"Tricked into" mortgages, how about tricked into colleges?
The left talks about people "tricked into mortgages" but never about investments that are almost as large, how about "tricked into college" -- young kids are sold a false bill of goods: that their careers depend on a college education. Often $40k a year later, for four years at $160k, students leave paying down a decade worth of needless debt. Colleges modify their costs and play games with their pricing, most often in racially discriminatory ways, and most of the costs are entirely wasteful on bloated bureaucracies. They also make it virtually impossible to transfer to other colleges. If Countrywide was a bit smarter, they would have decided to run Countrywide College.
Labels: college, messaging
The "death" of evangelicals
So this "post-evangelical" clown, Michael Spencer,
writes in the Christian Science Monitor that there is a coming 'death' of evangelicals and plays on all sorts of fear tactics. And of course in 60 years he'll be long gone by the time that his theory is proven right or wrong, but it's at least entertaining to see the Obama Vanguard continue their assault on anything center-right even after they take control of government, because Spencer claims that what's going to kill evangelicals is... wait for it... conservatism. Attaching itself to 'conservatism' is what will cause kids to grow up without faith, donations to dry up, your house to catch on fire, your wife to leave you, your dog to run away and your stock portfolio to collapse even further! Maybe. In 60 years. So sayeth I, who am self-described as 'post-evangelical' and have books to sell, blogs to promote and my other crap to peddle. It's laughable that clowns like this get any press play. What kills any faith or movement is the lack of faith. If Evangelicals start embracing 'gay' 'marriage'; infanticide; high taxes and other 'progressive' things, it will represent the rejection of the essence of their faith. Look at the mainline 'dying' denominations: Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists -- common denominator? radical left-wing attitudes on all these core issues, these family issues. But, of course, in two generations those denominations will be flourishing and all these evangelical ones will be dying according to Spencer. I just hope the clown lives long enough and is sentient enough to realize how wrong he is.
Labels: conservativism, media, media bias, messaging, religion
Debate Judging: Group Discussion and the Stimulus/Bailouts
I recently had the opportunity to judge a debate tournament at Shrewsbury High School, where I occasionally help out. One new Forensics event is called "Group Discussion" where 6 students take a topic and the judge decides which one of them handles and controls a group discussion the best. It seems like a very modern, PC and lame event, but in practice it was neat to see. Having judged the event, though, there were a few thoughts that helped me understand how the economics of the bailout appear to the common man. It was shocking, for instance, that all the students agreed in the necessity for both the bailout and the stimulus package. Even some who had obviously read several libertarian tracts and even mentioned the gold standard, still said government action was needed. There was also an absence of principles guiding their actions, which I suppose is to be expected, but was frustrating to watch. They had a very singular and short-term focus on getting past this immediate economic situation and not really questioning what underpinnings caused this situation. It was also frustrating that no one really took the role of the contrarian. Three students, in fact, were virtually silent through the presentation and I kept hoping that at least one of them would try to take the role of the spoiler. The solutions, even to accept the necessity for government action, were all very within-the-box and uncreative -- there were no big ideas, no one took any risks. I understand economics isn't the most exciting field, but I was still hoping to see a spark in one of them to the point where they took an idea and ran with it - instead it was largely predictable: more education, more money to teachers, the new deal was key to getting out of the depression, more regulation, etc. etc. etc. -- it was hard to restrain myself and say what a cesspool of money most school districts are, that government is ridiculously inefficient and that government caused this crisis. Perhaps I was hoping for too much. I have been so thrilled by the high caliber of the Shrewsbury High students that perhaps my standards were artificially high; I had a good time and enjoyed the day so I should not complain at all, but it was interesting to see what kind of messages are getting across to students in this current crisis.
Labels: Economics, education, media, media bias, messaging
Bailouts and Stimuluses and Messaging
I had the thought that the recent bank bailouts and stimuluses really amount to a new form of corporate welfare - and these new welfare queens are even less worthy than the welfare queens of time past. We get upset when John Thain redecorates his office to the tune of millions, just as we rightly get upset when poverty mama spends her assistance checks on game systems, new shoes and expensive jewelry. Obviously there's a greater moral wrong when the businessman, who is supposed to be disciplined and moral, makes these kind of lapses, but our righteous anger ought to be channeled in such a way as to have a similar welfare reform as we did in 1996 for a corporate welfare reform of 2009 to start allowing companies to fail, and remove the rent-seeking regulations on smaller companies to take up the slack when giants like Sh*ttybank (Citibank) and Skank of America (Bank of America) fall.
Labels: Congress, Economics, messaging, obama, Pelosi
A great Pivot-Point Example
Many of you have suffered for years to my rough explanation of this great messaging technique employed by leftists (best by that witch Katrina Vanden Heuvel) on what's called "pivot-point" - and the general thesis is in responding to tough questions:
1. You can't just ignore, or not clash, with what was asked, or else you're off-topic
2. You don't really want to say anything about the topic, because you're wrong on the issue.
So, presto, you use pivot-point!
You pivot off of one word in the question, giving the appearance of clash, and then point to whatever you want to talk about.
Obama on Biden's Initial Opposition to AIG Bailout: "Joe Should Have Waited"
September 23, 2008 9:41 AM
"What has been clear during this entire past ten days is John McCain has not had clarity and a grasp on the situation," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's Matt Lauer in an interview that ran this morning.
Lauer was talking about how Obama hit Sen. McCain for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout -- saying he opposed it one day then announce he supported it the next day.
But, as Lauer pointed out, scarcely three minutes after McCain said he opposed the AIG bailout last week, "in an interview with Meredith Vieira, Joe Biden, your running mate was asked the exact same question, 'should the federal government bailout AIG?' And he said, 'No, the federal government should not bailout AIG.'" (As we noted at the time.) "And I think that in that situation," Obama said, "I think Joe should have waited as well."
"But it's the kind of thing that drives people crazy about politics," Lauer said. "It sounds like you were trying to score some political points against John McCain using his words, when your own running mate had used very similar words."
"No, hold on a second Matt," Obama said. "I think what drives people crazy about politics is the fact that somebody like John McCain who for 26 years has been an advocate for deregulation, for 26 years has said the market is king and then starts going out there suggesting somehow that he's a populist who's been railing against Wall Street and regulation -- that's what drives people crazy about politics."
So, Obama was asked:
You appear hypocritical, that you held McCain to this standard when your own Vice Presidential candidate said the same thing.
Obama responds:
McCain sucks
or said another way:
Obama asked:
You appear hypocritical, that you held McCain to this standard when your own Vice Presidential candidate said the same thing.
Obama responds:
What's really hypocritical is how John McCain once supported deregulation when it was fashionable, and now when it's politically convenient he says something else. We can't believe what John McCain says because he might change it next week.
See how he uses that one phrase to completely avoid talking about the subject, and then simply goes onto his talking point? He pivots off of "what drives people nuts about politics", restates it in his answer to make it sound like he's actually clashing when he's not, and then moves on to his soundbite.
Labels: media, messaging, politics, theory
"Message" a.k.a. Political words that mean even less than political promises
So,
Politico is saying that Obama supporters are worried that his 'message' isn't resonating compared to McCain's. All that McCain seems to have done differently is to choose Sarah Palin, who actually had a discernable record. Funny enough, though McCain's numbers have gone up, typically among Republicans, Obama's have stayed roughly in the same place. What this article fails to note is that neither candidate has a message or any serious vision. Neither one offers a voter any real choice, rather, just two disparate images of 'character' and 'leadership' and 'vague words that mean nothing' in place of "issues." And while Democrats complain about being "defined" in the "messaging" by "Republicans" they forget that Republicans have a natural advantage: they can readily screw over their base, like McCain, and the base will still vote for them! Obama has none of the same flexibility. McCain can talk about gun control, being pro-choice, being pro-union, and raising taxes, and he'll only shave off a point or two but will gain ten. Obama can't deviate on any of the major issues without risking a real revolt: he can't kick big unions, admit that abortion is murder or even admit obvious facts about Israel, race, entitlements, social services or even foreign policy. In terms of the "message", the constraints are not due to Republican chicanery, it's due to the ferocious strength and political acumen of the varied interests on the left. McCain can play the populist and Obama's stuck in a message box held together by his "friends" to always toe the leftist line. No wonder why he's stuck at 45%.
Labels: election, mccain, messaging, obama
Media bias or "news judgement"
I love the mainstream media (MSM in blog-talk)
justifying their inane coverage decisions.
Larry Craig is newsworthy, but
John Edwards is not. Every Republican misdeed is newsworthy, but
William Jefferson,
Alcee Hastings,
Charlie Rangel or
Chris Dodd.
This all just reflects a media spinning out of control to protect its own interest and the hidden agenda of those who own the newspapers, those who run the newspapers, and those who write the "news."
--The tone of the Obama coverage is shameful -
read Politico's completely one-sided and uncritical recent story about the Berlin trip.
Or this recent story about a death row inmate stumping for Obama, and yet does anyone in the media connect this to a perhaps soft-on-crime Obama?
--The John Edwards double-standard is shameful
--The continued "news judgment" of these outlets is continuing to fail, as best evidenced by the continued success of Matt Drudge
--Newsweek's cover-up of Obama's past attendance at a Muslim school is hilarious, if not also a sad statement on the breakdown in the gatekeeper mentality.
Dan Flynn wrote a great post about this as well.
Certainly
the bias can't be seen mathematically, in campaign donations for example? The continued democratization of the media will enable us to bankrupt these evil empires of publishing. Or, as Richard Nixon once said, "Thank God for television and radio for keeping the newspapers just a little more honest."
Labels: media, media bias, messaging, politics
Bankruptcy Week: No Oil to see here, keep moving on
This article at Business Week, "There may be oil offshore, but..." is testament to a strange phenomenon where business types barf back DNC talking points. Reading the article, one can clearly see that there are a great deal of natural resources yet to be developed, but this article goes out of its way to dispute the possibility of any possible development, even going so far as to say that no business will take a risk without clear "profitability" as though there were only sure-things in the business world. Has environmentalism so thoroughly taken over and infected the minds of rational human beings that they can no longer accept obvious statements? Are our eyes so blinded that we cannot see? We face an energy crisis and no one wants to create more energy! I found article author
Moira Herbst's personal blog, which had one slightly negative thing to say about conservative Hugh Hewitt, though overall nothing too damning of her. She seems a recent j-school grad, and though we shouldn't hold that against her, it occurs to me that this article was probably out of her league, and she had to rely on the DNC talking points because precious didn't know better. So, again, liberal bias caused not by a conspiracy but most likely from laziness, immaturity and inaccuracy. And the journalists can't understand why no one is reading their tortured constructions.
Labels: energy, media, messaging, policy, politics
Acknowledgement: Amanda Carpenter
So, the Senator Dodd countrywide scandal is being covered by some greats,
such as Amanda Carpenter here on FoxNews. It seems that FreedomWorks is making a serious effort to attack this mortgage debacle, which is a good thing. Even though students are often the ones penalized the most in that their rents will be rising, they're unlikely to tie the two things together, or to make the connections between government policies, and their rising rents. I live in a poor part of the state, and I'm paying $460 for a room in a house, in DC I paid regularly over $650 a month for a room in a house, and dealt with multiple roommates all the time. Obviously the devaluation of the dollar plays a part, as does the slowing economy, but the fake prices of houses and buildings thanks to artificially low interest rates, and
a lending industry willing to give 6 year olds credit, has quite a bit to do with it. Yet even Barack Hussein Obama only says vague statements about responsibility, etc. -- There's no answer which gives the lending industry a bailout or free reign to continue irresponsible lending.
UPDATE: O'Reilly covered the scandal tonight, maybe it's making MSM?!?! Maybe a $300 billion bailout for an idiotic industry is causing a few to ask who is watching the watchers. Something that's not being covered, but needs to be shouted from the rooftops on this, is that
Dodd's Senator father was just as corrupt, using campaign funds to finance his personal life. Like father, like son.
Labels: amanda carpenter, corruption, Dodd, loans, messaging, mortgage, o'reilly, politics
Acknowledgement: FreedomWorks rocks Dodd's house with a Panda suit
So, being a conservative doesn't always have to be about complaining,
my post a few days ago about the problems of the party in getting the message out included the observation that Sen. Chris Dodd took an illegitimate Countrywide loan, and there was no one covering it. Well, I was wrong like kong, because
FreedomWorks has sent a Panda to Dodd's house of corruption asking Congress to stop PANDAring (pandering) to the mortgage industry, including setting up a website on the subject of the corporate bailouts,
angryrenter.com -- in a sea of conservative movement mediocrity, they stand out like rockstars. Freedomworks gets double points for using a costume, my favorite protest trick in the book, thank you Saul Alinsky. Now, it'll be tough for this to catch on, and a lot of these smart ideas never seem to crack into the MSM and die a quick death on the conservative media ghetto, but hopefully it'll get some traction. As a complete aside, there do seem to be a few people who will do original reporting and break things from the low-level to the larger media markets, people like Michelle Malkin, O'Reilly and a few others.
Labels: Dodd, freedomworks, marketing, messaging, movement
