CNN: Living Proof That Market Dominance Does Not Necessarily Last

People under 30 probably have no direct memory of it, but at one point, CNN equaled news.  And if you did not believe that, Darth Vader told you so.  This week, however, layoffs and "managerial changes" are convulsing the network.

When movies wanted to include realistic news references in the early 1990s, they cited CNN.  They were everywhere and showed everything.  Why wait for Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw's updates at the top of the hour or their full broadcast at 6:30?  You could see it now on CNN.

The era of CNN's ownership of modern news came only a little over a decade after the retirement of CBS' Walter Cronkite.  It also came in most major newspapers' most profitable years.

What happened?

Part of the problem emerged in the 1990s when a personal friend of President Bill Clinton's was chosen to lead CNN.  Regardless of the resulting coverage, this created at least the perception, if not the outcome, of a conflict of interest. 

A real or perceived liberal bias opened the market for competition.  This included the conservative leaning Fox News and (at the time) the even more conservative MSNBC.

Does anyone remember when MSNBC featured Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson?

Viewers latched onto Fox News, which eventually became the leading cable television news outlet.  Others turned away from television (and tangible newspapers) altogether and started using the internet as a primary news source.

CNN struggled to adapt while trying to maintain their image as the "real" news source.  A 2012 Pew survey praised CNN for keeping 55 percent of its broadcast focused on news (as opposed to 45 percent for Fox News and less than 10 percent for MSNBC.) 

Recent hires should have helped.  Jake Tapper headlines one of CNN's premiere spots.  He is one of the few media figures respected from all ideological points of view.

Problems, however, continued. Reports of extravagant overspending in times of declining ratings dog the news of layoffs.  And these layoffs and early retirements affect many of CNN's most senior, most experienced, and core personnel.

Whatever the problems are, clearly CNN has still not discovered the solution to its viewership and profitability woes in this competitive media age.  The network built its reputation and market dominance in an era of no competition. Only figuring out a way to regain competitive advantage can bring it back towards what it once was.

One Thing That Every State Legislature Can Do To Help Rebuild Confidence in Law Enforcement

Complaints about police abuse of power had grown rampant way before the Ferguson riots.  If outlets such as Mother Jones, Daily Caller, Huffington Post, and Reason agree on anything it is the all too common episodes of abused state authority.  Comprehensive study and reform is necessary.  It can start here.

According to the Governors' Highway Safety Association, 33 states allow police to pull over individuals for not wearing seat belts.  In these states it is a primary offense, meaning that the officer has probable cause to stop a vehicle if he or she suspects a person does not have their seat belt on.

A Reason writer in 2012 predicted that primary offense seat belt laws could open the door for abuse and harassment.  If it has not happened yet, it could.  Not wearing a seat belt does not threaten the safety of anyone else.  It's time to get this law off the books.

It would seem that this could be a rare opportunity for liberty minded Republicans to join forces with the NAACP and other groups concerned about police power.

Yet Another Food Stamp Fraud Conviction

Last week in Texas, two men received sentences for food stamp fraud.  Chief US District Court Judge Sidney Fitzwater passed sentence on Kamardeen Ogunleye and Robert Gordon. Both received 27 months in prison and were ordered to pay $1.9 million in restitution.

According to the Department of Justice, between March 2010 and September 2013, the owners of the KSO Dollar Mart in Dallas purchased food stamp benefits for fifty cents on the dollar and laundered the proceeds through their store. They defrauded taxpayers of over $2 million in benefits meant for the poor.

The Justice Department's statement implied that the fraud may have been one of the main sources of revenue for the KSO Dollar Mart.  The statement said that the store "offered very few food and beverage items to its customers."

This comes on the heels of a bust of 54 individuals accused of defrauding the food stamp program of $18 million in Georgia using a similar tactic.

The food stamp program lost over $2 billion in fraud in 2012.

Casey, Rockefeller Blasted Over Offensive Comments About Obama Opponents

Yesterday, the Daily Caller reported on offensive comments made by Senator Rockefeller about those opposing Obamacare.  Second District Congressional nominee Alex Mooney fired back and also referred to similar remarks by his opponent Nick Casey.  Full release below.

MOONEY CALLS ON CASEY TO CONDEMN RACIST COMMENTS BY SEN. ROCKEFELLER

For Immediate Release: May 23, 2014

Media Contact: Nick Clemens (304) 702-5009

Martinsburg, WV - Today, Alex Mooney, Republican nominee for Congress in West Virginia’s second congressional district, called on Nick Casey to condemn recent comments by Senator Jay Rockefeller who accused opponents of Obamacare of opposing Obamacare simply because President Obama is "the wrong color."

Wednesday, Sen. Rockefeller remarked: "I'll be able to dig up some emails that make part of the Affordable Care Act that doesn't look good—especially from people who made up their mind that they don't want it to work because they don't like the president. Maybe he's of the wrong color, something of that sort. I've seen a lot of that and I know a lot of that to be true. It's not something you're meant to talk about in public but it's something I'm talking about in public because that is very true." (National Journal, 05/21/14)

Nick Casey has similarly made offensive comments, saying in 2008, "John McCain is confident that ignorant, redneck racists are not going to vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama is black." (Politico, 10/19/08)

"Nick Casey's 2008 comments were offensive and insulting to the good people of West Virginia," Alex Mooney said. "I call on Nick Casey to condemn Sen. Rockefeller's recent comments and disavow his 2008 comments. Obamacare has been a disastrous policy for West Virginia families, killing our jobs, increasing taxes, and causing premiums to skyrocket. It is downright offensive to imply that the president's race is the reason for hardworking West Virginians' opposition to the Obamacare train wreck."

Senator Alex Mooney, his wife, Dr. Grace Mooney, and their children reside in Charles Town, West Virginia. Mooney is taking his campaign to defend conservative values to every part of West Virginia's second congressional district.

###

Paid for by Mooney for Congress

Are Conservatives Not Funny?

The Atlantic published an incisive piece on conservatives, comedy, the industry, and the market exploring why the right dominates the market in news, but not comedy.

Academics enjoy poking at "harmonized and slow" conservatism, claiming that it destroys the "conditions necessary" for comedy to flourish. In the 21st century, conservatives find themselves in the minority, or even outcast, roles in academia, media and elsewhere.  Great comedy always comes from the powerless jester who has nothing to lose by poking fun at the system.  Example, liberals and leftists could not possibly make a convincing Animal House type movie today.  What on earth could they make fun of besides themselves?

Conservatives are in a much better social position, especially now, to ridicule and satirize.

The article does not mention that two decades ago, conservative performers actually dominated Saturday Night Live.  Victoria Jackson, Norm Macdonald, and others set the standard of political and social satire in their time.  Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" character gently satirized evangelical Christianity's excesses without ridiculing underlying beliefs.  This let everyone laugh at the character, scored points, and offended no one. Carvey also entertained President George H. W. Bush with an off beat, but still gentle caricature of that president. Phil Hartman's 1980s impersonation of President Reagan was considered spot on, portraying a man gentle and grandfatherly in public, aggressive and in charge behind the scenes.

After SNL, Chris Farley, David Spade, and Dan Aykroyd made Tommy Boy, a hilarious look at business, competition, and sales that managed to also celebrate the free market. Aykroyd also starred in libertarian favorite Ghostbusters.

But can conservatives and libertarians match the level of comedy churned out on Comedy Central?  Yes.  Daily Caller produced an exact parody of a puffy self-congratulatory video produced by Politico. Their "Morning Bro" series is a daily dose of satirical hits on the media and politics.  One of libertarianism's primary publications, Reason, rebutted media and presidential attacks on civil discourse.  This video turned over the top political campaign statements from 1800 into modern television attack ads. Watching John Adams and Thomas Jefferson savage each other is hilarious, but also shows that today's civil discourse is much more tame than 200 years ago.

Yes conservatives are funny.  You just have to look.

Is the Social Conservative Fight Against Gay Marriage Worthwhile?

Last year, Minnesotans opposed to legalized same sex marriage spent $200,000 in a little over five months.  Those donations went towards a campaign to preserve state laws prohibiting legal recognition of gay marriage.  Social conservatives complained that gay marriage supporters had "10 times more" funds to fight.  One said "it's proof that if you spend enough money, you can get legislators to do almost anything."   Despite the tens of millions spent by opponents, legislatures continue to void anti- gay marriage laws.  Sixteen states have taken such laws from the books, eleven by political action instead of through the courts.

Social conservatives argue that legalized gay marriage represents a threat to traditional marriage.  If a state allows a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman, they argue that what is to stop legal recognition of polygamy, or human marriage to animals.  

American marriages certainly face threats to stability.  According to the Centers For Disease Control, from 2004 to 2011, between 840,000 and 880,000 couples divorced every year.  At the same time, the marriage rate per 1,000 people declined by one seventh.  Fewer couples marry and divorces remain constant.

Is gay marriage part of the problem?  It is hard to see how it could be, either logically or statistically.  The statistics came from years that predate the legalized gay marriage surge.  Marriage as an institution was already in trouble.  Also, the social impact of gay marriage simply is not that profound.  A Huffington Post writer in 2011 cited a study that pegged the gay population of the US at around 4 million.  

To put that number in perspective, there are more divorces every four and a half years than there are gay people.  

What has happened to marriage then?  Focus on the Family's Glenn Lutjens puts some of the blame on unrealistic expectations.  Most people's most thorough experience with relationships comes from first hand experience with their parents or parent.  Dysfunctional upbringings could conceive poor or even abusive interpersonal skills.  Or they could lead to a crusade to manufacture a perfect relationship.  Dating, according to Lutjens, creates a false reality.  It has "escape valves" such as ones own home, finances, etc. that are not there during marriage.  

Another problem is cultural.  At least one writer speculates that American romantic comedies have as bad, or an even worse effect on marriage than pornography.  Matt Lewis of Daily Caller writes that individuals instinctively need a deity to reach self-fulfillment.  When modern society has abandoned God, or at least set Him aside, it placed the perfect relationship on that deified pedestal. 

"And popular culture only reinforces this notion, via movies and music.  Unlike porn, this fantasy is not discourages by polite society, and is, in fact, even celebrated."

The counterpart of the romantic comedy fantasy relationship is the one and done ideal.  One mistake leads to a break.  In many movies, television shows, and popular songs, divorce follows a serious violation of the marriage.  It even follows a cooling of feelings of love and commitment between the spouses.  Most marriages require work and forgiveness.  Long marriages rarely escape at least one of the following:  financial problems, cheating, the ebb and flow of feelings of love or attraction, substance abuse issues, etc.  

Again, the abandonment of the Christian ethic may be part of the problem.  The Judeo-Christian ideal of original sin was not meant as a negation of the goodness of humanity, but as a powerful reminder that nobody is perfect.  People can be good and still hurt others, either purposefully, incidentally, or accidentally.  Christ commands forgiveness, which is the only was to ensure a lasting marriage. 

Of course the Bible also teaches self-respect, self-preservation, and free will.  Staying with an abusive, dangerous, or contemptible person who refuses to change is not part of the marriage vow contract.  

If bad cultural perceptions of marriage are not the biggest problem, they certainly rank at the forefront.  But these can be changed.

In California alone, supporters of a gay marriage ban raised over $28 million according to the Christian Coalition. What if part of that $28 million went toward establishing and promoting more pre-marriage counseling?  This used to be done in many churches as a matter of course and is certainly still an option.  Some may want a more secular based venue, and that should be available.  Certainly at the very least, some group seminars that got partners to think about their commitment before making the plunge would help.  

On the popular culture front, realistic marriage must make a comeback.  Breaking Bad's characterization of Hank Schrader took the old Clint Eastwood style rough around the edges hero and put him into a modern marriage.  Schrader started off as an unintentionally condescending, yet very capable and fast rising, DEA agent in a strong marriage.  As the series continues, he grows obsessed with finding a drug kingpin who, unbeknownst to him, happens to be his brother in law.  Schrader suffers a temporarily debilitating physical injury that throws him into a serious depression.  He does, eventually, recover physically and mentally.  Schrader's character is usually annoyed with, but always loves his wife.  No hint of sexual misconduct ever happens.  But both spouses have to grow and deal with each other's flaws and problems.  The final season of the series finds them in their most difficult and isolating situation.  Their love and commitment forged over all the previous struggles binds them together to face their biggest adversary.

Schrader's marriage is a perfect portrait of a successful one.  Lots of struggle, much forgiveness, and standing together in the toughest times.  Why don't more authors, screenwriters, and songwriters celebrate this kind of bond?  

Marriage is an essential element in the fabric of society.  It needs support and it would benefit from more honest portrayals.  The tens of millions of dollars spent now to fight a potentially very rare occurrence would be better spent in the cause of saving traditional marriage from that which truly threatens it.

Full disclosure, I am for civil unions for all couples and getting government out of marriage entirely.

This Week In Things That Dare Not Speak Their Names

It is probably beyond reasonable expectation to think that educated people in the 21st Century are even dimly aware of the culture they supposedly inherit.

But they should not wantonly toss around allusions when they have no concept of the origin.

Two examples in the last several days have popped up where the unknown origin of an allusion has rendered a main topic either confusing or silly.

Both refer to the a 19th century poetic line about "the love that dare not speak its name."

First example comes from the New York Times, bearing the title "The Fear That Dare Not Speak Its Name."  The author, Lisa Schwarzbaum, starts by describing a Woody Allen product about a woman who went from being married and rich to becoming single and so destitute that she ends up on the streets.

The author discusses how it left her fearful of the same fate and with affected smartness exclaims "There but for the grace of a Chanel jacket go I."

She goes on to hazily describe feminism, marrying men, wanting to be independent yet taken care of.  Typical New York Times pseudo social commentary.

Second example comes by way of the Daily Caller.  The writer of the story is not the culprit here.  She describes the talk of a Cold War policy maker who argues for resurrecting the old doctrine of "containment" against Iran.

He calls containment the "strategy that dare not speak its name."

And now why these allusions are so bizarre.

In the 1890s, Britain's most talked about trial was the libel suit of Oscar Wilde against the Marquess of Queensberry.  Wilde had apparently grown smitten with a younger fellow poet, Lord Alfred Douglas.  Wilde and Douglas excited gossip as they became friends, traveled together, and seemed pretty much inseparable.  Lost letters from Wilde to Douglas fell into the hands of a blackmailer.

Rumors around the pair also reached Douglas' father, the aforementioned Marquess of Queensberry, better known for formulating rules of amateur boxing.

The libel suit against Queensberry broke down so completely that evidence given to prove his innocence also seemed to damn Wilde as a violator of the "gross indecency" statute that outlawed homosexuality.  During one of Wilde's criminal trials, the prosecutor quoted from a poem by Lord Douglas.

Tell me why, sad and sighing, thou dost rove 
These pleasent realms? I pray thee speak me sooth 
What is thy name?' He said, 'My name is Love.' 
Then straight the first did turn himself to me 
And cried, 'He lieth, for his name is Shame, 
But I am Love, and I was wont to be 
Alone in this fair garden, till he came 
Unasked by night; I am true Love, I fill 
The hearts of boy and girl with mutual flame.' 
Then sighing, said the other, 'Have thy will, 
I am the love that dare not speak its name.' 
The prosecutor seized upon the last line, asking Wilde to explain it.  Despite his classically referenced answer, ever since the trial, the phrase has been used to refer to homosexual relations.

So therein lies the reason why the first example is so off base and the second is downright bizarre.  Making allusions to well stated quotations from the past can liven up prose or speech.  But those who use them without understanding their origin risk looking silly.

EPA SWAT Style Raid on Mines Raises Questions About Militarization of Police

Federal agents wearing menacing black uniforms, body armor and carrying automatic weapons went into action recently.  Using commando style tactics, they forced their way onto private property to detain individuals and locate evidence of wrongdoing.

Did agents break up a clique of terrorists?  Did they find the hideout of a dangerous gang?

No.  They were enforcing the Clean Water Act on an Alaska gold mine.  And now United States Senators are demanding answers.

A Daily Caller investigation shows that the EPA did more than simply over equip its agents on a routine investigation.  It also lied when asked why it adopted such extreme measures.

The EPA claimed that it told Alaska State Police that the targets were involved with drugs and human trafficking (mind you, in Chicken, Alaska.)  State Police spokesmen strongly dispute the EPA claims.

John Stossel in Reason points out that SWAT raids have increased from 300 per year to over a hundred per day.  He describes how SWAT teams even descended upon organic farms to end the dire social threat of unpasteurized milk.

Politicians accepted the idea that the war on drugs might mean reduced private property rights.  It ended up in every police department wanting military style equipment.  This resulted in police "terrorizing innocent people, raiding the wrong house and causing violence."

The vast majority of SWAT raids descend upon people suspected of drug possession or trafficking, even if the individual has no history of violence.  Other agencies fear the threat from . . . libertarians.  Concord, New Hampshire police justified the purchase of an armored vehicle to stave off "daily challenges" posed by libertarians.

In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act.  After the Civil War, the Army had been called upon in certain situations to act as law enforcement.  Lawmakers recognized that the mission of the Army, to seek out and destroy foreign enemies, did not make it a viable police force.  Congress forbade the military forces of the United States from doing routine law enforcement.

As a result, police forces emerged in most state and local jurisdictions by the end of World War I.  Sheriff's departments dated back to medieval England, but most states did not create their own police forces until around a century ago.  Cities had done so earlier, around the end of the 19th century.  Interestingly, the colors of police uniforms reflect when they were created.  As the US military went from dark blue to khaki in the 1890s, city police used surplus uniforms.  State trooper dress still resembles that of World War I era soldiers.

They, however, retained the distinction between police technique and military tactics.

In the past generation, police have increasingly adopted military style weapons and tactics.  In selected situations, this is reasonable.  Violent street gangs' illicit acquisition of automatic weapons meant that police have to keep up to keep from being outgunned.  Fair enough.

But police forces need stricter guidelines to govern when they may go into full commando mode.  Raiding a lair of the dangerous MS-13 gang, yes.  Raiding an organic farm selling raw milk (and perhaps a little weed), no.

The Department of Education even has a SWAT team to attack those accused of ducking student loans!

Police serve and protect.  The military defends the nation and destroys its enemies.  All too often in recent years, law enforcement at all levels has chosen to terrify the public rather than to serve it.  Not every situation can be handled in the Sheriff Andy Taylor manner, without use of weapons and trusting in the goodness of the public, but a boundaries must be drawn.

And federal agencies without law enforcement missions must be stripped of enforcement agents.

The spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act relies on the idea of separation between the military and law enforcement.  Police should not be routinely equipped and trained as if they patrol the streets of an Afghan village.  Current practice does not violate the letter of this important act, but it certainly contradicts the spirit.

The militarization of police at all levels is one of the most serious threats to liberty.

What Is the EPA Hiding and Why?

Secrecy is essential at some levels of government.  The CIA, NSA, Department of Defense, and other agencies must hide at least some of what they do to effectively promote national security.  The FBI cannot release information about ongoing criminal investigations.  

But why does the Environmental Protection Agency have or need a culture of "secrecy and evasion?"

The Daily Caller examined a blistering report by Senate Republicans that relates several shady practices.  It refused to answer some Freedom of Information Act requests.  When it did, it redacted the necessary information.  EPA officials also used secret email accounts to communicate on policy.  These would be more difficult for journalists and other investigators to uncover.

Courts have slapped down EPA overreach before.  An Obama appointee ruled that the EPA acted improperly when it revoked a Logan County coal operator's permit.  Although an appeals court reversed the ruling, the Supreme Court may likely rule in favor of the operator.  The EPA is currently battling a Hardy County farmer because, among other things, it claims that her farm produces too much dust. It also criticized a judge's ruling to allow the Farm Bureau to join the suit.  Of course without the resources of the Farm Bureau, the farmer might not be able to continue to pay lawyers to keep the fight going.

Even mine workers' union leader Cecil Roberts used colorful language to describe the EPA's intent to kill the coal industry.

The EPA uses intimidation by lawsuit, secretive tactics, and other methods to attack property rights, family farms, and profitable businesses.  This brings negligible benefit to the environment, but expands the control of Washington bureaucrats over lives and jobs.

Time to bring transparency to bureaucracy.  The EPA does not just wage war on coal or family farms, but against the rights of individuals to responsibly make decisions about their property and states to enforce reasonable regulations.