Most conservatives pine for the "good ole days." This is mostly based on a mythology of the past. John Adams, the second president of the US, signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts which criminalized speech. The third president, Thomas Jefferson, was no better. His papers revealed that he did things that he knew were unconstitutional. There were no good ole days.
It is rather odd to claim that Obama is the epitome of evil, or to blame Bush for everything. I say a pox on both their houses.
These comments are my introduction to part 2 of Pam Dewey's series on George Orwell's 1984. Orwell did not have to have too much of an imagination—all the various trends that led him to write 1984 were already present in WWI. This is what Pam talks about in part 2 of her series.
For me it is not that government somehow restrained itself in the past. Instead, if there is any worsening, it is a result of better technology available to the powers that be. This does not mean that Orwell's 1984 is not important. In fact, as you read Pam's series, a reading, or rereading, of 1984 is a good idea. It is available for free as a PDF.
Today I have included a discussion with Christopher Hitchens on Orwell from Book TV.
Pam Dewey, the beloved editor of the Prophecy Podcast, has started up a series on her blog Prophecy Panic Button on propaganda and in particular is beginning with Big Brother and George Orwell's novel 1984. It is not that it matters which sock puppet is on the right or left hand of Babylon the Great. What matters is how we, unless on our guard, will be deceived just like the masses in the novel 1984 that Pam references.
As Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth." Can you? No the truth will not be about a few bad men with secret handshakes, it is a lot harder than that.
I used to just repost things on email, and now on Facebook, without thinking about them too much. Now I think about the poster before I resend it to others. If it is untrue, do I want my name associated with it? Here is another post where I talk about this from a Biblical perspective.
I noticed recently another meme that is making the rounds—Obama as the cause of high gas prices. I was suspicious about this meme from the start. While there are many things that a government can do to skew prices, commodity prices are not in the government's control. “I do not like high prices, and I do not like Obama, therefore it is his fault” seems to be the philosophy.
Personally, I like high prices! Don't get me wrong, I grumble about the price of gas as much as the next person. But high prices send us signals. They tell me that I need to try to use less of the product than I used to. Rather than just jumping in the car and going off the hill for various products, I plan and buy these products on one combined trip. (I live 30 minutes away from most major shopping.) These price signals also tell producers that there is money to be made. They produce more. This is good.
I saw an interesting chart at the Cambridge House conference I attended. It showed a gradual increase in US energy production. It is a combination of rising prices and new technology. While any trend can stop unexpectedly, the speaker pointed out that if this continues the US will be self-sufficient in 10 to 15 years! Yeah. Personally when I look at the prices, I think of the American oil producers and a disappointed Saudi King and I feel much better.
So are gas prices higher under Obama? Is the meme correct? The answer to that is yes and no. Let’s look at some posters, the first two from Facebook, and the last from Vox Day's blog.
The first one is a motorcycle rider waving and complaining about Obama complaining about Bush, a nice combination of two memes. I think that the Obama as anti-Bush meme has a lot more validity than the Obama gas meme. But why is there a motorcycle rider saying this?
The second poster is getting some sharing among my friends on Facebook. It shows the increase of gas prices from Obama's inaugural month to today. As near as I can tell it is accurate, but misleading. Look at the next chart—by extending the time frame slightly it shows something different. Gas was much higher at the end of the Bush administration than in previous years, in fact it was just as high as it is now. I blame Bush.
Both blaming Bush or Obama for high prices is valid, if you criticize them for interfering in the market, but otherwise neither jab is fair.
The purpose of the third chart is an internal debate among the hard money types about whether we can expect inflation or deflation in the coming crisis. (I do not think there were any deflationists at the conference.) Vox's point is that prices are not going up in energy if you go back to 2008. He is right, but his chart suffers the same problem as the second chart. If you go back farther then it will show a definite upward trend. There is inflation in the system, but Vox is partially right, inflation is not a huge problem at this time.
Remember that statistics are ripe for misinformation. If you are not confident in an internet story, or do not wish to take the time to track it down, then do not repost.
I concluded my post on the Telephone game with a Weird Al song. Here it is again. Stop Forwarding that Crap to Me.
Most media bias is too subtle to easily see. It is often the story you don't see. Or the story you do see that the news outlet was paid to air, such as the recent example of CNN receiving money for their coverage of Bahrain.
There have been two stories recently, not well-covered of course, that illustrate my point. Both stories involve CBS.
A few years ago CBS bought the tech website CNET. I used to listen to a few of their podcasts—I am not sure why I stopped. CNET reviews various tech and entertainment hardware. Every year at the electronic show CES they give awards.
I’m not going to pretend that the Dish/CNET debacle is a major news story. I can assure you that it isn’t and next week we’ll still be reading a CNET camera review from 2011 to decide which ultra zoom to buy (or, arguably, you’ll just end up on Amazon and read those reviews, which, I’d argue, are supplanting traditional gadget reviews). The whole thing stinks, but it doesn’t take a super sleuth to figure out what happened. It probably shook down like this: a CBS lawyer got wind of the award, saw the damage it would do to the case against Dish, and told the board. The board made a few calls, the editors cried, and the Hopper was pulled. News got out because someone who is close to a number of CNET and Dish folks tweeted about it. This would have been a quiet kill if hadn’t been for those pesky kids.
First, I agree that this is not a major news story, but I disagree in that it should have been. The Hopper is a product that automatically records TV shows, and when you watch the show later, it automatically removes the commercials—my kind of product. The Hopper was going to win best of show, but CBS, as they own CNET, stopped this.
I have no idea of the merits of CBS' suit against Dish. I certainly understand that CBS' business plan is more and more in the toilet because of the DVR. I would not be surprised if they won. The Hopper certainly violates the spirit of Dish Network's agreement to air CBS on the satellite network.
CBS banned Soda Stream’s Super Bowl spot because, apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.
Please pause and read that sentence again.
I am shocked that CBS would ban a spot for being too competitive. But I’m even more shocked that the advertising world isn’t up in arms about it.
SodaStream is a product to make your own soda. I have it. It is OK if you want cola, but its carbonated water product is awful. Unfortunately this is why I bought it.
What these two stories tell us is that the Media conglomerates will be keeping what they perceive as their own best interests. This should come as no surprise. The advertisers are the boss. Will Faux News ever point out that the gold sellers who advertise on Faux are paying a fortune for these ads, and they must pay for it with higher commissions or larger spreads/markup? Will Faux News ever do investigative reporting on the Pharmaceutical industry as they are big buyer of ads?
Are you that naïve?
I know you are not.
The first step is to be aware of the problem. The second step is that you will be able to concentrate on those outlets where you can ignore the ads, either by a printed or internet Media, or by a DVR. The third step is to reduce advertiser-supported media. I wish there was a fourth step of being able to buy your news media without ads. I personally am looking for that fourth step.
The irony is that in both these instances CBS actually managed to make the situation worse for them. In particular SodaStream is getting more buzz from the rejection of their Superbowl ad than they would have gotten from the ad itself. I want to do my part in this, so here is the ad.
Since this is across the pond, this scandal may not have reached your personal radar. While I am not a conspiracy theorist, it is easily supported that there are various groups of pedophiles that help each other—even in church hierarchies like the Catholic Church and the Jehovah Witnesses.
The power of group identity is strong; the desire to protect the group leads otherwise moral people to do evil. That "group" might be your nation, your church, or even your employer.
Media is one way this is done, and the sex scandal is used as a template by this podcaster to talk about propaganda. I do not agree with every point made here, but the general thrust of the video is correct.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 3:00AM 
It is rather odd to claim that Obama is the epitome of evil, or to blame Bush for everything. I say a pox on both their houses.
