on line news sources.
I am by no means as sanguine. Look at this November 24th post from Philips in which she compares three treatments of the same news story:
The BBC has excised all references to the anti-black and antisemitic nature of the attack, all references to the far right and all references to the racist pedigree of the PSG fans. Wrongly identifying the Hapoel supporter as an Israeli rather than a French Jew, it gives the impression this was merely a fight between rival supporters of two nations’ football teams.
Why?
Because no one can stop them.
By failing to recognize that it is engaged in a war of Information with the Left, the Right has lost the first battle. It’s time to wake up.
—
Update: Certain letters and pronouns changed on accounta the Baron is a guy.
—
Update 2: Hugh Hewitt doesn’t get it, either:
Though hardly anyone takes the “news” seriously as news, the MSM remains a very effective disseminator of various myths, and myths are stories intended by their tellers to be believed.
Wrong. They take it seriously enough to affect matters of life and death.
And they won’t ever concern themselves with the truth!
this is nothing more than brainwashing
The Socialist poet Percy Shelley said it another way: ‘the poet is the unacknowledged legislator’
Why waste time demanding our attention here Actus when you could be in Hollywood demanding payment for playing a moonbat part? Even background actors are thrown a few bones here and there.
Ahem, ahem…
You’ve got me in drag! That’s actually a Baron post, though the rant level was close to my wife’s standard. I’m flattered.
Now where did I leave my lipstick…?
Is this referring to the documents from the 90s?
NSA, or SWIFT?
#1, its not a high in real terms—but neithernthem nor you know that. #2, there are better economic indicators than the dow. Indicators that for example aren’t so biased towards the ownership class. But this is all just me brainwashing you now.
actus, the only entity,(and I use that term loosely since to date you haven’t proven you’re not a spam-bot), that you’ve managed to brainwash is yourself, and not all the effectively.you tend to talk in circles, and when you get your show laces tied, you run. To wit, from a few days back:
actus: The IDF doesn’t seem to know where the bad guys are so they’re pretty ineffective.
Me: they know where they are, hiding amoung women and children, so they don’t pull the trigger many times, when they could.
actus: Well thats why they’re not effective.
Me: So then tell me. You think they should go ahead and attack, regardless of “colateral damage”? You’re for increased civilian death to up the IDF “effectiveness”?
actus: …………..
IDF? what?
Suppose America bought into the Chicken Little theory and mobilized for war, WWII style?
We’d raise an army of 50 million soldiers.
The government would take over control of all major corporations.
Then we’d ship our troops off to enemy territory.
But…it currently costs America $800,000 a year to support every soldier we have deployed to the Middle East…
…which would mean it would cost us $40 trillion a year to support our moblized army.
That’s three time America’s current total economy…d’oh!
Beware of linear extrapolations. The phenomenon under consideration may not be linear in nature.
there are better economic indicators than the dow. Indicators that for example aren’t so biased towards the ownership class. But this is all just me brainwashing you now.
And they are………………………………….? Not that I don’t trust you, but you’ve lied before.
Baron: Excuse me. I’ve been working in a third-world country for the last two weeks and have yet to get back into the swing of things. My mind was diverted to Cincinnati. Please accept my apology.
This Revlon ‘Tickle Me Elmo Red’ isn’t yours, by any chance, is it?
someone is showing their ignorance of the military again.
actus, I appreciate your point with respect to the Dow, but as I recall, during the late 90s stock bubble, we were constantly assured that “more Americans own stock than ever before”, that the base of stock ownership had widened considerably. That meme has now vanished, but even more people own stock now than in the late 90s. I can only guess that it’s to avoid invocations of Nixon that NPR-Newsweek-ABCCBSNBC-NYT have not been called on their truly vile, Orwellian manipulations.
Problem with my calculations, maggie?
Can you offer up a correction?
happy,
Are you suggesting that wealth is more evenly distributed among Americans now than in the late 90s?
Underscoring the concentration of wealth among the very rich, a study last fall by Arthur Kennickell of the Federal Reserve Board shows the nation’s wealthiest 1% owned about $2.3 trillion in stocks, or about 53% of all individually or family-held shares. The wealthiest 1% owned 64% of bonds held by families or individuals, and 31% of total financial assets held by families or individuals, which includes everything from stocks to bonds to cash.
http://tinyurl.com/62d6t
I don’t think i could do it without a phony WWII anaology. but a balloon fence? totally doable.
No monky – I was just saying that stock-ownership is more widespread than it was on the 90s – you know – like Tivo, and iPods. More widespread. Spread wider. More owners.
wait, wait, wait. monky is linking to a two year old article? that’s talking about 2003 results? how are things NOW?
The data isn’t compiled every year, maggie.
2003 was the last time that study was done…
oh, you couldn’t go looking for this years World Wealth report that the article you linked to references now could we?
happyfeet, here’s a handy chart.
Thanks Maggie – Here’s what the NYT wrote in December 99, right before Bush took office in an article called “When This Party Ends, More Will Feel The Pain”:
The “wealth effect” in 1999 was the “most familiar” exponent of a healthy stock market… an effect that has mysteriously vanished as markets set new records…
the nation’s wealthiest 1% owned about $2.3 trillion in stocks, or about 53% of all individually or family-held shares.
And the top one percent pay about 70% of the total income tax. HTH
Still waiting for those indicators. Is it something quantifiable? Or is it something more subjective, like; capitalism is icky.
Ahem—yes, also those spike-heel slingbacks with the glitter toes.
thats great. Everybody should get to own. But just because I own stock, that doesnt mean that a high dow is that great for me. There are better indicators for most people. Like real wages.
Not so mysterious. They’re not records in real terms, so you wouldn’t expect there to be record wealth effect, since there is no real record wealth.
Ya got nuthin’ hunh. Well. That’s OK. You started with nothin.
Stock ownership via 401k contributions often is part of an employee’s real wages.
Alllllllrighty, then. Unreal records? Not valid because they don’t support my view records?
I said there are better indicators, like real wages. Did you read that?
In the sense of economic statistics I don’t think that pension plans are counted as part of wages. I also don’t know how ‘often’ people get 401K contributions. But yeah, you get the point: transfers to people because they work are what I’m talking about. Thats more relevant to people than transfers to them because they own. Because most people make their money from working, rather than owning.
Do you know what i mean when I talk about ‘real’ terms? Meaning, adjusted for inflation. As opposed to ‘nominal.’ Please don’t be an idiot.
actus, my point is that the phenomenon of increasingly widespread stock-ownership has vanished from media coverage of the rising indices, indeed, the new meme is that the rise in the market is benefiting only about like 17 people.
Another example: During the days following Katrina, when it was realized that Gulf oil production and our coastal refining capacity had taken an unprecedented hit, Bush explicitly called for conservation. Liberals had previously made Cheney’s comments about conservation not forming the cornerstone of US energy policy a HUGE talking point, and yet, when Bush called explicitly for conservation, NPR carried the news for a single news cycle, and then only in the context of invoking Jimmy Carter’s sweaters. NPR displayed a shocking level of apathy about the public interest, and devoted all resources to the using the tragedy to advance Democrats.
Throughout all of its incessant coverage of rising gas prices, not once did NPR carry a single story telling me to check my tire pressure. No stories encouraging recycling. No stories explaining how emptying your trunk can improve gas mileage. No look at carpooling in America today. No look at efforts to encourage more use of mass transit. This is an organization that uses its access to the airwave for one thing: propaganda, and have amply shown that the public interest is no part of their calculus.
So it’s the capitalism is icky defense, eh.
I’m not the one being an idiot, son. You make a statement you better have the facts to back it up. You don’t.
Most people get paid to work, not own. You think thats icky? your problem.
What? You talking about the real/nominal issues?
Most people get paid to work, not own. You think thats icky? your problem.
That’s undoubtedly the most nonsensical thing you’ve ever uttered here.
You’re either very young or vigorously dense, or both. Gain some experience in the marketplace and then offer up an informed opinion.
Not even just most people. But most of the money compensation out there is towards wages, not profit or other compensation. Even though its declined, wages still make up 51-52% of the national income. Check out the charts on page 6 here. So I think that wage growth is going to be a better measure than the Dow. Not just because the Dow is a fixed and not a diverse index. But because stock markets measure stock prices which are based on expected future dividends. But yet there are bigger parts of the economy going unmeasured. Bigger parts that affect more people.
Whats your experience been like? Are you compensated for owning or working?
Your link is to an advocacy group whos funding is predicated on proving that there is no improvement in the situation of “working people”. Hardly unbiased, No?
Labor is a market like any other.
Yes. horribly biased. “working people.” Can’t have that kind skewing our truth. But I did send you to page 6, which is just a calculation based on commerce department data. Other sources for labor’s share of the national income are the NBER<a>, and even <a href=”http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6655″>Cato. Hardly unbiased, no?
And the point is its a big. So how labor is getting paid is a good measure of how well off people are. Better than what the stock price of hte 30 companies in the Dow is.
Wages could be an indicator, but there are other factors than just wages. Benefits are a large attraction. How much are wages driven down by illegal immigration? What has government regulation done to depress wages?
Labor advocates always assume at least two things. That people are unwilling or unable to help themselves, and that employment is static.
Those links i gave also mentioned general compensation, in addition to wages. The first one put wages at about 50 some percent of hte national income. Adding in compensation only climbs. And only goes to show how little help the Dow is in tellign us how well people are doing.
Thank you for your comments.
Which begs the original question. Where does wealth come from?
Was it in this thread? I didn’t see it. And. But you can go ahead and beg.
If you can’t answer that question what business do you have advocating for anyone’s livelyhood?
Who says I’m advocating? I just say that measures of how people are compensated for work are better at gauging the economy than the Dow.
If you want to know how wealth is created, I recommend you read the Wealth of Nations. Do you think smith is wrong?
You did.
No it doesn’t.
I already know how, I’ve created some for myself.While I worked for wages no less.
Adam Smith is a start. Now read Hyak.
Like some people say: labor creates all value.
Did you really read all of the wealth of nations? After that you didn’t move on to Ricardo? or Veblen?