Comedians

0 0

Why Do Republicans Keep Going on MSNBC & CNN?

April 8, 2019

COMMENTARY

X

Story Stream

recent articles

Although the Democratic National Committee has not allowed Fox News to host a Democratic primary debate since 2004, the DNC recently made a show of boycotting Fox for the 2020 presidential cycle.

Some conservatives have expressed outrage over this slight, but another question is why haven’t Republicans taken similar steps against CNN and MSNBC? In November 2015, I wrote a column, “A debate that will live in infamy,” which excoriated CNBC for its sneak attack on the top 10 Republican candidates for president at the time. That column (reprinted in “The Media Matrix”) called the debate a “blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion by insulting the standard-bearers of the Republican Party.”

I don’t think Fox News would sink quite that low if it were permitted to host a Democratic debate, but then I’m not a Democrat. It should be obvious to everyone, however, that Republicans have not learned the lesson to be wary of the left-wing media.

An interview of Hogan Gidley on “MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson” last week was the latest case study in how stupid it is for any Republican, for any conservative, and especially for any Trump supporter to ever appear on a network like MSNBC (or, as should be obvious, CNN). 

Of course, I’m not breaking news here when I say that, but as a journalist I keep hoping reporters will treat the people they interview with respect and fairness and make all their subjects feel equally at ease and/or nervous regardless of political affiliation.

Naive, huh?

That’s certainly not what I witnessed last Tuesday when Jackson mauled (er, interviewed) Gidley, deputy press secretary for President Trump (seen at 11:45 of this video). I kept hoping Gidley would push back his chair and walk off the set in disgust, but I knew that if he did, it would just be click bait for Democratic trolls and late-night hacks (er, comedians). Once you make the mistake of handing matches to the angry mob, you have no choice but to stand patiently until they finish burning you at the stake.

Gidley probably knew he made a mistake as soon as Jackson introduced him by saying that he had “deigned to join us here on set.” He acknowledged her insult by saying dryly, “I do deign.”

Jackson began by grilling Gidley about whether the White House would turn over to Rep. Elijah Cummings information related to how security clearances were granted to 25 people. (A White House mole, er Deep Stater, had given the list to Cummings in a ploy to create a post-Russia distraction.) Although it was clear after the first time the question was answered that the White House was not going to cooperate with Cummings’ fishing expedition, for some reason Jackson could not absorb this information. She asked the question a second time, then a third, on each occasion implying that Gidley was not answering her question, which he plainly was.

“This precedent would make it possible for members of Congress, anytime they want to make a political point and play political games, to bring that [confidential] information forward. That is absolutely ridiculous and we’re not gonna play that game,” Gidley said to Jackson, who then pretended that he’d dodged the question.

It was at this point that I started to reflect on the fact that Jackson was no longer a reporter but rather a Democratic operative. Being aggressive is a good trait in a reporter. Being the devil’s advocate is a necessary tool of being a good interviewer. But I could not recall any instance in recent memory where a reporter on MSNBC had used the same tactic against a Democrat.

After moving on from the security-clearance issue, Jackson claimed that President Trump had reversed course (or “punted”) on Obamacare. The president had said he wanted Congress to replace Obamacare, which a federal judge had ruled to be unconstitutional, but he later explained that a vote would not come until after the 2020 election. This confused members of the media, including Jackson, who don’t understand that the House of Representatives is controlled by Democrats who won’t vote with the president to replace Obamacare. Gidley calmly explained the issue and said what Trump wants to accomplish, but Jackson kept arguing with him.

She also accused both Trump and Gidley of lying. She claimed the president said he was “just kidding” about health care. He didn’t. When she started talking about aid to Puerto Rico, she said the president was lying about how much aid has been pledged to that beleaguered island. “These are things that are not true,” she said, repeating Democrat talking points as if they were the gold standard for objective truth. (If you believe that, I have a secret Russian dossier I want to sell you!)

The coup de grace, though, came later when Jackson saved the final segment of the interview for shaming Gidley for having misspoken earlier by calling Puerto Rico a country rather than a territory. Generally, a good reporter will just correct an interview subject by letting them know that they had misspoken. In this case, Gidley apologized and said it was a “mistake,” which Jackson then characterized as “a slip of the tongue.” This gave her the opening she was looking for.

“Do you think that’s a concern that there is that kind of slip of the tongue inside the White House?” she said.

“No, that was a slip of the tongue,” Gidley patiently explained. “It’s not on purpose, Hallie. That would by definition be a slip of the tongue.”

As the interview ended, I hoped that Gidley had learned his lesson  — a lesson that Steve Bannon tried to instill in the Trump White House two years ago when he called the mainstream media “the opposition party.” But unfortunately, this is apparently a hard lesson to learn. The president continues to allow himself to be interviewed by the New York Times, and Hogan Gidley will probably be back on MSNBC within the month.

Rhetoric about the “dishonest media” aside, as long as Republicans show endless patience with the left-wing media, they will continue to “deign” to be made to look like fools.

Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His new book — “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake” — is available at Amazon. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com to read his daily commentary or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA or on Twitter @HeartlandDiary.

0 0

Central Banks Shouldn’t Fight Deflation

March 26, 2019

Currently we can observe a general slowdown in the annual growth rate in price inflation across major countries around the world.

For instance the yearly growth rate of the US consumer price index (CPI) fell to 1.5% in February from 1.6% in January and 2.2% in February last year. In Europe, the yearly growth rate of the EMU CPI stood at 1.5% in February versus 1.4% in January and 2.3% in October 2018.

The annual rate of China’s CPI has also eased in February falling to 1.5% from 1.7% in January and 2.9% in February the year before.The growth momentum of the UK CPI also displays softening with the yearly growth rate standing at 1.8% in February against 2.1% in the month before and 3% in January 2018.

Most commentators are of the view that deflation generates expectations for a decline in prices. As a result, it is held, consumers are likely to postpone their buying of goods at present since they expect to buy these goods at lower prices in the future. This weakens the overall flow of spending and in turn weakens the economy. Hence, such commentators believe that policies that counter deflation will also counter the economic slump.For many commentators and economic experts to counter a decline in the annual growth of the CPI, which they fear could develop into a general decline in prices; they advocate that central banks should maintain a very loose monetary stance. For these experts a possible decline in prices — which they label as deflation — poses a major threat to the economy.

It would appear that if deflation leads to an economic slump then policies that reverse deflation should be good for the economy. Reversing deflation will simply involve introducing policies that support general increases in the prices of goods, (i.e., price inflation). By this way of thinking, inflation could actually be an agent of economic growth.

According to most experts, a little bit of inflation can actually be a good thing. Mainstream economists believe that inflation of 2% is not harmful to economic growth, but that inflation of 10% could be bad for the economy.

Why should a rate of inflation of 10% or higher be regarded as a bad thing? If anything at inflation rate of 10% it is likely that consumers are going to form rising inflation expectations, and according to popular thinking, in response to a high rate of inflation, consumers will speed up their expenditure on goods at present, which should boost economic growth. Clearly, there is a problem with the popular way of thinking.

Inflation Is not Essentially a Rise in Prices

Inflation is not about general increases in prices as such, but about the increase in the money supply. As a rule, the increase in money supply sets in motion general increases in prices. This, however, need not always be the case.

The price of a good is the amount of money asked per unit of it. For a constant amount of money and an expanding quantity of goods, prices will actually fall. Prices will also fall when the rate of increase in the supply of goods exceeds the rate of increase in the money supply.

For instance, if the money supply increases by 5% and the quantity of goods increases by 10%, prices will fall by 5%.

A fall in prices however, cannot conceal the fact that we have inflation of 5% here because of the increase in money supply.

The reason why inflation is bad news is not of increases in prices as such, but because of the damage inflation inflicts to the wealth-formation process. Here is why.

The chief role of money is to fulfill the role of the general medium of exchange. Money enables us to exchange something we have for something we want. Before an exchange can take place, individuals must have something useful that they can exchange for money. Once they secure the money, they can then exchange it for the goods they want.

Now, consider a situation in which money is created out of “thin air.” This new money is no different from counterfeit money. The counterfeiter exchanges the printed money for goods without producing anything useful. He in fact exchanges nothing for something. He takes from the pool of real goods without contributing to the pool.

The economic effect of money that was created out of thin air is the same as that of counterfeit money — it impoverishes wealth generators.

The money created out of thin air diverts real wealth towards the holders of new money. This weakens wealth generators ability to generate wealth and this in turn leads to a weakening in economic growth. Note that as a result of the increase in the money supply what we have here is more money per unit of goods, and thus, higher prices.

What matters, however, is not price rises as such but the increase in money supply that sets in motion the exchange of nothing for something or “the counterfeit effect.”

The exchange of nothing for something weakens the process of real wealth formation. Therefore, anything that promotes increases in the money supply can only make things much worse.

Changes in prices are just a symptom, as it were, and not the primary causative factor. So, countering a falling growth momentum of the CPI by means of loose monetary policy (i.e., by creating inflation) is bad news for the process of wealth generation and hence for the economy.

Moreover, in order to maintain their lives and well-being, individuals must buy goods and services in the present. Therefore, from this perspective, a fall in prices as such cannot be bad for the economy.

Furthermore, if a fall in the growth momentum of prices emerges on the back of the collapse of bubble activities in response to a softer monetary growth, then this should be seen as good news. The less non-productive bubble activities the better it is for the wealth generators and hence for the overall pool of real wealth.

Likewise, if a fall in the growth momentum of the CPI emerges because of the expansion in real wealth for a given stock of money, obviously this is great news since more people could now benefit from the expanding pool of real wealth. We can thus conclude that contrary to the popular view, a fall in the growth momentum of prices is always good news for the wealth generating process and hence for the economy.

A recent article from CNN says that keeping up with comedians like “John Oliver” is the same as being informed about the news.

Source: InfoWars

0 0

Mayor Emanuel Sides With Police: Smollett Case a ‘Whitewash of Justice’

March 26, 2019

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has sided with Chicago police furious over the dropped felony charges against Jussie Smollett.

“He did this all in the name of self-promotion,” the mayor said. “This is a whitewash of justice.”

Earlier, Chicago Police Superintendent Ed Wodnicki was visibly upset over the decision to close the case against Smollett.

“My personal opinion is, you all know where I stand on this,” Johnson said. “Do I think justice was served? No.”

“What do I think justice is? I think this city is still owed an apology.”

Police sources told local media that when Smollett initially claimed he was attacked, 24 detectives were ultimately removed from other cases to focus on his case and that over 1,000 man-hours were used up.

“In addition, police spent dozens of hours of examining surveillance video from 55 city pod cams and private cameras,” reported CBS Chicago. Authorities also executed 50 search warrants and subpoenas for phone, social media and financial records.”

One thing is certain: the decision to drop the Smollett case cost a lot of political capital.

Local media also reported that state prosecutors considered Smollett’s completed community service as ‘time served’ when they decided to drop the case, but the community service was for an another, unrelated case.

A recent article from CNN says that keeping up with comedians like “John Oliver” is the same as being informed about the news.

Source: InfoWars

0 0

‘Go F**k Yourself’: John Oliver Attacks Jay Leno Over His Old Monica Lewinski Jokes

March 19, 2019

In an act of petty retaliation, Oliver had his staff at HBO dig up every old Leno joke they could find poking fun at Monica Lewinsky, edited them all together while cutting out much of the laughter, then cried about how his jokes were supposedly not funny and deeply offensive.

JOHN OLIVER: If you’re hazy on the Monica Lewinsky story, at 22, she and president Clinton began a relationship that, very long story short, ended up with graphic details being made public through the report by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. And it is impossible to overstate just how globally famous Monica and private details of her life became. The media obsessed over every angle of her story, from tabloid stories like these to cartoons where microphones pointed at her face were replaced with penises to endless late-night comedy jokes. Look, my hands are not clean here either. I wasn’t in the U.S. At the time, but ten years after the fact, I was in a “Daily Show” piece marking the anniversary of the scandal, above a graphic reading “Ten sucking years.” Which is gross. It’s gross. And many comedians have since publicly expressed regret about things they’ve said, although one who hasn’t, and who was among the most relentless, was Jay Leno.

The MSM is pushing the narrative of racial division after the tragic shooting in New Zealand. Alex breaks down this divide and conquer tactic being promoted by propaganda.

JAY LENO: Let’s see what’s going on with Monica, or as president Clinton calls her, “My little humidor.” One million samples of DNA. They said it was the largest collection of DNA in the world, not counting Monica Lewinsky’s closet. And the humidity, man, I’ll tell you, people’s clothes are stickier than Monica Lewinsky’s. Man, it was just, oh. And you can’t get away without at least one of these. Lewinsky, back on her feet. All right, ladies and gentlemen! And the grammy for best organ recital went to Monica Lewinsky, ladies and gentlemen.

OLIVER: Those jokes have not dated well in any sense of the word. And they’re pretty rough, especially coming from a guy who, just this week, complained about late-night TV, saying he’d like to see a bit of civility come back. You know. Like that time he did a bit with a fake book about Lewinsky titled “The slut in the hat.” And if that’s what he means by civility, may I offer my new book, “Oh, the places you can go f**k yourself, Jay Leno.” Look how civil I’m being! Look how civil this is.

Imagine being so shook by Leno’s comments you felt the need to compile a Media Matters-style compilation of his old jokes to whine about.

If that wasn’t cringe enough, Oliver went on to interview Monica Lewinsky for ten minutes straight and treated her as an expert on public shaming, social media and online bullying:

If this show is any indicator, the current state of late night is worse than anything Jay Leno could ever imagine.

Source: InfoWars

Current track

Title

Artist