Sunday, July 14, 2013

Cruising the Web

The entire Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story is a tremendous tragedy. A young man is dead and racial animosities have been stirred up to the point that authorities fear riots. Zimmerman is not a hero and his own actions contributed to his fate. And Martin's actions certainly contributed to the eventual deadly confrontation. It seemed clear that there was never enough of a case to prove murder or even manslaughter against Zimmerman given the reasonable-doubt standard. I just wonder how all this would have been different if the media had reported the story more truthfully from the onset. For example, if Zimmerman had been described as Hispanic instead of the created term "White Hispanic" from the beginning, just as other mixed-race people such as Barack Obama are not described as a "White Black," would there have been any of this publicity and national attention to the story? What about all the other elements of the story that were not reported in the beginning that would have painted Martin differently than a young teenager out to buy Skittles? The slanted reporting of the media and actions of those race-mongers like Al Sharpton who enjoy ginning up racial conflicts turned this tragedy into a national obsession and the result has not been pretty.

Chuck Schumer inadvertently tells the truth.

What a telling juxtaposition of stories as Edward Snowden's self-praise as he allies himself with former KGB officer, Vladimir Putin, and the vengeful actions of the Putin government in posthumously conviction of Sergei Magnitsky, a dissident that was killed by the beatings he suffered in Putin's prisons.

Matthew Cooper tries to analyze why MSNBC's ratings have declined. He goes through several different explanations such as the perception that they're just mouthpieces for Obama or the fact that CNN has been improving their ratings at the expense of MSNBC. Then he has another theory that MSNBC is just "too erudite, too sophisticated and too earnest to hook a wide swath of viewers." Cooper hypothesizes that the line-up in the evening features hosts who are just too similar to each other in their approach to broadcasting since the shows are so intellectually progressive. You buying that? My theory is that MSNBC, like Obama, benefit from being in campaign mode running against the Republicans. So they both had better ratings during the election. But now that the election is over, attention is waning. Obama particularly is missing being contrasted with Mitt Romney. Now he's on his own and he's not benefiting from being the sole focus of political attention. That is why he has to try to always set himself up in contrast to Republicans for every single issue. But the public just doesn't care all that much about the GOP in the aggregate. They stop paying attention and both MSNBC and Obama will suffer declines. Conservatives, however, lost the election. And the losing side always has better success in marshaling their forces to pay attention and gin up stories and attention. We saw the same effect during Bush's second term. If MSNBC truly wants to improve their ratings, they should hope that a Republican wins in 2016.

So why does Obama get all the power and none of the blame?

Jonah Goldberg ridicules the constant progressive attempts to make government smarter.

What a surprise: campaign finance reform hasn't done anything to lower the cost of elections.