Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Had It

My wife was quite upset this morning, and talking about "fasting" from the news - interesting phrase, that.  She has been listening to the reporting about whether Romney's "47%" comment was accurate, and how the fact-checking has gone, etc.  But it has not been the content of the discussion that has upset her.  Good points on both sides, there. It is the sneering, condescending, openly-siding-with-Obama's-interests tone that has infuriated her.

We have been comfortable enough with Romney, though not especial fans.  We seldom put up signs in our yard anyway.  But we're getting a Romney/Ryan sign.

These reporters don't hear it.  They really have no idea how much they telegraph what they believe is the proper view for you to take.  And a lot of Americans remain heavily influenced by these tones, while congratulating themselves that they are actually responding to content.  The media is not always intentionally trying to manipulate them.  Some are.  But this is part of our social wiring, to speak and respond in certain ways in order to get our way; forms of bullying and wheedling.  Fish. Lure. Automatic unless you fight against it. But those who insist it's not happening will never fight against it.

Conservatives use these tones without realising it as well - I have heard them from Christians, I regret to report - but not on the news.


Gringo said...

What many don't realize is that before the "Bush Tax Cuts" the percentage of taxpayers who didn't pay federal income tax was decidedly lower.

I would be in favor of repealing ALL of the "Bush Tax Cuts," which would accomplish two things. 1) It would at least temporarily stop the "rich don't pay their fair share" bleating. 2) With more people paying income tax, more would want to have spending reduced.

Sponge-headed ScienceMan said...

Gringo - I agree wth you on the tax cut issue. I think a smart political move for the Republicans way back in the Spring would have been to agree to recind all the tax cuts and take the issue away from the liberals. That could have been political capital well spent and got the country talking about the spending side of the (big) problem).

bs king said...

I forget where I heard it, but a few months ago I heard a conservative say that Repubs should immediately request we raise taxes so our income equals our spending. He figured that would be the fastest way to get people to vote for smaller government.

Right now Americans are getting government for something like 60 cents on the dollar...who wouldn't go for that?

james said...

Most of the news involves things I have no influence on. If Bernanke obediently decides to inflate away the debt, I can't sway him one way or another. Nor have I the ear of the Chinese heading for those Japanese islands.

While knowledge is a good thing I can, and sometimes do, treat the news as kind of stimulating entertainment. So it makes sense to think of a fast from the news, and I've done it several times.

When the news is so larded with lies and spinnage that it leaves me despising people, there's all the more reason to take a break.

Dubbahdee said...

Ummmm...I can hear the deafness on BOTH sides pretty clearly. Not sure what you've been listening to.

I recently commented on a friend's Facebook post regarding Mr. Obama's stated support for "redistribution." To my thinking BOTH sides favor redistribution. It is the very nature of government. The only difference is a matter of degree and direction. If you think "redistribution" is evil by nature then you must convict both sides. An more honest approach is to frame the argument as "I prefer X form of 'redistribution' over Y.

I feel caught between Scylla and Charibdis on this election. Either way I'm either going to smash on the rocks or drown in the whirlpool. There is a difference in approach, but the endgame doesn't appeal to me either way.

karrde said...


just remember that if we have a President with an "(R)" after his name, most of the press will actually pay attention to any potential scandal.

As opposed to the current President, who has disobeyed the War Powers Act (about reporting military action to Congress within a certain number of days).

And the current President may have known about and approved of a gun-running operation that armed a Mexican gang with American-sourced guns.

And the current Executive Branch has officials who may have broken the Hatch Act by doing political campaign stuff while acting in their official capacity as Executive Officers.

This is all far from discussion of redistribution, but it part of what I've noticed about how the various Press organs have treated the current President and candidate Romney.

(Most of these items have been mentioned by Instapundit at one point or another...with the Hatch Act stuff being the most recent.)

Texan99 said...

I think the best way to get small government is to make sure that everyone pays for government as equally as possible. You cannot get small government if 51% of voters can vote for 49% of voters to pay for larger government.