The (Liberal) Media! (Insert spooky ghost voice here.)

I come from a very conservative, Republican family.  When I tell them I watch MSNBC (I love Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and CNN (they have a better web site), they get all freaked out and tell me they can't believe I still watch the Clinton News Network and that that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are two of the most liberal people on television (they haven't heard of Rachel Maddow).  Perhaps they don't realize that President Clinton was out of office 8 years ago and hence that reference is a little too old, not too mention completely irrelevant, and yes, Keith Olbermann is liberal.  So is Chris Matthews and and Rachel Maddow.  So what?  That doesn't make the entire network liberal, but it does give it a liberal lean.  These people are political commentators, they are paid to comment on the political environment.  Besides, Morning Joe on MSNBC features a conservative as the main host.

What's interesting to me is that my dad refuses to accept that Fox News is a conservative news organization.  He accuses CNN and MSNBC of being liberal because of its commentators (even though CNN features Campbell Brown and Lou Dobbs--two independents).  If we're using the exact same rule with Fox, looking at just its commentators (i.e. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and now Mike Huckabee, and on occassion Karl Rove)  we could easily assume that Fox is a conservative station.  But it doesn't stop at just the commentators.  The news anchors who are supposed to be unbiased (Megyn Kelly and Brit Hume, for example) are extremely biased, not to mention Steve Doocy & Company (not paid for their commentary) on Fox & Friends all have very conservative leanings.    So why is it the same people who complain about the "biased liberal media" feel it okay to watch a biased conservative new station?  Why is it that stations like MSNBC get jugded based on their commentators while their anchors remain unbiased and professional, yet Fox News has conservative anchors and commentators, but oh no, they can't possibly be conservative because fair and balanced is in their tag line?  The difference between Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, is that Fox isn't just leaning conservative, it's entirely conservative.

But I digress, let's back up and look at the media as a whole.  If Fox News, the New York Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, and etc. are a part of the media, and they have conservative leanings, how is it that the media on the whole is considered liberal?  In fact, a journalist should maintain a degree of liberalism, otherwise controversial issues wouldn't be reported, they'd just be bashed.  Let me explain:  You need to be open to ideas and opinions and want an environment that promulgates freedom of thought and expression.  Liberalism is not at all bad and its a pity that such poltroons like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have to launch absurdist political attacks on thought itself.  In fact, isn't liberalism--a philosophy of freedom and openness--what this country is founded on?

I'm not against one engaging in conservatism as a political idealogy.  I don't agree with it, and will argue against it, but I don't hate you if you're a conservative.  I might think you're a bit silly, yes, but I won't hate you.  I believe in freedom of thought, no matter how silly, ridiculous, or wrong it is.  But that does not mean that I support you or agree with you, but I support your right to think.

So, the media is liberal only if we ignore the conservative leaning new organizations.  Let's not confuse the media with political commentators and pundits.  When I listen to conservative talk shows, I don't agree.  But I still listen to them.  I still watch Fox News and listen to Bill O'Reilly.  And I think that's the point.  The media should be challenging and aggressive and forcing us to think.  What's unnerving is that you get a lot of clever people out their on the radio and TV who say things really fast and make a lot of really simple arguments that people hear and say, "Yeah, that sounds right."   

So let the media be the media.  Like Fox News says, let the media report and we can decide.  But let's really decide instead of regurgitate what we hear.  Let's thinkIt's up to the people of this country what we believe and in what direction this country goes.  We control the media in a sense because what we watch determines the ratings and that is really what these networks live and die by.  

No Auto Industry Bailout

Greed.  Really, this is a huge motivator in the world of capitalism.  Let's not confuse my words.  Greed does not equate to capitalism, it only plays a role in it.  It'd have to, and to argue this point would be absolutely frivolous and foolish.  Wikipedia has quite a lengthy definition of Capitalism, but here's how it starts:

Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled privately, for profit...

The last two words are quite important: for profit.  For one to seek a profit, one must have a certain amount of greed.  Everyone has greed.  Everyone wants more than they need.  This is not uncommon.  However, greed can become a lot more prevalent in a capitalistic system.  

I've worked for corporations, and when decisions are based largely, if not solely, on money, then that corporation, no matter how much it claims to empathize with the people they've laid off, or with those whose salaries they've lowered, is motivated by greed.

Let's look at the auto industry.  They've ran themselves into the ground.  GM, specifically, had the opportunity to to initiate a new kind of vehicle that, if currently available, would probably be making them a lot of money right now.  Of course I'm speaking of the electric car, specifically, the EV1.  (For more thorough information on the EV1, watch the documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?

Essentially, GM had the technology and the demand for this electric vehicle, which was introduced in 1996.  That's right, over 12 years ago, this technology was available.  However, GM thought this vehicle would actually make them lose money, due in part to its low maintenance cost (less parts, mean less repairs, means less profit on the cost of repairs).  They claim there was no demand for this vehicle (which I believe to be a fabrication), but perhaps now they should take a look at gas prices.  More than ever, electric vehicles are in demand.  I know they couldn't foresee the future.  However, if they thought there was enough demand to start the EV1 project in 1996, you'd think they might have foreseen a larger demand in the future.  (Especially since gasoline won't last forever.)

I firmly believe that if the EV1 (or by now the EV12?) were still in existence, it would be holding together the auto industry in this tumultuous economic environment.  Think about it.  With a decade under its belt, the costs for electric vehicles would be down, making them far more affordable. Battery technology would have been vastly improved (and indeed it has been improved) to make vehicles go further than ever on a single charge.  Right now, people would be buying these vehicles and the auto industry would be in competition (which is the essence of Capitalism) over who can make the most affordable, most efficient electric car.  There would be no need for a bailout.  

However, GM, in their greed, stopped the program and destroyed all but one of the EV1s.  Now, there is no affordable electric car on the market and the auto industry is looking for a bailout.  This bailout should not happen.  No money should be given to the auto industry (let alone Wall Street).  I know the damages would be catastrophic.  I know people would lose jobs.  I have relatives and close friends who would risk losing jobs.  But the executives who ran these companies into the ground need to realize that they made a mistake.  Sure, they know they did now, but taking away their money and their jobs would really drive the point home.  (Not to mention the fact that all those who so adamantly oppose government regulation, now, finding themselves in trouble, go straight to the government, the very entity they demanded stayed out of their affairs.)  

So, instead of giving that money to the auto industry, we could use that money to really help the middle class by giving those billions to those whose jobs were lost.  This money could be used to create jobs (perhaps the government could sponsor the creation of a wind, water, and solar generated power grid?).  This money could truly help those in need rather than bailing out the rich bigwigs who put us in this mess in the first place.  

Besides, government giving away money and bailing out big business is much more socialistic in practice than putting higher taxes on the wealthy, who, presumably can afford it, and using that money to help fund public schools, road construction, libraries, and etc (Because, after all, that's how tax money is used).  The free market is not free if government is giving money to the businesses that didn't know how to manage themselves.  However, this does bring to the surface the whole argument that business does need to be regulated.  Regulation is not government ownership or funding, and it is not control.  It is a way to make sure an economic meltdown, like the one we're currently experiencing, doesn't happen.

Rough times are ahead, whether or not these industries get a bailout.  In fact, giving these companies money in no way guarantees a recovering economy, and if the government is going to be spending billions of dollars trying to save the economy, why don't they put that money with the people who matter:  the everyday, working, middle class Joe the Plumbers of the world instead of the people that put us into this mess.  

my information was found:

in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

The Curtain is About to be Lifted

I feel like if I say, "My wife and I think alike," that I'm shortchanging her.  You see, I have met no one that has quite the same perspective as my Kimmy Pocket.  Now you might say, "Why Steven old chap, no two people are exactly alike, so of course no one has quite the same perspective as anyone else."  Statements like this are tomfoolery and I will take no part in it.  What I mean is, Kim is very very unique.  In a good way.  Of course, we do have our similarities and I love them.  We have very similar opinions on most issues on which one could have an opinion (i.e.  everything).  Yet, Kimberly will often have very different reasons why she shares the same perspective.  So we decided to share our views on the world whether or not the world is ready to be hearing them.  Some things we say will probably be very normal, other things may not be quite what you're expecting.  Then again, it has been said that there are no original thoughts anymore and to that I say, "How unoriginal indeed."

Get ready to be wowed.  The show's about to start.