TCS Daily


The Battle of the Bulb

By Jens F. Laurson & George A. Pieler - August 17, 2009 12:00 AM

You can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink: except for politicians, especially in Brussels. Europe's Finest, ever busy fixing the world, stop at nothing to force happiness upon their citizens. Who knows better what's good for the fine citizens from Bulgaria to Portugal than the 26 commissioners sitting at the avenues de Beaulieu and d'Auderghem, and rue Belliard?

This ancient complaint finds new life in Brussels' latest, saving the planet by telling EU citizens how they may and may not illuminate their homes. Banning Edison's light bulb proclaiming 'inefficient!' while ignoring the mercury-hazard of CFLs (compact fluorescents) is an absurd idea on so many grounds. Most disgracefully, it once again shows politicians don't trust consumers to make choices. Choice, after all, is anathema for politicians, as the people easily make the wrong decisions. They cannot be trusted to weigh the option of CFLs, with higher cost offset by energy savings. Even though the EU's current energy policies leave no fear of low energy prices undermining incentives for purchasing more efficient appliances.

It's one thing to reach into the homes, above the bathroom mirrors of every citizen to ban the bulb, but quite another to trample on artistic freedom. This is another classic for the "unintended consequences" folder, and may be the spark needed to help the bulb-ban activists see the light.

The mercury hit the fan when the Suddeutsche Zeitung warned that Europe's incipient ban on incandescent bulbs covers bulbs used in art, listing Rauschenberg, Tinguely, and Beuys, whose works incorporate such illumination.

One might think there's a simple fix: exempt art, or 'grandfather' existing works using incandescents. One would think wrong. Helpfully, EU energy commission spokesperson Ferran Tarradellas instead suggested "It's utterly ludicrous to ask the commission for the sake of art to leave a product on the market that could be dangerous for the environment, health, and consumer." Odd, as compact fluorescents can be dangerous; incandescents, not so. He also analogized the situation to demanding artistic exceptions for landmines and plutonium (where is that museum?).

For the EU, asking for the right to choose one's light bulb seems akin to the apocalypse. Less apocalyptic in the United States, perhaps, but both Europe and North America are bent on eradicating the incandescent and elevating the CFL. The arguments include stopping global warming (less energy per bulb, less energy use, fewer carbon emissions) and the simple goal of energy efficiency.

Nothing wrong with that, but why be so totalitarian? Light bulbs are but one component of household energy use, and even the entire universe of illumination (Christmas lights, theatrical lighting, night sports, and so forth—all neatly listed in the cap-and-trade bill passed by the U.S. House, which regulates every energy input a politician could think of) is only a fraction of today's energy demand. Simply on rational grounds, spurring energy efficiency generally, whether using a pricing mechanism, tax incentives, or regulatory targets, has much more promise than tackling each energy-using product, one by one, with a big Verboten sticker.

Yes, the incandescent light bulb produces more heat than light. And it is singled out for scorn by the energy-efficiency avant-garde. Does that mean it should be replaced only by CFL bulbs which government experts proclaim better? Those experts seem heavily influenced by Sylvania, GE, and Phillips, world leaders in the bulb business. As Tim Carney saliently observes, had Edison marketed his incandescents like "his 21st-Century heirs at General Electric, he would have lobbied Congress to outlaw candles in 1879" (fire hazard!). Forcing everyone to get new light bulbs is great for bulb makers, but what about the rest of us?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds CFLs hazardous if broken, recommending everything short of calling a Hazmat crew in the event of a mishap. Current CFLs give an unhealthy, yellowish light (personal experience speaking). Recent studies question their reputed life-spans as rather shorter than promised, and other tests indicate they may be less, not more, efficient in certain applications. And these tests don't consider that 'inefficient' heat production is most welcome on winter days and in cold climates.

Everything comes at a price. Germans are hoarding incandescents in advance of the ban as buying and import are forbidden—customs are instructed to seize all incoming bulbs—though owning isn't yet. And those who don't hoard will pay extra in the mandated pursuit of highly speculative, long-term energy gains. More cash outlays on bulbs means deferring other energy-saving appliances. Net energy gains? No one knows, and no one's even asking.

After all, why bother with questions when the answers already are stipulated? The UN, no slouch in mandating idiotic behavior, is forcing 30 million unsuspecting Mexicans to accept 'free' CFLs with 'strict household monitoring' to guarantee they are not resold. Dutch energy trader Enesco will buy up the illusory carbon credits thus artificially generated, all brokered by something called "TFS Green", a kind of mini-Enron backed by UN bureaucrats. Nothing is produced, nothing is saved, no consumer is served, and everybody makes money. Welcome to your carbon-free future!


Jens F. Laurson is Editor-in-Chief of the International Affairs Forum. George A. Pieler is an attorney and former Tax Counsel to the Senate Finance Committee.

57 Comments

Where is the science?
"Scientists, journalists, and politicians must each share a little blame for America’s widespread scientific illiteracy, according to Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, coauthors of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. But because science is crucial to grappling with critical public policy issues in health, energy, and national security, researchers will have to add communication tools to their repertoire and we’ll have to figure out how to replace the vanishing sources of scientific journalism."

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/08/unscientific-america/

It looks like Europe is not immune to scientific stupidity.

This is about control, and about saving the planet
those pushing this new religion couldn't care less about common sense

For what it's worth
I paid $12 for three 40W Led bulbs at Sam's Club earlier this year.

But they are only a hazard to people.
The watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) want fewer people.

Zyndryl is Trolling at Democratic Underground today...
...so please leave a message at the beep.

I am beginning to understand why Bob enjoys trolling here. I used him as an inspiration.

Check out my first 'posting': http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6320158&mesg_id=6330448

Of course, with a username of 'Palin2012' I am probably a dead give away.

Weren't those corkscrew bulbs used by that female guard at Abu Graib?
You know, when she would twist them up the rectal cavity of her prisoners and then make them sit up and down until they broke?

Total BS, but hey...I am learning to 'think' like a Liberal.

Hahaha...they pulled my entry and banned me
Of course, they hypocritically allow postings that violate their own 'rules':

"Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating armed revolution or violent overthrow of the government of the United States."

"While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "****," "*****," "****," "skank," or "*****," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "**********," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. A common exception that is permitted is the use of words like "*****" or "prostitute" in cases where public figures or the media do favors. (For example: "Fox News is whoring for the GOP again" or "Tom DeLay is a prostitute for corporate interests.")"

Liberals.

What tolerant 'liberals'!

Waste Site
They also deleted your comment, so even though I donned my haz-mat suit and waded into the bilge to read it, it was nowhere to be found.

Could you reproduce it for us here so I could see what manner of expression was worthy of "erasing" you?

And please don't ever suggest I go over to that heinous swamp again....

I should've pasted a copy and saved it
...but alas, I did not.

My main point was: Don't blame Republicans because Obama threw you under the bus.

And I expounded on it.

Obviously, they didn't like hearing the truth...or me calling them 'Neocommies'...or telling them that Pelosi & Co. take them for granted because who else will they vote for?

Like I said, they didn't like hearing the truth.

Benefit of the Doubt
You could be right . . . but somehow I doubt that it was merely that phrase which prompted the deletion. That site is notorious for eliminating any expressed opposing thought, no matter how polite or pleasantly presented. Of course, I haven't the mettle (or supply of Pepto-Bismal) to spend time perusing that ideological mire, but I'm willing to bet they'll tolerate much worse description and imagery if it's applied to anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky....

They are the same idiots that regulate cucumbers too.
There is also a rumour that these eu-bigbrothers want to get rid of the filthy and dangerous habit of europeans to use so many candles in their houses.

Apparently their rationale is that the offensive candles are not even used for either light or heat anymore, but rather for mere frivolous 'ambiance'. They also cause lots of fires so they are considered by the guardians of the size and color of cucumbers as 'dangerous'.

If that weren't enough, apparently most modern candles are made of parafin, not bees wax anymore, and thus it's a oil based global warming issue.

I fully expect the EU rep in the US to write in here and try to defend this ridiculous move. And when he does let's ask the flunky why they wouldn't make this move since they do so many other control measures.

Don't they also regulate the shape of the curve of bananas that are allowed in?

Oh yes...
...something about them being treated like Lewinskys and the only real choice they had in elections was whether to spit or swallow.

Of course, if you read the other posts, they write far, far worse....in blatant violation of their own rules.

But they kicked me off because I openly declared myself a conservative.

And that is their core problem...
...in that they don't want exposure to any alternate point of view -- at all. It really is more like a religion -- all they have is 'faith'.

Think 'online madrassas' and you get my point.

The other thing I noticed is what total inferiority complexes these folks have. I noticed that from a liberal I knew personally and who was involved in these groups, too.

But the biggest kick I got was from all the posts declaring how 'right wing' the entire media establishment was. Amazing!

Perspective
>But the biggest kick I got was from all the posts declaring how 'right wing' the entire media establishment was. Amazing!

I suppose if one's perspective is such that anything rightward of Howard Zinn is "right-wing," then yeah -- I can see how the Liberal Establishment Mass Media could be considered not left enough to qualify as anything but "right-wing."

I've read discussions -- purporting to be taken seriously, no less! -- between people who think exactly that way: the New York Times can't possibly by liberal (they assert) because, well, they aren't nearly as far out in leftoid whackville as their preferred viewpoint (they insinuate). This is what's known as "redefining the center," such that a leftist ideological mooring is used as the definition of "center" in order that everything to its right is then by defualt whack-job "right-wing" -- hence, a way to justify that the New York Times et. al. actually reflect right-wing views.

You're right: Amazing. Also delusional.

more perspective
I used to refer to guys like that as being so far out in left field, that their in the parking lot.

These are the kind of guys who declare that anything that isn't pure communism, is some form of capitalism.

Let the consumer eat Mercury
It seems that these mercury filled threats to our kids, waters and landfills are less of a threat than consumer choice and GW.. Our polluticians already suffer from Minimata's disease and are all mad as hatters from it. Notice the silence from the blue media on the looming mercury threat followed by a commercial for some enviro group with stranded polar bears and pictures of hurricanes devistating seaside homes all caused by .... us. This beats Orwell. We are now Kornbluth's 'Marching Morons'.

Here are their rules
Unlike TCS, DU is a moderated discussion. Among their rules you will find "Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements."

Such genteel boundaries are not observed here. Before trying to post at DU again (and I would urge that you give it another try) you should first read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

If you can write a civil and intelligently reasoned comment in support of your POV I'm confident they will post it. I strongly doubt that what they objected to was your ideological position.

You raise a good point
I think we should each ask ourselves whether a talk forum should restrict the language and tone of the comments they post, or whether they should be "no holds barred", and admit vulgar epithets in the guise of intelligent comment.

While we're at it we should ask whether a talk forum should post comments across the spectrum of all points of view, or whether it should just be a sounding board for those who like to spout without fear of interruption.

"But the biggest kick I got was from all the posts declaring how 'right wing' the entire media establishment was. Amazing!"

We read a lot about how left wing the media are.. despite the obvious fact, that most Americans get their "news" from cable TV, and that the product they are fed amounts to mere info-tainment, brainwash and propaganda.

Wouldn't you say the obvious fact was that all our media are corporately owned, and that they give us precisely those messages that are acceptable to their ownership? And that disturbing truths are not to be seen there? And that we are being urged to have an enduring faith in the marvelous and sustaining system that allows us to consume more of those products that pay their freight?

Free market vs corporate
If the news media company operates in a free market and has no fear of being regulated or controlled by the government, and must produce a product people are willing to buy, and believe, then there should be quality news from such companies.

you still on the kick that anything corporately owned must be right wing
I would have thought that the real world would have knocked some sense into you by now.

Really?
That's not at all what I said.. although it's true that corporate interests pretty much define what we mean when we refer to the "right wing".

What I said was that our modern media are a way of manipulating the thought content of millions of minds. Minds of voters, minds of consumers, minds of employees. And so, if corporations have come to own our public media and to control their content, they're smart enough to create content that serves their ends.

No one would expect them not to. It's only logical that they do so. So when you're injecting media-borne corporate content into your mind, don't be deceived that you're imbibing some propaganda from the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy. It just ain't so.

However, knowing you're just obstinate enough to continue attempting to make your point, please outline for us how it serves the corporate interest to corrupt the public with visions of socialism.

Maybe in your dream world
In the real world, television producers have known for the past fifty years that people will look at any signal their set can pick up. They find that easier than having to provide their own content.. as people used to have to do when they gathered around the parlor piano.

And over time their progeny, having been brought up on an unrestricted diet of televised images, have come to actually prefer utter crap to other brands of content. Programs like Wife Swap, or Cops, or anything featuring Donald Trump.

Broadcast TV is dying.
Precisely because no one is watching 'free' TV.

Fewer than 1 million people watch Katie's 'news'.

Any quality dramas and programing is now on cable channels.
Also, people are paying ala carte for programs they want to watch.

Just because something is on TV, doesn't mean people are watching. Hence idol type shows can sell advertising because viewers vote.

How many shows are promoting Palin and conservative POVs?
I don't see many.

Rumors of its death are premature
Broadcast, network TV has seen its best years behind it, for the moment at least. But it's still a $24 billion industry, in annual ad revenues. That's only slightly behind its all time highs of 2004-2008. So don't count them out just yet.

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_localtv_economics.php

Also, note that local cable ad revenues are far less than local network station ad revenues. $13.7 billion, as opposed to $6.9 billion. Same source.

Its amazing what you can learn, when you look for actual information as opposed to firmly felt conviction. I would interpret the data as reflecting that actual advertisers feel that broadcast TV is still the better venue for their advertising dollar to be invested in.

"Broadcast TV Faces Struggle to Stay Viable "
"For decades, the big three, now big four, networks all had the same game plan: spend many millions to develop and produce scripted shows aimed at a mass audience and national advertisers, with a shelf life of years or decades as reruns in syndication.

But that model, based on attracting enough ad dollars to cover the costs of shows like “Lost” and “ER,” no longer appears viable. Network dramas now cost about $3 million an hour.

The future for the networks, it seems, is more low-cost reality shows, more news and talk, and a greater effort to find new revenue streams, whether they be from receiving subscriber fees as cable channels do, or becoming cable networks themselves, an idea that has gained currency."

"Ratings over all for broadcast networks continue to decline, making it harder for them to justify their high prices for advertising. Cable channels are spending more on original shows, which bring in new viewers and dampen their appetites for buying repeats of broadcast shows."

"he network television landscape is scattered with other examples that speak to a broken business model.

The CW, a lower-profile network owned by CBS and Time Warner, contracted out part of its prime-time schedule to an outside supplier, but shut down the deal after just three months because of low ratings and production problems. MyNetworkTV, a unit of the News Corporation, said it would essentially stop being a broadcast network and instead be a “program service,” supplying shows, some of them reruns of series like “Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” to affiliates. The networks have already lost much of their cultural cachet to cable, which is spending more to develop original programs. For the first time, the winning drama at last year’s Emmy Awards was on basic cable: “Mad Men,” which is on AMC. (“The Sopranos” was the first cable show to receive an Emmy for best drama series, but it was shown on HBO, a premium cable channel). "

"Financially, the networks are on shaky ground, partly because they rely almost solely on advertising. CBS reported that for the fourth quarter of last year, as the recession deepened, operating income in its television segment declined 40 percent, even though it was by far the most-watched network. In the second week of February, CBS had 12 of the top 20 shows, according to Nielsen Media Research."

"“More dollars are chasing fewer eyeballs,” said Gary Carr, director of broadcast services at TargetCast tcm, a media and marketing company."

"In the last three months of 2008, broadcast networks lost nearly three million viewers, or about 7 percent of their total audience. Overall television viewing is up, however, and some big cable networks, like USA and TNT, are attracting new viewers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/media/28network.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

Promoting Palin? For what?
There really aren't many programs "promoting" Sarah Palin, because she's become a national joke. But there are quite a few promoting conservative viewpoints.

Most of them are on cable. The network political shows all tend to be what they think of as "moderate". That is, they all promote the Washington line, and try within those confines to sound like they're a little edgy. It's that attempt at edginess that bothers you.

Be assured, though. Actual progressive thought is rarely represented anywhere but on Free Speech TV or LinkTV. And occasionally on C-Span. Oddly enough, George Stephanopolis and Charley Gibson don't really speak for us.

Winners and losers
If 12 of the top 20 TV shows are now on CBS, it sounds like at least one broadcast network isn't doing too badly. But that's only in reality. ROI expectations have become so extravagant that no amount of success is now able to feed the dreams of their investors. It's like newspapers, that recently enjoyed returns that were actually very good indeed.. until a round of speculative acquisitions made them all fall short of the unrealistic requirements that were placed on them.

Your snip calls attention to rising cable television stars like those of TNT and USA. And, I could add, Lifetime, HBO and a dozen other newcomers. Their edge, whether broadcast or cable, is in providing either superior or at least more popular content.

Either way, television is a place where seriously large money is being made. And it will continue to be. If it ever self-destructs it will only be through very, very bad management. Which is certainly a possibility.

What it is decidedly NOT is a stalking horse for the socialist agenda. Such a thing would be bad for business.

Where is the conservative media on TV?
Where?

Nope
Read their postings...You'll see those rules broken in whole or in part all over the place. Trust me, what I wrote was meek in comparison.

" I strongly doubt that what they objected to was your ideological position."

They kicked me off because I was obviously not a 'progressive'.

Broadcast TV: The 'Public Option' of the Television Production Industry
.

roy lives in bizarro world
one in which people with money must be conservative, because that's what marx taught.

Don't bother checking with reality, his model has made it's prediction and that is his final answer.

If she's becoming a national joke, it's because of the lies of broadcast media
But then, roy will never acknowledge that.

Have you ever seen the transcripts of the full interview, and compared them to what was broadcast? I have.

The media lie. They do so every day, and they do so to promote a far leftwing agenda.

roy is so far to the left
that he actually believes all media are conservative

roy continues to see only what fits into his world view
a common trait for him. From yesterday's MSNBC, Contessa Brewer speaking:

"A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms.

The reason we're talking about this--a lot of talk here Dylan--because people feel like yes, there are Second Amendment rights, for sure, but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. You have a man of color in the Presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists."

-------

Two problems.

First, the assumption that since the men with guns are white, and the president is black, this MUST be about race. An assumption so absurd, that only a liberal could think it without imploding.

Second, the man carrying the "assault rifle", just happens to be black. MSNBC carefully cropped the picture so that none of the man's skin would show.


To this recent episode, we can add the media leaning over backwards to protect Obama from criticism during the campaign. While at the same time following every Palin rumor, no matter how absurd, as far as they could.

In the House and Senate, which party has the vast majority of millionaires
The Democrats, that's who.

But roy continues to believe that the Republicans and conservatives are the party of the rich, why, because it makes sense to him.

No need for facts, just check with roy's gut.

So bring a wrongful discrimination suit
Zyn, I just took a look at the DU discussion site. I chose a provocative subject-- GUNS-- just so I could see whether avidly pro-gun sentiments were on display.

You do have a point-- comments from total nutballs like yourself don't seem to be among their postings. But a range of intelligent discussion including all sides of the debate was evident.

Today's topic was a store owner in Harlem who was being robbed by four armed men. He blew two of them away and sent the other two to the hospital with gunshot wounds. Police later charged him with an unregistered weapon and said they planned to prosecute.

Read the discussion for yourself. See whether you think its fair and balanced. Even though it's free of comments relating to bodily functions (such as "spit or swallow") DU manages, IMO, to conduct an exchange in which all sides are fairly represented.

Maybe you should wash out your potty mouth and give it another try.

even by your standards, that's a stupid comment
There is no federal law against discrimination on ideological grounds. If there were, every Ivy League school would sued out of existence.

DU only has all sides, if your ideological spectrum runs from hard core socialist to brain dead communist.

The REAL reason why they are so fixated on Palin is...
...because they FEAR her. They KNOW (even if they refuse to admit it) that when a conservative runs as an actual conservative, they win elections.

Specifically, they FEAR her defeating Obama in 2012.

Ok, then try this
In your next posting, identify yourself as a 'conservative, not a progressive' and that you don't support Obama.

See what happens.

Liberals can't attack without being exposed as the hypocrites they are.
Attack a woman of achievement, a mother, a Title IX athlete?
She is exactly what the feminists wanted in a women, except she was not a socialist (and she is pretty and a heterosexual).

On your SCREEN, that's where!
Marjon, you amaze me. You imbibe a constant diet of Rush, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and all the rest of the merry band, and they tell you that everything you see on TV is socialist propaganda.

So you believe them.. and imagine that what you've been watching has been socialist propaganda.

Meanwhile, to find actual left leaning media you have to subscribe to Dish, where you can at least find LinkTV. There's none that I can see on the broadcast networks, other than an occasional Frontline, and certainly none whatsoever on cable. Unless Jon Stewart upsets you with his humor.

Right wing television became the dominant form nearly thirty years ago. You sure you haven't seen anything like that on your TV set?

Amazing, how easily you're hypnotized by your Trusted Sources.

Whatever
Actually I've never posted on DU.. or any other liberal site for that matter. I haven't found any where the discussions are either informative or entertaining.

Not like here. Dis be ma favoritest of places. Where else could I meet people like you?

Rush, Savage are on radio.
O'Reilly is on cable and is not conservative, ask him.
Dobbs and Beck are on cable.

NBC ran a show called West Wing about a liberal president. NBC news one broadcast and cable is in the tank for Obama. It was refreshing to see SNL return to ridiculing all politicians, regardless of party.

CBS has a few shows that are not so liberal, but they are not 'conservative' and their 'news' IS liberal and lies (Rathergate).

ABC hired a former Clinton wonk and is fairly neutral on 'entertainment'. But they keep Stossel (libertarian) on board.

Where are the conservatives on TV? I have seen only a few (5% maybe).

Since you expanded the scope of 'media' from TV....
the free market is speaking as so many liberal newspapers have folded or are in financial trouble.
The masses are voting with their wallets.

Wow roy, really!!
Not according to the polls. Fox News and CNN have finally reached the numbers to compete with the networks but, at least 2 of the three, still have the edge. Overall the majority may watch news on cable, but the majority are still getting their news from the networks (via cable and airwaves) and local radio and newspapers. Aad, when you combine the metro/regional dailies, network raido news (not talk raido) and the TV news with CNN, the vast majority of people are watching or reading at least some lliberal offerings. On the other hand, most liberals claim to have never turned on Fox News.

No Subject
This was my comment:

"We read a lot about how left wing the media are.. despite the obvious fact, that most Americans get their "news" from cable TV, and that the product they are fed amounts to mere info-tainment, brainwash and propaganda.

"Wouldn't you say the obvious fact was that all our media are corporately owned, and that they give us precisely those messages that are acceptable to their ownership? And that disturbing truths are not to be seen there? And that we are being urged to have an enduring faith in the marvelous and sustaining system that allows us to consume more of those products that pay their freight?"

Whether the cable audience or the broadcast audience is larger is, in one sense, immaterial. The obvious fact is that in either venue, authentically liberal views are rarely heard.

An excellent current example is the fuss over health care alternatives. Every actual liberal in the land comes to the table favoring a single payer system, as outlined in HR 676. But we've never heard anything about that on television. Instead, we heard constantly that Obama never had a plan, and was leaving it up to Congress to come up with something. In fact, the single payer approach has been around for years (Hilary was its early champion) and has been explicitly described in HR 676.

So, in time, we heard that the alternative system being proposed was the "public option".. a watered down version of the undiscussed single payer plan. And that was immediately being described on all networks as being unacceptable to the public. Despite the fact that most people being polled were at that time in favor of it.

So all they had to do was to drag the vote beyond the August recess. Which gave them an extra month for all the propaganda about "death panels" to sink in and convince the public the experts they rely on all thought it was a bad idea. To the point that now, when it comes to a vote, a majority will probably in fact be afraid of this public option. When in actuality it has always been private insurors (and particularly HMOs) who arbitrarily deny treatments, and who commonly don't allow you to choose your own doctor.

Every network has conspired in this effort, to portray any public option as being insidious and poorly thought through. Except, probably, for PBS. So let me refine my comment by saying that most Americans get their news from television.. and that the news they get is strongly biased against authentically liberal views.

Let's also say that the news they get on radio (other than on NPR) and in print is very much the same. The liberal voice is silent.

If you want liberal reporting (that is, stories that cover all sides of an issue) you don't read the center-right Times or the Post. You would read The Nation, or Harpers, or American Prospect.. those broadly popular publications that get read by nearly everyone (?).

Finally, here are some hard numbers:

"NBC's "Nightly News" topped the evening newscasts with an average of 7.6 million viewers (5.0, 11). ABC's "World News" was second with 6.5 million (4.4, 10) and the "CBS Evening News" had 5.1 million viewers (3.6, 8)."

http://www.590klbj.com/news/article.aspx?id=1318729

While interestingly, "In primetime, FNC [Fox News Channel] commanded 55% of the cable news market share, averaging 1.4 million viewers, while CNN claimed just 32% of that audience ..."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2004_June_29/ai_n6087812/

I had no idea. In NC, nearly everyone watches cable. I thought that was a national condition. Whenever you go into a public place that has a TV, Fox News is on it. I thought the culture was saturated in Fox.

I guess not. Thanks for pointing that out.

Count me as one who hopes Palin runs for Pres in 2012
She can be summed up by one word - quitter. When a politician seeking office can be summed up by one word, it can make or break them. Remember so long ago, our current President? Obama was summed up by one word - change. It worked, that was exactly what the country wanted.

To be totally honest, you guys need to break the rust off your brains. Palin is a joke. Its not because the media lies about her. Its because she is lacks intelligence on issues beyond Alaska, its because she tries to be a politican, whe tries to say what she thinks we expect her to say. And worse, she tries to be a rebel sometimes and say what she thinks we wouldn't expect her to say, on certain topics. She's not good at it, it doesn't come across as natural. You guys are bought and paid for because she says what you need to hear, to the point you ignore or are unable to recognize the overall impression she leaves. She is an interesting phenomenon, for sure. Frankly, you may as well stay "stuck on stupid", it will mean your views, and maybe even views close to yours but not as extreme, will never have a strong influence on our culture again. We can all pray for that.

I'd rather worship a Muslim Kenyan lawyer than a quitter! (Although I don't worship Obama, I'm critical of him)

Yeah you should have
I was curious too, confirmed myself they yanked it from sight. I wanted to see what you said that so hurt their sense of self-worth. Bunch of wussies. The far left is no different than the far right in their insistence to only be exposed to echos and marching orders.

They didn't get Obama elected. Conservatives didn't get Bush elected either. As you alluded to Z, who else will they vote for? The middle is what determines Presidential elections. Probably statewide elections too. Pelosi has a chance for re-election (gag) because of the demographics of her district.

Your main point must have been selectively divisive, Zyndryl. You're right they shouldn't blame Republicans for throwing them under the bus, but they can blame Republicans for throwing the country under the bus and offering no alternative but hindrance to progress. I'm guessing you left out any reference to the second part. But it wouldn't be genuine trolling if you admitted the whole truth.

TCS Daily Archives