THE DALY SHOW

Folks, Time To Choose

This is a posting over at JohnDalyLive about the economic choice you need to make for our leaders.

Thanksgiving Story

My wife Teri told me this story on the eve of Thanksgiving.  Teri, as many of you know, is an exclusive personal trainer with her own business Daly Workout.  She also teaches a couple of group classes for the Las Vegas Atheltic Club.  This story happened right after one of those classes.

LAS VEGAS, NV (November 26, 2009) — So Teri finishes her group class and notices that two women in the class are talking very warmly.  One of the women was from Iran; the other from Israel.  They’ve lived here for a number of years and each still have the accents of their homelands.  But apparently not the animosity.

Teri watched as both of them spoke in another language as friends.  Then they wished each other “Happy Thanksgiving.”

“Only in America,” Teri said to me as she recounted the story on Thanksgiving morning.

It is something to think about — on the positive side — as we go through this recession and we find it hard for countries to find common grounds for peace.

Happy Thanksgiving.

FactCheck Confirms Portion Of My Book

This is a posting about one of the most untruthful emails you will ever read.  I guarantee some of you have received it.  The sad part is this: if those people who read it and believe it had read my book there would be no controversy.  FactCheck confirms what I wrote four years ago.  It’s in this posting here on JohnDalyLive.

Hopefully The Final Episode of Cramer Versus Stewart

The so-called debate between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer was like Muhammed Ali fighting a cream puff.  On JohnDalyLive, I tell you why.

Setting Record Straight on Jon Stewart, Cramer Flap

Hidden Unconscious Bias On Today’s Meet the Press

This posting is about deciphering the bias on supposedly bias-free news shows. Today’s Meet the Press is a great example of many biases – along with a notable but buried expert. I’ll also reveal some of my biases about the media and the economic crisis. And you will hear what goes through my tainted mind while watching such shows.

LAS VEGAS, NV (March 8, 2009) – Don’t take this as a knock on David Gregory and Meet the Press. Gregory has done a great job continuing the Sunday morning legacy of the late Tim Russert.

But today’s show is a great example of the news media panders to biases while burying the objective – or as close to objective – voice.

First, we had Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. They had their usual disagreement on the stimulus and banking plans.

But they also had their agreements. One area of compatibility was earmarks. Why? That’s so lawmakers from both parties can slip in goodies to their constituents. I may be stretching one of my main contentions here, but this is an example of how the political parties work together to help each other while screwing the public.

Next, let’s look at the MTP roundtable. Three of the four are tainted with bias.

First there is CNBC’s Erin Burnett. She works for a network that is owned by GE and NBC. Why wouldn’t there be someone from Bloomberg there? Bloomberg is a competitor and it’s easier to take someone from the family.

What’s worse is that Burnett works for CNBC, a network that has become the publicity firm for Wall Street. Take a look at the ridiculously one-sided views of CNBC’s staffers like Rick Santelli, Jim Kramer, and Larry Kudlow. These people purport to be reporters when they are pundits rooting for the financial institutions that have careened us either criminally or unethically into this economic crisis. The network that exposed CNBC this week was Comedy Central: take a look at The Daily Show’s expose.

Let’s take Mort Zuckerman. He’s the editor and publisher of U.S. News & World Report. That’s a fairly reputable, no nonsense news publication. Still, it’s a publication looking for readers and advertisers. So, might Mort have a slant? Sure, he has a decidedly pro-Administration stance. Plus, Zuckerman was also a victim of the Bernie Madoff scandal.

Next, we have Newt Gingrich. Newt is clearly a Republican who is at least considering running for the White House. Granted, the former Speaker of the House is a smart guy loaded with good ideas. But he can’t see things objectively. He says Obama is losing credibility with the country because he will tax wealthy folks a little more. What Newt won’t mention is that the majority of the nation has lost their faith in the folks who made themselves wealthy on what could appear to be unfair economic policies that favored only the rich.

Then there’s Liaquat Ahamed. He wrote the book Lords of Finance about the mistakes made by central bankers leading to the Great Depression.

Ahamed made the correlation between today’s situation and the 1930s.

If you go back to the Great Depression and you look at where we stood 16 months into that Great Depression, we’re about at the same place.  The stock market is down 50 to 60 percent, profits are down 50 percent, unemployment is up from 6 to 10.  What happened then was the bottom fell out of the world economy because they applied the wrong medicine.  They tried to control the budget deficit, they let the banking system go under, they didn’t bail out a European bank that caused the financial panic in Europe, and they just basically let the economy crumble and applied the wrong medicine.  This time I think we’re applying the right medicine.  The only question is, the patient is so sick, are we applying the right doses?

Notice he said the “right doses”. As viewers, we have to endure the responses of the other three before we get back to Ahamed who says clarifies the “right doses”.

The problem we face is a lack of equity.  And that’s–that has to be dealt with.  Now, it can be dealt with in a variety of ways.  It’s not really a technical issue.  I mean, there’s a lot of debate about how to do it. The fundamental problem is a political issue.  It’s going to take a lot of public money.  There is no way to do this without over $1 trillion of public money.

In other words, what we’ve done so far is not enough. We are repeating historical mistakes because our politics is getting in the way.

As I watched this show, I became uncomfortable when Ahamed finished speaking and the other three would offer their say. Why? This was the only person I could trust on the panel. He didn’t have an ax to grind. Plus, he had spent considerable time researching his topic; you don’t spit out a book in a few days based on what people of influence tell you.

But when Burnett, Gingrich, and Zuckerman spoke I was busy putting up mind filters. My mind was saying things like this.

Yes, Newt, but you want to run for president or at least be the nominal head of the GOP.

Erin, you’re saying that so you can suck up to those CEOs who want to come on your show and lie to us to keep their stock price up.

Mort, you must be pissed at Bernie and how can you get that money back.

This is the same stuff that goes through your head when you’re listening to a pitch from a car dealer.

Let me be fair here. Ahamed is trying to sell a book. Still, he’s offering information that will show you his acumen so you might buy the book.

And here’s my disclosure: my beliefs are in line with Ahamed. I think the economic stimulus was woefully too small. The time for budget cutting was during the Bush Administration – which I wrote about extensively since 2005. Hey, I endorsed for the presidency the U.S. Comptroller General David Walker – who was railing about Medicare and Social Security. So, don’t call me a liberal. I’m a fiscal conservative.

However, now is not the time to be tight or to be a Hoover. We need to repair and rebuild the economy. Yet this common sense point of view during a crisis is dismissed.

My point here is not just about the economy here. It’s about the media. The medium of television news is inherently unable to deliver news correctly.

One reason is the time constraint. Not all news fits in a 30 or 60 minute time period; sometimes it takes more or less time.

The second reason is the profit-motive. Most news organizations are for-profit ventures; thus they take care of their advertisers and sponsors.

The third reason is that those sponsors are the political parties themselves. The parties are given equal time. As a result, you can’t have Graham without Schumer. This makes sense if you assume the political parties combined speak for all Americans. That assumption is wrong. They don’t. The majority of people in either party cannot support the conflicting platforms within each party.

As a result of this, we get too much of the self-interested politicians and media while we either ignore or diminish the unaffected or untainted experts.

That’s why watching news for many of us seems like a waste of our time — especially in today’s economy when time is precious and we’re all working harder.

The Death of News…As We Know It. And It’s Rebirth

This is a posting to show you what the news business will look like soon. Newspapers are folding, broadcast news is cutting back, and cable news is now the combination of bad local news’ entertainment bias and talk radio’s right-wing screaming tactics. Let me show you the future and how you will be a big part of it. And I’ll give you a glimpse of what I will be doing soon in this new news landscape.

LAS VEGAS, NV (March 1, 2009) – A number of media analysis is writing about the financial and cultural demise of network television. Dramas and comedies are all going to cable or at least a cable model. Jay Leno might be on NBC next fall, but it will look like Comedy Central.

The same is happening with news. But it will be more drastic.

Here I’ll show you how the newscasts – as we know it – are also moving toward a cable model and how that will fail and change very soon.

The three reasons news is either changing or collapsing are:

The failure of the electronic news media to use competent and boring experts; the death of journalists – literally their lives and figuratively their careers; plus the rise of the internet and other new media; and whether you like it or not, the new citizen journalist – you.

Let’s look at network and cable news’ failure to give us real information. Watch Sunday’s mainstream media news shows NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s This Week. They both sounded like Fox News Channel’s Hannity or O’Reilly: screaming and yelling over each other.

At moments, these shows – like cable news — are unwatchable. Let me clarify that. They’re unwatchable for people who are serious about getting news and information. If you’re looking for entertainment or drama, namely verbal conflict between people, then this might be good TV. Me? I’d rather watch House or Burn Notice.

Unfortunately, this type of newscast creates more heat than light. And right now we need light.

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria’s GPS had a roundtable Sunday about the relevance of Islam that was just as bad as the other two Sunday shows. The saving grace for the show was Zakaria’s insightful – one-on-one — interview with Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf. Most Americans won’t agree with Wolf’s theory that the stimulus packages are too small, but at least Zakaria gave us an uninterrupted listen to a thinker with a cogent theory.

Yes, Meet the Press and This Week had one-on-one interviews, but they were with politicians or appointees who have their own bias.

Too often, cable and mainstream media rely on politicians, who are biased by nature, and commentators who spin for one side or the other. Or they carry another bias – entertainment bias. They have to pretty or funny. As a result, we rarely get to hear from experts – like Wolf.

And in these times, people want information as raw and untainted as possible and quickly. I wrote about “The Paradox of the Twenty-first Century Media in my book more than three years ago and it still applies today.

The overabundance of news and information we have today has forced news consumers to work harder to gain the truth.

Think about it. The media, as we have it today through all mediums, has actually created more questions, distortions, and outright lies.

What’s even worse for most of us news consumers is the dearth of true journalists. And the number of true news gatherers is dwindling fast.

The headlines – or the lack of them now — speak for themselves. Newspapers are dying and they haven’t figured out how to make money online yet. Or they haven’t figured out how to make enough to pay reporters.

This greatly affects TV stations. Where do you think most of the news you see on local TV comes from? That’s right, newspapers. TV stations cut what news relevance they had by dismissing higher paid and more experienced journalists.

While America is killing the careers of journalists, other countries are literally killing journalists. Anastasia Baburova was a Russian journalist who wrote about the growing Fascist policies of Russia. She was gunned down January 19, 2009 in Moscow in broad daylight. According to The Economist, “The next day, a party of nationalists brought champagne to the murder scene to celebrate the ‘elimination’ of their enemies.”

The America news media we have today has been silenced in a more subtle way. Because most of our news organizations are non-profit, investigative reporters (or what remains of them) won’t aim their flashlights at sponsors or potential sponsors. Sponsor and advertisers pay the bills and the journalists’ salaries.

Watch an investigation by a local TV station. If they go after a business, then that business is usually a small mom-and-pop and not an advertiser. We see the investigative mantel in TV stations becoming consumer reports. An angry viewer gets ripped off and the TV reporter comes to the rescue by uncovering a retail operation that has bad practices.

Trust me, I’ve witnessed this.

We had a great undercover investigation at KTNV that showed how women car buyers were getting ripped off compared to men car buyers. The investigation, complete with undercover audio and video, never ran. The Las Vegas Car Dealers Association went to my bosses and said if we ran the investigation KTNV would receive no ad dollars from any car dealer. If you watch any local TV you know that car dealers and personal injury lawyers keep TV afloat. The choice for station management was run the investigation and get some publicity but possibly lay off a number of newsroom staffers.

This same tactic has happened in even the biggest and best of journalism. Ask yourself this. How could the Wall Street Journal – with all of its accolades and crack financial reporters – have missed the corruption with subprime mortgages and credit default swaps? I’m surmising here. But those reporters were not allowed to bite the hand that was feeding them.

Look at steroids. Only one sports reporter – Bob Costas – raised the issue. Yet, hundreds of other sports reporters covering the games and interviewing in the locker rooms couldn’t see the massive body changes and the increase in power numbers? Of course, they saw it. However, to save their fun jobs or to save the revenues of their publications from the sports franchises, they said nothing.

Feel alone? You should.

The solution? It’s you.

Ask yourself this: who is your travel agent? For most of us, the answer is ourselves. We now book all of our flights online. Granted, if we (ever) go on a long and expensive vacation, we’ll use a qualified travel agent. But if you’re traveling for business or a weekend getaway, most times you are the travel agent.

The same is true now of the news business. You are the journalist. I speak at numerous events and the topic is usually “The Most Important Journalist in Your Life is You.”

The good news for you is this. Technology today makes it easier to become a journalist or citizen journalist.

As far as gathering news, the internet is a wealth of information. RSS feeds can act like what was once the newsroom ticker tape. Your cell phone or services like Skype give you instant access to people around the world.

Creating your own website and blog gives you worldwide distribution access. Twitter can allow you to report from the scene of an incident or event. In fact, Twitter proved the best news tool during the massacres in Mumbai.

And like me, you will be able to produce newscasts on your website.

The bad news is this. Most of us aren’t journalists. The information you get on the internet can be tainted. You might not know how to decipher what is news and what is propaganda.

Here comes the book plug. Yes, my book can help you think like a journalist for yourself.

But for those of us who don’t want to be journalist, those who already have a career, those who don’t have time to keep government and business on an honest path, the new journalists and the out-of-work journalists who are open to new business models will eventually return as our journalists.

You will start seeing newspapers popping up on the internet. The Pasadena Today is a daily newspaper online that is reported by journalists in India. That’s not the most ideal situation for news consumers. However, if journalists want to continue their work they will have to do two things: take less compensation and work harder in a different medium.

TV news will pop up on the internet with more regularity. I can’t disclose anything specific here. But I am involved in a number of TV news projects for the internet. You will see old name publications and networks rising again but in entirely different and modern day forms.

However, here’s what these shows will offer.

The news will be designed for specific audiences. It might be people in a specific profession. It could be a community of people like a neighborhood.

The news programs will have no time limits. In other words, the interviews or segments will be the length of time needed to cover an issue adequately. It might be five minutes but it might be two hours.

The problem with TV news today is the 30-minute window. As a viewer, you either feel cheated by not getting enough information on an important topic or you’re bored when there is not enough news and the show producer fills the time with nonsense.

Another problem with TV news today is the schedule. You have to watch the show when it’s aired. With the new news model, the shows are archived for the viewers’ convenience.

In addition, these new type shows won’t be just seen on computers but cell-phones as well. That will mean larger audiences than TV could deliver – and at lower costs than TV has.

In the shows I’m developing, I have some clear rules.

First, the shows will be loaded with experts. These experts will generally be allowed to speak their minds without interruption. I will use my skills as an interviewer to make them explain in greater detail their theories.

Second, I will use very little roundtable discussions with experts. If I do, I will have control of the microphones.

Third, I will have few politicians on the shows. There will be no politicians in roundtable discussions.

Fourth, I will go after everyone.

Five, if there are entertainers on the show then they will have a relevant topic to cover. For instance, my good friend Bryan Cranston, the Emmy Award winning star of the show Breaking Bad, will come on the show to help me discuss the issue of legalizing all street narcotics.

Six, there will be no discussion of Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan type stories.

Seven, entertainers like talk Limbaugh, Kudlow, and Hannity won’t be discussed. I won’t waste your time.

Eight, I will disclose every conflict or monetary gain I or the show might be receiving by doing a story. (Disclosure: In fact, this column is a little bit of a plug for these upcoming shows.)

When this all happens, I’ll let you know. Until then, hang in there.

American Fascists: Kudlow, Rush, Hannity

This is a posting about the distortions and tactics of extremist right-wing entertainers and lawmakers who keep saying we’re moving toward Socialism. If they’re right, then Major League Baseball and the National Football League are really Communist fronts. Fortunately, the GOP will be punting on these bozos soon.

LAS VEGAS, NV (February 24, 2009) – Answer this. Would you prefer to live in Sweden today or Germany in the 1930s?

For most of us the answer would be Sweden today. Sweden has a high standard of living and it’s a peaceful country. Germany in the 1930, however, began the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich, a totalitarian regime that would terrorize many of its citizens and other European countries.

Why do I ask such a rhetorical question?

Listen to some of the Right-wingers. They could be blindly conservative friends who listen to the majority of GOP lawmakers and the TV news entertainers like CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity. They keep telling us we’re becoming a communist state. We’re running toward Socialism, they say.

These folks are not necessarily wrong, but, as usual, they’re way off base.

It’s typical of their strategy: take a kernel of truth and then twist it for their purposes. They dramatically try to make us think we’re becoming the Havana of today or Moscow in the 1970s. When in reality, these uneducated demagogues are becoming the Fascists of the 1930s.

Furthermore, their behavior has destroyed the GOP and is giving rise to a new GOP that, thankfully, won’t resemble anything like we see today. Let me explain.

Here’s the kernel of truth. We are moving in the direction of Socialism. And what is Socialism? Answers.com gives this definition without bias.

It’s a political-economic doctrine that, unlike Capitalism which is based on competition, seeks a cooperative society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the government or collectively by the people.

Are we moving toward that today? Yes, we are — but on a short-term basis. It’s the same thing America did in the 1930s. The New Deal was a move toward cooperation where the central government stepped in on a larger scale to help end the Depression. Today, we’re trying to get the credit markets moving again while keeping people in their homes.

We can argue at length if the New Deal worked or not. The truth is this. If the New Deal was implemented in 1929 right after the stock market crash, and not in 1933 four years after so much wealth was destroyed, the economy might have rebounded before World War II and the post-war economic infusion from the government.

The point is this. We leaned toward Socialism for good reason: to rebuild the economy. However, we never became Socialists. The closest we came to Socialism was in 1912 – 20 years before the Depression — when Eugene V. Debs got one million votes or 6% of the presidential vote. Imagine if a Socialist today garnered 6% of the popular vote? The TV news entertainers would be touting the wisdom of Joe McCarthy.

Another reason America failed at Socialism: a strong union movement. Like it or not, the American union movement of the early 1900s saved us from real Socialism. I’m not advocating unions, even though I am a member of AFTRA and SAG; I just don’t think unions will have much of a place in our future entrepreneur-internet society.

So, we’ve never become a true Socialistic state in America. To say we’re Socialists is like saying anyone who has had a glass of wine is an alcoholic.

But this myopic bunch of doomsayers make that case by also distorting what a Socialistic state is. Sweden today is considered Socialistic. Many Americans would be comfortable living in Sweden. The European brand of Socialism offers more worker and family protections we don’t have. Granted, their GDP is not ours and the chance for huge profits are not the same as in America.

Still, you can’t compare Sweden today to the Moscow we witnessed during the Cold War. But many of the TV news entertainers would make you think that Stalin’s Gulags, military May Day celebrations, and long bread lines are happening in Stockholm and other European nations.

What’s worse is that Sweden had a major banking collapse in the 1990s – that they survived by nationalizing their banks. I’m not saying that’s what President Obama should do. But because of the Right-wing loud mouths and their distortions, we can’t even consider bank nationalization as an option now.

I believe the majority of Americans are rejecting these fear-mongers. As much as we want to think the election was a love-fest for Obama, it was just as much a rejection of the previous eight years of the Bush-Cheney reign.

Although I wouldn’t call Bush and Cheney fascists, they leaned toward Fascism.

What is Fascism? Let’s go to the Answers.com dictionary.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Was George W. Bush a dictator? For six years, he had no opposition since the GOP controlled both houses of Congress.

Did the Bush Administration suppress the opposition through terror and censorship? Well, they certainly weren’t locking up Democrats on trumped up charges or killing them. But go back to the dissent against the War in Iraq. People like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were shamed into not attending the Baseball Hall-of-Fame because they disagreed with the march to war. They were considered treasonous and President Bush did little to publicly negate that thinking.

And was there belligerent nationalism and racism? Yes. President Bush told the world, “You’re either with us or against us.” He used the term “crusade” about the war in our effort to bring American democracy to the Middle East.

I’ll give President Bush a break here. I think he had good intentions. I think naively he believed he could change the world for the better – if everyone became American. We discovered that most of the world likes the peaceful, innovative Americans – not the ones on the other end of a bayonet, rifle, or missile.

Mr. Bush was misguided by Vice President Dick Cheney who was frightened to death about another 9/11. Mr. Cheney himself said the biggest accomplishment of the Bush years was that another attack did not happen on our soil. That’s a staggering and stilting fear. Even worse, they failed to place any blame on American foreign policy that had been guided way too much by their political backers who demanded cheap oil prices for our economy. As a result, the Bush White House took on a bunker mentality.

What’s worse, this bunker mentality became intertwined with the oppressive thinking of the Religious Right, a group whose goal is the end of the world and biblical version of The Rapture.

Read the book American Fascists by Chris Hedges. It’s an interesting theory that shows how the Religious Right – and the Bush Administration – took on many of the themes of Nazi Germany: racism, nationalism, fear of the intruder, disagreement is treason, and a rejection of modernism.

Hedges quotes Dr. James Luther Adams, PhD from the Harvard Divinity School who predicted that Fascism would happen in America.

Resentments and bigotry lurk below the surface of all democratic societies and can be roused under the right conditions, to promote a creed that calls for the destruction of democracy. What is evil about these systems of intolerance and persecution is not the foot soldiers who carry out the crimes, but the organization that mobilized and unleashes these dark passions.

Among the thinking was the gospel of Christianity became bastardized into American greed – where you were holy if you were rich. And America’s big business gladly embraced this.

This wave of American Fascism was also embedded in almost every GOP presidential candidate. Even the business-smart Mitt Romney fell for it. His speech on religion that was supposed to be a JFK-like moment turned into an “us versus them” speech: believer versus non-believers. That speech of exclusion sunk what could have been a good campaign.

So, it’s evident that while we have turned toward Socialism, we have also turned toward Fascism in America.

What strikes me is the lack of demagoguery on the political left to use this notion. Why haven’t we heard extremist bloggers calling Bush, Cheney, Boehner, and others Fascists? I think it’s because we associate Fascists with Hitler and anti-Semitism and most GOP are pro-Israel, so the argument would fall deafly.

And frankly, I’m glad no one has made those claims. The GOP is not a group of Fascists – despite leaning toward elements of Fascism.

Furthermore, I think the majority of the nation, though not articulating it, saw those Fascist tendencies in the GOP and rejected them in the previous two elections.

Still, a number of Republicans continue these Fascist tendencies. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby the other day mentioned again that Obama might not have a legitimate birth certificate so he is not eligible to be president. The message is clear: he’s really a Muslim.

However, I think we’ll see the emergence of a different Republican Party soon. Conservative columnist David Brooks wrote about this in May of last year. He says the Conservative Tories in Britain have adopted a new breed of conservative thought that is catching on in the UK, but not yet here.

The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”

That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first. As Oliver Letwin, one of the leading Tory strategists put it: “Politics, once econo-centric, must now become socio-centric.” David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes it clear that his primary focus is sociological. Last year he declared: “The great challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival.”

In another speech, he argued: “We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for society.”

This has led to a lot of talk about community, relationships, civic engagement and social responsibility.

That’s not what you hear from GOP leaders like House Minority Leader John Boehner and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

The future GOP leaders are people like Florida Governor Charlie Crist who worry more about the immediate needs of their people, not their own future positions in government or their party.

We will never be a Socialistic state. It’s not in our DNA. Look at our two most important sports – football and baseball.

Like capitalism, these sports thrive on competition. But if you look closely at the business of baseball and football, they have taken on the so-called Socialistic tendencies the GOP extremists have been railing about.

Baseball now has a luxury tax that takes money from big-market teams – like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers – and gives it to the small market teams like Kansas City Royals, Tampa Bay Rays, and Pittsburgh Pirates. That’s a form of Socialism, but I don’t think I’d baseball players secretly call each other “comrade”.

And the NFL does the same. Each team gets the same amount of salaries to spend on players. Talk about a collective.  But I don’t see Dallas Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones in brotherhood with Trotsky and Lenin.

But here’s what’s really happening with both sports. They’re thriving. Yes, there are some cutbacks due to the economy. But what both sports have done is create a level playing field.

Look at the recent results of leveling the playing field. We have had different Super Bowl and World Series winners over the past ten years. There has been very little hint of any dynasty: maybe the Patriots in football but their teams have turned over during the three championship years. Literally every team in the NFL has a chance to win the Super Bowl each year. The lowly Phoenix Cardinals were a few seconds away from their first championship in 60 years. And last year, the Tampa Bay Rays, a doormat since their inception, won the American League pennant.

Your thoughts.

Danger of Larry Kudlow of CNBC

This is a posting about another news entertainer who continually offers a dangerous mantra that he thinks is funny or helpful.

LAS VEGAS, NV (February 13, 2009) – It’s getting tough to watch CBNC.

The first reason is the economy. The anchors, reporters, and analysts are just as confused as our political and business leaders about how to solve the crisis.

As a result, CNBC turns into Fox News – the TV version of the NHL. The screaming and hollering over each other is annoying. Frankly, the place for business has become a place to turn off.

The second reason is Jim Kramer. He is the Howie Mandell of news entertainers. He’s loud and outrageous. I’m not saying he’s not funny. Watching him for his shtick is fine. But watching him to determine how you’re going to invest is insane. The only way it would make sense is if Kramer has sat with you and he knows your investment goals and exactly where your assets are.

The third and biggest reason to start ignoring CNBC is Larry Kudlow. While Kramer is a harmless blow-hard, Kudlow is a blow-hard that borders on being dangerous.

His constant mantra on nearly every show he appears is this: government is bad; business is good.

The truth is this: we should be as skeptical and optimistic about government as we are about business. We need them both to function with efficiency and transparency.

Kudlow’s constant battering of government fails to understand history and its damaging effect on the nation.

Read The Case for Big Government by Jeff Madrick. It offers a solid argument that big government has done more than smaller government. Big government ushered in new eras of development and economic expansion for the United States. Look at Reconstruction, The Progressive Era, The New Deal and the government spending on domestic programs after World War II.

I’m not saying big government is the only answer.  But it has to be looked at — especially during times like these.

Granted, Kudlow is a business reporter. Reporter? Let’s say business analyst. And you can argue he knows his stuff there. Although I would question any journalistic integrity considering the mess we’re in and his constant flag-waving for big business.

The problem with Kudlow is he parades as a journalist when he pushes a political platform.

His tirades – which are uncomfortably flamboyant — fail to understand that our government is made up of Americans. Why are we degrading American workers as useless, evil, or a detriment to the nation?

This battering of government borders on psychological abuse. Most government workers don’t retire with millions. Sure, they get good benefits. But most of these people are working to serve the country. Does Kudlow think the military is loaded with slackers? Would a CEO of a major company treat his employees that way?

What if you disliked doctors.  Would you announce to your doctor while he’s examining you that you don’t trust him and you feel like he’s ripping you off?  That’s not currying favor with someone you’re doing business with.

A business transaction is a sign of faith.  One side agrees to do something in return for money.  When it comes to an employer and employee relationship, a good working environment is part of the deal for the employee.  But when one of the employers — namely us and Kudlow — browbeats the employee, it creates a poor work environment.

For too long, people like Kudlow and most of the GOP act like Scrooge and treat the government with contempt.  Sure, there are abuses in government and workers need to be managed.  But as stewards of our government, we need some balance in how we treat the entity which is supposed to be of, by, and for the people.  I think most of us want the government to earn its keep while we offer the people who make government run with respect.

Unfortunately, Kudlow is so out of touch with most Americans. I don’t believe Americans have fallen in love with big government as much as we’ve realized how fickle big business is. The financial industry got greedy and they used their smarts to cover up what they were doing.

To punctuate the point further, big business got away with murder.  Big business bribed (my word for campaign donations) their way into sweetheart deals with the Bush Administration.   As a result, the wealthiest of us got tax cuts and tax credits while the government stood by – with lax regulation — as big business nearly killed our economy.  And we saw how well smaller government worked during and after Katrina.

And now the government is the only entity that can jump-start the economy. And according to Kudlow, government is still bad.

Maybe I’m jaded here. When I go to the Nevada DMV, it usually takes longer than I want. But I’m always treated nicely and the job always gets done.

When Kudlow comes on my screen, I do one of two things; laugh loudly or go to the bathroom.

Fairness Doctrine Mumbo Jumbo

This posting deciphers the silliness on both sides of the political spectrum about the so-called Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters. I’m against bringing it back. Tell me your thoughts.

LAS VEGAS, NV (February 7, 2009) – Newsmax is a conservative news website. It’s not bad, even though it only highlights stories that will hook the right-wingers.

One recent story on Newsmax – but not seen in too many other places was — “Democrats Look to Muzzle Conservative Radio” about Democratic efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to broadcasting.

The Doctrine, passed in 1949 and repealed in 1987, calls for broadcasters to give equal time for opposing views. It gave rise to the legions of talkers like Rush and Hannity.

The article quotes Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) from a radio interview with Bill Press, a former Democratic Party leader in California. When asked if the Fairness Doctrine should return, she said:

“I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. Our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.”

Wrong, Senator. You’re merely picking a fight for political reasons. And if Democrats start taunting the morons on The Right, then they deserve all the headaches they’ll get.

First, the conservative right should have their domain in the media. AM Radio is that place.

Some background here: Does that mean cable and mainstream media are left-wing hate machines? No. It does mean the cables and mainstream “lean” to the left. I’ve always said that mainstream media has an inherent liberal bias – because their goal is to reach the masses. The masses tend to be poor and liberal-leaning.

Second, by trying to shut up The Right, you only antagonize them and make the so-called liberal media conspiracy seem more real. And frankly, in Congress there are far more important things to discuss – the economy and foreign policy, for example.

Third, who would dictate what’s fair or what’s not fair? I dislike the Left and the Right, but I don’t want anyone in the government to dictate that. Look at the recent Justice Department under Roberto Gonzalez. Seriously, do you want Rush Limbaugh on the FCC when the next GOP President takes office?

Fourth, the Right-Wing, as we’ve known it for the past two decades, is slowly becoming extinct. They’re the equivalent of the Politburo touting Communism as the Berlin Wall is falling. They are bankrupt of ideas. Even the evangelicals have moved away toward the environmentalists.

Fifth, AM Radio is becoming extinct too. Eventually, the talkers with any audience will go to the Internet where they will be lumped in with all sorts of views – and hopefully get diluted into intelligence. AM Radio is looking more and more like a home for audio infomercials.

Six, the majority of people who listen to talk radio are stupid. Not all of them are stupid. Some listen for the entertainment factor; these guys are hysterically funny because they’re so idiotic. But too many followers – the majority in my opinion — listen to guys like Rush – and this is important – for their only news and information. When I hear someone say, “I get all the news I need from Rush,” then I ask, “So is Lebron as good as Michael yet?” It’s not worth the time.

Now, before you think I hate The Right, think about this. When President Obama met with conservative journalists at George Will’s house last month, notice that guys like Rush and Hannity weren’t there. David Brooks was there – a real conservative thinker.

Have you ever heard David Brooks syndicated radio talk show? No, he doesn’t have one. I rest my case.

Allow the Right-Wing nut cases to have their place. Eventually they will die off.