The statist bias of the mainstream media in the United States is readily apparent to anyone with a rational mind. However, claims of such bias in an audience of people who agree with that bias are always met with sarcastic sneers and outright dismissiveness. Those who agree with the “progressive” philosophy of state control of [...]
The statist bias of the mainstream media in the United States is readily apparent to anyone with a rational mind. However, claims of such bias in an audience of people who agree with that bias are always met with sarcastic sneers and outright dismissiveness. Those who agree with the “progressive” philosophy of state control of individuals seem to have no problem with state control of information and lash out at any dissenter as some sort of racist who is delusional and paranoid.
A couple of events that happened recently have given us the opportunity to bring this bias to light in a manner that is as clear as day, and that can only be denied by an outright denial of reality itself.
First, the FBI raided a militia group within the United States that was allegedly plotting terrorist attacks against the police. Second, a terrorist group actually carried out a terrorist attack in Moscow.
Let’s point out a few obvious facts about these two events:
- Each group can accurately be called an extremist group or militia.
- One group was allegedly planning attacks, the other group successfully carried out attacks.
- The US alleged terrorists are Christian Extremists, the Russian terrorists are Muslim.
So, these seem like two very similar events, except one actually happened and resulted in 38 dead civilians, and the other was an alleged plot. Let’s see how the media covered these events.
*Note: the following is totally non-scientific as I do not have the tools or expertise to data-mine this information from every US news source; maybe someone at Newsbusters or Media Matters could do a more thorough job.
**Also note: click each image below for the full version.
First, let’s just take a macro-level look at the amount of coverage. A quick search of news.google.com for “christian militia” brings back 10,600,000 results during the last week:
That’s quite a few. Meanwhile, a search for “russia bomb” brings back a mere 9,389:
For those of you keeping score at home, that is 10,600,000 to 9,389. Apparently the media just doesn’t think it’s that important to tell us about an actual terrorist attack carried out by an extremist group when that group includes Muslims.
Maybe my search terms are wrong though. Maybe if I used different words I would get different numbers. Well I tried that, and the disparity actually got worse. I invite you to try it for yourself.
Let’s move on to the coverage of individual news outlets. Again, this is an unscientific study, and I just picked three news sites off the top of my head. I encourage you to go and see how your favorite news site stacks up. What I did was I found the top story relating to each of these events on three websites and I looked at the first few paragraphs of the story to get an overview of what was going on. The difference in coverage is stark.
Let’s start with MSNBC’s article about the Christian Militia:
Now here is MSNBC’s coverage of the Muslim Bombers:
OK, not looking good so far. MSNBC makes it a point to mention the word Christian in the very first paragraph of the militia article, yet you can’t find any mention of the religion of the bombers in Russia. The pictures I’ve shown only include the first few paragraphs, because I think that is what gives people the impression of the overall story, but I’ve also included the links to the full text so please go and comb through them for yourselves.
Next, let’s check out CNN’s story about the FBI Raids:
And on to CNN’s piece on the Russian attacks:
At least CNN was a little more specific about the Russian terrorists, telling us they were Chechen Rebels from the North Caucasus region. Somehow they didn’t feel the need to describe the Christian Extremists as “Caucasian Rebels from the Midwest Region.” Still no mention of the Religion of Peace as the motivating factor behind the 38 dead Russians, and even though they quote the website of the Christian Militia, no mention of the Chechen Rebel website is made, which I found in 0.02 seconds by using Google.
Finally, let’s have a look at the New York Times. The paper is having so much trouble keeping readers that they’re lobbying for a newspaper bailout (state takeover of the press) but yet they can’t seem to figure out why
people aren’t interested in the news they have to offer. Well let’s see:
The New York Times on the Christian Militia:
The New York Times on the Russian Islamic Attack:
It took the NYT seven words to get the point across that the FBI Raid was against Christians, yet no mention of Islam or the word Muslim appears in their article on the Russian subway bombing. When you beat your readers over the head with the billy-club of bias on a daily basis, its no wonder that they’re leaving in droves.
The point is clear that we have an extremely biased mainstream media in this country. Christians nor Muslims who participate in terrorism should be immune from criticism, but journalists should not play favorites. Both groups should be covered under the same objective standards. Instead the media hides the truth about the Chechens and stretches the truth about the Christians. All terrorists are evil, and so are biased journalists who purposefully mislead the public.
I’ve just completed reading an excellent book about Capitalism, the economic system of laissez faire, individual rights, and freedom. The full title is: “Capitalism Unbound: The incontestable moral case for individual rights” and for such a short read I must say it does fulfill that promise. While I did find some errors with the historical [...]
I’ve just completed reading an excellent book about Capitalism, the economic system of laissez faire, individual rights, and freedom. The full title is: “Capitalism Unbound: The incontestable moral case for individual rights” and for such a short read I must say it does fulfill that promise. While I did find some errors with the historical aspects covered in the book, the overall argument made is fully accurate, and the message contained is of utmost importance to anyone who cherishes liberty and happiness.
Capitalism is a lost idea in the modern world thanks to statists who demonize it at every turn and self-proclaimed “conservatives” who refuse to defend it because of things like “focus groups” who deem the term unpopular. I fully believe that if we are to save ourselves and save our country we must turn all of our attention to the study of Capitalism as well as the failed systems of Socialism and Fascism. In Capitalism Unbound, Andrew Bernstein sets out to initiate such a study.
The book’s stated purpose is to lightly cover the main ideas and the moral issues surrounding Capitalism, giving the reader enough knowledge to understand the subject and enough references to do deeper dive research on topics that they find are important to them. To that end, it is arranged in three parts:
- The Historic Superiority of Capitalism
- The Moral Superiority of Capitalism
- The Economic Superiority of Capitalism
Personally I think this was a very effective method for presenting the author’s thesis as it broke the subject into three easily discernible areas. I will proceed to review each subject as it was covered:
The Historic Superiority of Capitalism
Bernstein’s first task in his discussion of Capitalism is to set out the historic record of economic systems and to compare them to the historic record of Capitalism. In a unique exercise, he lays out the economic conditions and systems of the pre-industrial world, from about 500 to 1500 A.D., and contrasts this with the rapid advancement and increase in the human condition seen during the industrial revolution. It’s a fascinating dive into the economics of the dark ages, something that I have not seen before.
Unfortunately, in describing the economy of 19th century America, Bernstein takes the “official” objectivist stance on the issue: that while not perfect, America’s government supported the free market and it was the lack of a philosophic base and the advent of the progressive movement that caused the government to shift toward fascism and thus create the disastrous mixed-economy that now burdens us. This is something that I’ve read several times in Ayn Rand’s works, that is universally accepted by the organizations devoted to the study of objectivism, and that has recently gotten me kicked off of a list of bloggers covering objectivist topics. It is as if Bernstein and Objectivists reject every statist myth about the American economy post 1870, but accept every statist myth about America pre 1870. It saddens me that this author and such a distinguished group of intelligent people have taken the wrong position and maybe some day soon I’ll do a post on this issue alone.
The reality of the situation is that the American government instituted by the Constitution is a Mercantilistic system modeled after that of Great Britain, where the government hands out favors and regulates free enterprise to accomplish the whims of politicians. This is clearly seen with the “Whiskey Rebellion” that occurred under our very first administration after the federal government decided to place a tax on alcohol – a move that was unjust, amoral, and totally the opposite of capitalism. The United States of America was never setup to protect individual rights and the degree of economic freedom and therefore prosperity that we have enjoyed is simply inversely proportional to the size and scope of the government.
America was founded by rugged individualists who fully believed in their rights to their own lives and their own freedoms. These are the men who carved out prosperous towns and cities from the uninhabited wilderness, the men who fought in the Revolution, and the men who were enslaved by the second handers in Philadelphia at the constitutional convention; only they did’t know it. The only reason we had so much economic success as a country is that our people were forced by nature to live as rational egoists and our government was simply slow to catch up.
That being said, Bernstein argues correctly that it was capitalism in rudimentary forms in Britain and in America that dragged the entire world out of drudgery and backbreaking daily labor. This is the only section of the book that I don’t think is fully accurate, but it is still very informative.
The Moral Superiority of Capitalism
The second section of Capitalism Unbound is devoted to laying out the moral justification for the system of freedom in practice, something that is not often accomplished by modern writers on the subjects of politics or economics. This justification is central to the entire debate though, for all arguments against Capitalism are made on moral grounds. Even the most staunch enemy of freedom will say that Capitalism does “work” (by increasing the standard of living for everyone) but that it is “flawed” in that it doesn’t care for “those in need.” They use this line of thinking to justify every single rule, regulation, or otherwise fascist imposition on the freedom of individuals. “Unrestricted Capitalism,” they say, “can only lead to an oligarchy of the wealthy and the destruction of the common good.” What is the common good? Whatever “they” say it is.
Bernstein absolutely shatters this flawed morality by setting forth the explanation of Rational Egoism and the side effects of defending the individual against the initiation of the use of force. He explains that only through self esteem and individual rights can we actually achieve goodwill towards others and honest, fulfilling charity. For example, is it “good will” that impels you to pay your taxes, which are then used for the “common good,” or is it the barrel of a gun? I know I wouldn’t pay them if I wasn’t forced to. Is an act of charity actually charitable if it’s not done voluntarily? Of course not. This chapter is very thorough and is extremely important if one is to understand just why the morality of the world is so backwards and why it is driving our economy in the same direction.
The Economic Superiority of Capitalism
In the third and final section of Capitalism Unbound, Bernstein performs a qualitative comparison of varying forms of economy, from socialism (or communism) to fascism to the modern calamity known as the mixed economy, where elements of freedom are arbitrarily mixed with elements of socialism and fascism.
He starts by studying socialism and its obvious and massive failures throughout history. He sheds light onto the inner workings of the Soviet economy and its slaughter of millions of innocents in the name of the “common good.” Again I learned something I’d never heard before in this section, when Bernstein outlined all of the massive amounts of aid, assistance, and intellectual property the USSR received from the western world, and mainly from America. I never learned about
this at school of course, but the fact of the matter is that Communism would have collapsed much earlier if FDR and other Americans hadn’t worked so hard to prop it up. If you already had bad feelings toward the American Progressives of the early 1900s, take a few deep breaths before you read this part of the book, but do yourself a service and make sure you read it.
Next Bernstein moves into the failure of the mixed-economy, the current system of American government that has led to the never ending boom-bust cycle that creates wealth for second handers and destroys the businesses and the life savings of honest Americans. In a relatively small amount of space he manages to pull together a wealth of information from Austrian economists that explains the economic chaos we have all seen in recent history. If you’ve read books like “Meltdown” this section will be nothing new for you, but it is refreshing to see an Objectivist at least honor the works of such esteemed libertarians.
Finally, in the last section of Capitalism Unbound, Andrew Bernstein offers us a “modest proposal” on how to right this ship and save our economy and our freedom:
- Let the United States move to full laissez-faire capitalism, assiduously protecting individual rights in all arenas of human life, including personal morality, as well as economics.
- Let every other nation, without exception, if they so choose, move to partial socialism, to whatever degree each country’s populace wishes.
- Open the borders of all countries, so that every honest person – but not criminals or terrorists – can emigrate to the land he prefers.
- Over a period of decades, even centuries, conduct a “Great Laboratory,” honestly studying the progress of each nation, emigration patterns between nations, and levels of fulfillment/happiness among individual citizens of each nation.
To be honest, I was a little bit disappointed in this conclusion to an otherwise excellent book. The reason: it’s just not rooted in reality. Step 2, for instance, has already happened and will continue to happen no matter what we do here in America. What we need to do is STOP sending foreign aid to countries who decide to do such things. Step 3 would be fine, but we can’t control the border policies of other nations, so it’s moot. Step 4 has already been done. All we need to do is look at history, as in the first part of the book, to learn what freedom will do for the prosperity of individuals.
Most importantly, Step 1 is simply out of the realm of possibilities for America. We are too far gone down the road to serfdom. Hell, we’re already there. The government will never relinquish its power, no matter who we elect or what resolutions we pass.
The proposal that I would have hoped for is simple: peaceful secession of every state from the Union. Have the different states run their own governments as they please, and see which ones are the most prosperous and the most happy. Fight like hell to have your state be one of the few that establishes a truly Capitalist system, having the government perform only one strict role: to protect individuals from the initiation of the use of force, either foreign or domestic.
In summary, Capitalism Unbound is an excellent book and I recommend everyone read it. It’s only about 130 pages and takes a couple of hours to read, and it is extremely informative and insightful. I learned a lot from reading this book and I think you will too.
In case you haven’t heard already: ORLANDO, Fla. — SeaWorld Orlando trainer Dawn Brancheau died Wednesday from “multiple traumatic injuries and drowning” after a killer whale pulled her underwater by her long ponytail near the theme park’s Shamu Stadium, autopsy results released Thursday revealed. link: Sea World trainer killed Now, while I don’t think the [...]
In case you haven’t heard already:
ORLANDO, Fla. — SeaWorld Orlando trainer Dawn Brancheau died Wednesday from “multiple traumatic injuries and drowning” after a killer whale pulled her underwater by her long ponytail near the theme park’s Shamu Stadium, autopsy results released Thursday revealed.
link: Sea World trainer killed
Now, while I don’t think the government should get involved here in any way, I do doubt the reasoning behind having a killer whale show in the first place. What’s the point? What is the gain?
I guess people are willing to pay for it, so SeaWorld has offered it. The free market will work this out (if it is left alone to do so) and people will stop going to those shows because they don’t want their kids to see people getting eaten, or in a less severe case because they don’t think whales should be taught to do tricks and kept in pools.
To me, the matter seems simple:
Natural:
Unnatural:
Note: this is a joke. However after my recent experience with some objectivists, this is pretty accurate: Ayn Rand would not have behaved in such a way*, but a lot of the people who follow her act in exactly the way her followers are depicted in this video. Disagree with anything Rand says, and face [...]
Note: this is a joke. However after my recent experience with some objectivists, this is pretty accurate:
Ayn Rand would not have behaved in such a way*, but a lot of the people who follow her act in exactly the way her followers are depicted in this video. Disagree with anything Rand says, and face the wrath of irrational rationalists. It’s just more evidence that Rand was extremely ahead of her time, and people still do not fully understand her ideas.
*Rand often responded to intellectually dishonest questions with what one might perceive as extreme answers. When someone was trying to misrepresent her ideas and debase her principles through dishonest tactics, as most in the mainstream did, she would rip out their brain and hand it to them on a plate. Metaphorically, of course. This is not at all the same as attacking someone who reaches a different conclusion through a process of honest rational thought, which is depicted in the video.
Saturday night Sarah Palin gave a speech to a convention in Tennessee calling itself the “Tea Party Convention.” Now, it’s important to note: the tea party is not one homogeneous organization. The “Tea Party” is actually a collection of various different groups, from libertarians to 9/12′ers to disgruntled Republicans to who knows what. The fact [...]
Saturday night Sarah Palin gave a speech to a convention in Tennessee calling itself the “Tea Party Convention.” Now, it’s important to note: the tea party is not one homogeneous organization. The “Tea Party” is actually a collection of various different groups, from libertarians to 9/12′ers to disgruntled Republicans to who knows what. The fact that this organization called themselves the “Tea Party Convention” and charged people $500 to get in the door is a little bit troubling. Then again, they did offer a celebrity appearance, so in that way they did provide consumers with a product that they wanted.
However, that celebrity did not deliver on any sort of substantive Tea Party message. In fact, it sounded like just another Republican campaign rally speech. It could have just as easily been given in 2008 under the “McCain/Palin” banner, as Palin didn’t really say anything all that revolutionary and certainly didn’t break at all with the Republican establishment.
She started off the speech with a lot of platitudes and cliches. She talked about how Scott Brown symbolizes the tea party movement… I’m not really sure how she came to that conclusion. She talked about how Obama has to use a teleprompter and he doesn’t put his talks on CSPAN… typical campaign rhetoric. Then she launched into about 20 minutes worth of talking about foreign policy: something that the Tea Party movement has largely ignored. In fact most war signs at Tea Party events are usually about ending our full time army and closing down our empire of bases around the world.
During this talk she again makes directly contradicting statements. She says at first that she supports the protesters in Iran who are standing up for their freedom. Then she says that the time for talk is over, that we need tough sanctions to bring Iran into line. Now, honestly, doesn’t she know that the only result of sanctions is to starve the people of a country? So if we impose sanctions on Iran, those people who are fighting for their freedom are simply going to be massacred or starved to death as a result of our actions? I agree that we need to take action: we need to annihilate the government and the army of Iran, and then leave the country for the Iranians to rebuild.
After her diatribe on terrorism Palin finally got to talking about the economy. For a while she berated “hope and change” and all of the failed and corrupt stimulus projects. I couldn’t agree more on this point: the stimulus only hurt, it is a total failure. However the time is right for clear, concise ideas, not just complaining about the current administration. Palin should have used this opportunity to promote laissez faire capitalism and real solutions based on individual rights, not simply rattle off hypocrisies from the Obama cabinet. I mean pointing out hypocrites in the Democrat party is like shooting fish in a barrel, and not as productive.
I actually captured a little bit of the speech and posted to youtube, because this is what I feel is the most important part, the most obvious example of how Palin sounds like a great American, but really has no idea about laissez faire or individual rights: (please note that I did not just extract a soundbyte as I want to fairly quote Palin in-context, unlike most of her critics)
Now, there are so many contradictions in there that my brain is now hurting. However I’ll just focus on one. She says that the government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers immediately after she talks about how Alaska forced oil companies to give up their leases on oil rights. Now I don’t agree with the way the oil has been handled in Alaska at all as it is essentially socialized oil, but even if you look at just the one example that Palin gives herself it is Crony Capitalism, it is the government interfering with the market. Palin just doesn’t seem to get this at all. Freedom, AKA Capitalism, exists only when the government does not interfere with business and individuals. Freedom exists when the only purpose the government serves is the protection of businesses and individuals from the use of force or fraud.
Palin seems to think that doling out oil rights and oil money is a perfectly legitimate use of government. She somehow thinks that this is the definition of freedom and the American way. This is why I simply cannot support her politically, and why I think the Tea Party and the Republican Party would be better off without her.
Funniest Video on the Internet
Video Games for Noobs – Highlight reel 2
Loading ...
Recent Comments