Glen Beck Leaps Over a Large Fish

I'm going to take a quick break from the health care discussion tonight to inform you that I have decided to officially remove my support for Glen Beck. While some of you may ask, "what took you so long?", I'm sure there are others who wonder why I'd abandon Beck.

I first saw Beck when he was on CNN Headline News and found him mildly entertaining, somewhat refreshing, and the least bad of the rest of the right-wing talk show hosts. I was cautiously excited when he arrived at Fox News as his neo-conservative rhetoric had recessed. He had also taken to be very critical of the bailouts and expanded his anti-GOP stance.

His emergence on Fox News along with his book Glen Beck's Common Sense both served to increase my interest and support of his show. Yes. He uses hyperbole. He exaggerates from time to time and will take quotes out of context. However, he was asking the right questions and (feigning?) a disdain for the duopoly of our political system.

Then he became obsessed with ACORN. His views became increasingly focused against Obama and the Democrats. Sure, he still makes it a point to say that he opposed Bush on some things and that the Republicans are bad too. However, that has been looking more like grandstanding than his true ethos.

Last week, he dedicated his show to "The New Republic" by asking the "tough questions" that Americans should be asking. A recap is available here. This culminated Friday with his call to action: "In or Out 2010". Let's quickly analyze these five pledges that he asks that we ask our Congressmen.

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

Balanced budget: check. I agree on this one. It sounds like a GOP policy.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during a difficult economic times, therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

I'm no fan of taxes. However, my issue with taxes comes primarily due to the fact that I believe spending of all sorts is out of control. I do believe that if the government is spending that we do need taxes (duh). I am opposed to massive deficits and borrowing which is nothing more than inter-generational theft. I regret to admit that I'd prefer tax increases at this point (more on that in the future). This also sounds like classic supply-side Reaganomics.

3. I believe more than four decades of US dependence on foreign oil is a travesty, therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas and coal as necessary.

I do agree that our dependency on foreign oil (and oil in general) is a dangerous recipe for our future. I also support the exploration of alternative energy sources as well as expanding nuclear power and leveraging our existing fossil fuel resources. National energy policy is a subject that is too big to discuss here, but Beck's position is essentially a re-write of the Republican policy. All he is missing is "drill, baby, drill!"

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why. I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity power over US citizens.

One of Beck's favorite subjects. In fact, this subject is the one that he and other conservative talk show hosts tend to hang their hat on to show that they are not Republican operatives. I do believe that we must maintain our sovereignty and avoid international legislation. I also believe that illegal immigration is an issue, but it has more to do with the welfare state than anything else.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

Oh boy. Here we go. Phrases like "greatest country on earth" and "will not apologize" are disgusting. There is no rational basis to support such broad general claims and unabashed arrogance does not help. While the U.S. has done a lot for other countries, we have also done a lot of harm around the world. Further, his comment that we have fed more people around the world stands in stark contrast to his opposition of feeding people in the U.S. using government money. This is not-so-thinly veiled neo-conservative rhetoric.

I think Beck has jumped the shark. Don't get me wrong - I'm glad that he has allowed libertarian voices on his show. However, the more excited he gets, the more he sounds like Sean Hannity crossed with Michael Savage. It's not entirely bad. But, it makes me wonder if it's part of a GOP strategy to co-opt libertarians into the party via a backdoor.

Loose Ends... Vol. LVIII

Election results are coming in from Japan as they held their elections for the House of Representatives, the lower house in the legislative Diet. It appears the the Democratic Party of Japan has won in a landslide which will almost certainly lead to the installment of Yukio Hatoyama as Prime Minister. This is a crushing defeat for the Liberal Democratic Party who has been the ruling party since November of 1955 (with minor exceptions).

The DPJ appears to have gained 195 seats while the LDP will lose 177 seats (there are 480 seats in the House).

The DPJ ran largely on a platform of reform with a challenge to the status quo. Assembled via the mergers of several anti-LDP parties over the last few years, the DPJ lacks a cohesive political ideology. Instead, they will seek to stimulate the economy, push for government reform, and advocate more socially liberal positions shaking of the stiff and stuffy conservatism of Japan's past.

This will be an interesting story to watch as the new ruling party establishes its international policies - particularly in regard to the United States. It is also worth noting that the Japanese hold a significant amount of U.S. debt. It has been rumored that the new party may be less interesting in buying or even holding such a large volume. With many campaign promises for free government services, a liquidation of U.S. Treasuries may be a strategy for the new government.

Read more here, here and here.

*****

I read this story today about a New Hampshire court ruling that a ten-year old girl must attend public school. This is obviously a discouraging ruling, so I went ahead and read the judge's order. The case is not cut and dry, but it contains some disturbing attributes.

The girl's parents are divorced. The mother currently home-schools the child and the father does not agree that this should be continued. A counselor and a guardian ad litem have concluded that the girl is progressing well in terms of education and aptitude. She already attends public school for some classes, including drama, where she receives social interaction. However, they expressed concern that the girl is too rigid and adult-like in her religious beliefs. She receives religious instruction from her mother.

Since the parents could not agree on schooling and the counselor and guardian ad litem both feel that the child could benefit from increase social interaction (including an exposure to other systems of belief), the judge ruled that the girl must attend public school. This is still distressing. However, it raises an interesting aspect of state intervention which I had not thought of before. When there is a dispute between parents who are divorced, the court can and does intervene in parenting decisions. If the parents were still married, there is no doubt that this would never be an issue for the state unless it could be determined that the child was being harmed.

*****

I have a few more articles which I'll prepare on the health care debate culminating with policy recommendations (instead of just complaining). Nicole is also working on some very interesting research which will be on its way soon!

Human Needs and the Social Safety Net

This article will be the third installment in a discussion on health care/insurance reform. In this first entry, I argued that insurance, in its true form, is not a public utility. Insurance businesses can become "too big to fail" and thus proper regulation is necessary. That was followed by a discussion on rights and the role of the state in protecting, preserving and granting rights. My conclusion was that health care rights are positive claim rights, and thus it would be dangerous for the state to legislate a right to health care.

Health care is a very important issue. It is full of emotion. People's lives are at stake. This cannot be ignored when analyzing the role of the state in such an issue. While insurance should not be a public utility nor should the state sanction positive claim rights, that, in my opinion, does not close the issue. The concept of human needs must be explored.

When I first began to think about this from a human needs perspective, I asked myself how one could define human needs. My first inclination was to define these basic needs as food (including water), clothing and shelter. My second inclination was to do some research on the subject. After a quick review of the subject area of needs, I found Maslow's hierarchy of needs to be worth a review.

Maslow published his work in 1943 and this is still widely considered as the seminal work in the field. Maslow proposes a hierarchy of five tiers of needs beginning with physiological needs. These physiological needs must be met for human survival. These needs are breathing, homeostasis, water, sleep, food, sex, clothing and shelter. This seems like a logical list and, with a few possible exceptions, the human cannot survive without them. The the next three tiers round out what he describes as "deficiency needs" beginning with safety and security, then social needs such as love and belonging, and finally esteem and respect. Once the individual has met all of their deficiency needs, they seek self-actualization.

Health care can be viewed primarily as a need of safety and security. This, according to Maslow, is one level above the physiological needs. It should be clear that the state should not impede the individual from pursuing their needs. In this sense, there is an overlap between needs and rights. Your right to pursue health care and security or your right to retain your shelter and food would be classified as negative claim rights. The state should protect these rights by not allowing them to be taken from you by another person (or by the state itself).

But, if an individual has a deficiency in one of their physiological needs, what role should the state play to ensure the provision or attainment of these needs? To force another to provide for those with a deficiency would be a violation of the rights of the one who is forced. However, it is important to understand what happens to the individual who does not have their basic needs met. It is not a stretch to conclude that when humans face a deficiency in their needs (especially physiological needs) that they may be more likely to react violently and/or threaten the security of others.

This issue introduces the concept and the need for a social safety net. A social safety net is a set of structures by which those who have a deficiency in their needs can seek assistance in having those needs fulfilled. There is a definitive economic benefit to those who have to provide to those who have not. Putting aside morality and ethics (which are not universally defined and thus should not be legislated), the provision of services to meet the physiological deficiencies of others helps to serve ones need for safety and security. So, does the state have the obligation to provide a social safety net?

My short answer is yes. However, that is not the end of the discussion. This must be a limited function which should only fill in the gaps where the private sector (mostly via charity) is inadequate. It also must not extend past the point where the cost is burdensome to those who simply seek to maintain their security via the provision of such a social safety net. The role of the state must also be carefully limited to those truly in need of the most basic services. While it is tempting to expand the public social safety net to fulfill higher-level needs, the principles of private funding and protection of negative claim rights must remain.

Does public universal health care reach the standard of necessitating state support in the social safety net? No. However, we should ensure that access to basic and emergency care is available to all. We should also strive to find ways to make this inexpensive, effective, and easily accessible. As we cannot expect a social safety net to provide everyone a 3000 square foot house with a half-acre of land, a personal chef, and a free wardrobe from Macy's refreshed annually; we certainly cannot expect the social safety net to provide "high-quality" or "best-in-class" health care for all.

Rights and the Health Care Debate

A few days ago, we discussed the concepts of insurance and public utilities. In order to advance the discussion on the health care debate, it is important to analyze the proper role of the state in the provision of health care. We'll start with a discussion on rights.

The concept of rights is complex and, unfortunately, somewhat subjective. Western philosophy and political theory have struggled with the concept for centuries. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines rights as "qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to a lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval." That is a mouthful and doesn't help much. It is fair to say that the concept of rights is subject to broad interpretation and can be applied to many things. Thus, it is important to explore different types of rights - especially as it pertains to those which should be granted and/or protected by the state.

The English monarchy established one of the first and most influential documents which pertained to the relationship between rights and the state. This document is the famous Magna Carta which established that the King was bound by the law and that free men had certain rights which could not be violated by the monarch. This laid the groundwork for future constitutional law and an expanded discussion of rights during the Age of Enlightenment.

Arguably the most influential of these philosophers was John Locke. His work on the social contract, natural rights and the relationship between society and state were central themes to the Declaration of Independence. While the document holds no legal authority in the United States, the words express the circumstances and principles under which the nation was founded. As it relates to the concept of rights and the state, no sentence summarizes their thoughts better than this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The United States also ratified the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) shorty after ratification of the Constitution itself. The inclusion of such a bill of rights was the subject of much debate amongst early political leaders due, in large part, to the differing viewpoints on whether the federal government needed to explicitly acknowledge rights which were viewed by most as natural.

The theory of rights has been explored by philosophers and political scientists; one such method of distinguishing different types of rights is by the definitions of positive and negative rights. Negative rights are defined as those which prohibit the action of one upon another in regard to a particular right. Positive rights are defined as those which obligate or require the action of one upon another in regard to a particular right.

A simple and relevant example which would describe such a distinction can be explained as follows. A negative right to life would imply that you cannot kill someone else. A positive right to life would imply that you are required to preserve the life of someone else. Notice that negative rights generally prohibit action by protecting someone whereas positive rights generally obligate action.

A different way to describe rights is by defining rights as either claim rights or liberty rights. Claim rights are defined as those which obligate others to support the attainment of the right for the individual. Liberty rights are defined as those which give the individual the permission or freedom to the right. This may seem like the same thing as positive and negative rights, but there is a difference.

To illustrate, one can define rights using both methods. A positive liberty right gives you permission to do something. A negative liberty rights gives you the permission to refrain from doing something. A positive claim right obligates someone to do something for you. A negative claim right obligates someone to refrain from doing something to you.

Let's turn to health care for a moment. Is health care a right? Well, sure. Anything can be a right. However, it's important to understand how one would classify the right to health care. This simple right to health care would imply that no one can prevent you from receiving health care. On the surface, this appears to be a negative claim right. This is incorrect. If health care must be provided, then this acts as a positive claim right on those who provide health care.

Health care is not free. It is a service. The treatment of health care as a right would create a positive claim right on either those who provide the service at no charge or on those who are forced to pay for the service that someone else receives. These are the facts. It is my position that positive claim rights should not be enforced or legislated by the state. If the state is allowed to legislate positive claim rights, then there is no conceivable end to the scope of government.

This is not the end of the debate. My intent in this entry is only to explore the nature of rights and the concept of health care as a right. In my next health care installment, we will review the idea of human needs and the role of the state in fulfilling those needs.

A True American

I'm watching the health care forum hosted by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) and was inspired to transcribe the comments of one of his constituents:

I have three brief points I would like to make.

Number one: I am concerned about a once free people, a once brave people. Never trade freedom for security or you will lose both. Representative Kind, I heard you say that in these debates we should respect one another. With that advice in mind, I would like you tell Nancy Pelosi that we are not un-American. I would like you to tell Harry Reid that we are not hate-mongers. I would like you to tell your fellow Senators and Congressmen that we are not a mob, we are not Nazis, we are not the Ku-Klux-Klan, and we have nothing in common with the likes of Timothy McVeigh. We are Americans simply exercising our Constitutional rights.

Also, please tell your community-organizing President to get used to an organized community.

And finally, point number three, I'm going to quote a very wise man, one C.S. Lewis:

Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better under robber barons than under omnipotent, moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty will sometimes sleep. His cupidity may at some point be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-Jerry Brogden, Colfax, WI

Well said, Jerry. It is not un-American to stand up for what you believe in without having to be connected to criminals. Free speech is a wonderful thing no matter your opinion.

Loose Ends... Vol. LVII

I hoping to be back in the groove with posts and have a full Loose Ends tonight.

I'd like to start off by recommending this article on why the current economic situation cannot be solved with prescriptions from any of the modern economic theories over at Jesse's Café Américain. It's a very good read.

*****

Next, I have two items on Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Frank held a town hall meeting (available here) back in Massachusetts this week. I have only seen clips so far and have it recorded on my DVR. Frank usually makes for some entertaining, if frustrating, sound bytes.

And speaking of Barney Frank sound bytes, he was quoted in the Boston Globe this week saying, "I've always said that the American dream should be a home - not home ownership." You can read the entire article here which discusses a shift in the Obama policy away from home ownership. There is a lot of talk on what Frank has said and when he said it. I came across this particular quote in this article on Market Ticker which was accompanied by a video of Frank in 2005. One priceless quote from the video:

But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples, where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems, we are talking here about an entity, homeownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere. This is not the dot-com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality and people building fiber-optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you will not see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble.

It is fun to find quotes from the past where a politician says something that is contradicted or proven wrong at a later point. Frank clearly gets the housing bubble wrong here. However, on the point of home ownership, we should read the next few lines of the same speech:

So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for homeownership... I also want to express... a very important point that sometimes gets overlooked. Homeownership is an important part of our policy, but it is not the entire housing policy of the Federal Government; nor is it the entire housing need of the Nation. Some people will never own. There will be people who choose not to own; there will be people who for their economic circumstances will not be able to own. And there is no conflict between promoting homeownership and recognizing that decent, affordable rental housing will also be very important indefinitely for tens and tens of millions of Americans.

While Frank missed the bubble and advocates public policy in favor of home ownership, he clearly stated in this speech that it cannot be achieved by everyone.

Source: THOMAS - Congressional Record, June 27, 2005, Page H5182-H5183.

*****

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is very ill with brain cancer. In an acknowledgment of his mortality, Kennedy sent a letter to the powers-that-be in Massachusetts on July 2. The letter can be viewed here.

Kennedy shows the world that he is still a politician by asking that state law be changed to allow Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to appoint an interim Senator in the event of Kennedy's resignation or death. Massachusetts passed a law in 2004 which removed the Governor's authority to make such an appointment.

The text of the law in its current form can be found here. The legislature passed the law with a 2/3 super-majority after Republican Governor Mitt Romney vetoed the bill which was intended to remove his power in case Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) were to defeat George W. Bush for the Presidency.

Insurance and Public Utilities

As I begin to explore the health care debate, I think it's important to start with a review of insurance. Health insurance is the central point of the debate; President Obama has even modified his language to speak of the need for "health insurance reform" rather than "health care reform." To illustrate, visit the official site of the White House or read this letter from Senior Advisor David Axelrod.

The basic concept of insurance is simple and widely used. As a formal financial product, it is actually relatively new. One can imagine the early beginnings of insurance when a community of citizens would offer to provide mutual assistance to each other if one had a disastrous event such as a fire. If you are interested in the history of insurance, check out this Wikipedia entry.

A simplistic description of insurance products in the private sector can be described as a service to pool risk. A group of people collectively pay a regular fixed amount (or premium) to the insurance provider who agrees to pay the costs of a certain event (or, in some cases a set amount of money). Economically, it makes sense that the price of the premiums would be correlated with the expectation of a payout from the insurance company - measured by the probability of the event happening times the size of the potential payout. There is a whole field of study on this called actuarial science.

Now, let's turn to the concept of a public utility. I have previously discussed my limited support of public spending for large investments in infrastructure which serve a public good and the returns on investment are either difficult to measure or take a long time to be realized. This is often the case in situations which economists call a natural monopoly. Typical examples of such public utilities would be road construction, power grids, and sewage lines.

Should insurance (of any type) be viewed as a public utility? Let's examine the characteristics. Insurance does not necessarily require a large investment in infrastructure up front with long, slow returns. The biggest start-up risk to an insurance provider would be a series of unlikely events which would require significant payouts before reserves could be established through the collection of premiums.

Here's a simple example... let's say that there are a group of people who want insurance to protect against an expensive and unlikely event. We'll pretend there are 100 potential insurance customers who, for the purpose of illustration, must pay $1000 if they roll a 1-1-1 on a toss of three dice every Saturday. The odds of any one given individual in any given week needing to pay $1000 is 1/216. While this is unlikely to happen, the people want to avoid having to pay the $1000 so they seek insurance. The insurance provider offers to pay the $1000 on behalf of their customer in return for a monthly premium of $30. The potential customer will pay $360 year to protect them against a $1000 dollar loss which, over the long run, is likely to happen once every four years. In this simple example, the insurance company has about a 0.1% of going bankrupt (with no other expenses other than those from claims) and will operate with a 25% margin. This hardly qualifies as a public utility nor would it lead to a natural monopoly.

But, they could go bankrupt. Bad luck, tighter margins, or poor risk estimates could all plague an insurance company. And, when an insurance company does go bankrupt, they will not be able to pay out on claims which will leave consumers, who have paid their premiums, without coverage. Should the government backstop this risk? I would say that they should not since both parties entered the insurance contract as a way to manage risk. The consumer should know that there is a small risk that they will not be covered by their insurance if the provider itself goes bankrupt.

The analogous situation in our simple of a community joining together in an agreement of mutual assistance in the event of a disaster would be when the community itself suffers a disaster. If all of the houses burns down, then everyone will have to do the equivalent work of rebuilding their own home. This is, in essence, the same problem as "too big to fail" which has been so hotly debated in the world of financial services over the last year.

In summary, I think it is clear that insurance does not meet that basic description of a public utility as I have defined. This, in my opinion, does not make it a good candidate for public investment. There are risks; there are even "too big to fail" risks. These risks can and should be managed via regulations, competition and/or transparency for consumers and investors. It should not be turned over to the state.

Loose Ends... Vol. LVI

Nothing tonight...

Wait and See With Skepticism

I have to admit (again) that Obama is one talented speaker. I'm watching his town hall from Tuesday in Portsmouth, NH. He is smooth, makes jokes, and is very comfortable with the audience. I do promise to weigh-in on the whole health care and insurance debate sometime soon... but not tonight.

There has been a lot of talk on the cost of this legislation. Obama has repeatedly insisted that he will not sign a bill which will add to the deficit or debt. He has also promised not to raise taxes. I cannot fathom how all the pieces of this puzzle can come together without promises being broken.

This has been a fascinating, disturbing and frustrating debate. It will continue for several more weeks if not months. It seems to me that it will be unlikely for things to cool off before this is all over. I wasn't paying much attention before two years ago, but I don't recall a time in my lifetime where the civil divide was this deep.

Loose Ends... Vol. LV

I hoping posting will return to a more normal rate this week. Here's a handful of thoughts on various items from the week...

File this first one under "Are You Kidding Me?" I just read this story over at United Liberty. A kid had her lemonade stand shut down by the authorities because she didn't have a permit. I don't believe that children should have some special exemption from the law. The article quotes the authorities as saying that the vendor laws must be enforced because "otherwise we'll have people on every corner." Would it be that horrible to allow people to sell things on street corners? Whose rights are being protected by these laws such that is requires government force?

*****

On a similar note, the City Council (of Indianapolis) will be considering an anti-panhandling law this week. I wrote about laws set up to manage people's pet peeves in this post. While it may be annoying to have people ask you for money, are these panhandlers infringing on your rights? Do we need to take their freedom of speech away because they are a nuisance?

*****

I just love this quote:

I expect to be held responsible. But I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking.

These words are from Barack Obama at a recent campaign rally - story here.

*****

How about this one:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov

Yes, this is from the White House blog. Read it here. Fox News has a story here featuring Judge Andrew Napolitano.

*****

I caught a little bit of an FCC meeting on the National Broadband Plan on CSPAN. Watch it here. There are a lot of details at Broadband.gov. This is a subject I'd like to address in a more thorough article at some point as it is a subject that gets right to the heart of some fundamental questions regarding the role of government such as: public utilities, freedom of the press, education, the democratic process, tax policy and more.

****

Lastly, former President Bill Clinton flew to North Korea and came home with two U.S. journalists who were imprisoned there. They received full pardons. I did not understand at first why Al Gore was at the press conference; then he spoke. I hadn't realized two things: the two journalists worked for Current TV; Al Gore co-founded and chairs the media company. I found that interesting.

One last point on this story... there must have been some good work done behind the scenes (haven't researched this - I'm sure there's plenty out there) as there is no way Bill Clinton would have gone there is failure was a possibility.

It's Happened Again

Well, as you may know if you've been following, I've been traveling. Posts have been thin lately. On top of the travel, I've been getting increasingly frustrated to the point of not knowing what to say. I feel much like I did last September when I posted "The Silence of Anger" (it's not a hall of fame post).

I promise to gather my thoughts and get some more content out here, but at this point I am flabbergasted at the deplorable state of the media.

I've been watching MSNBC off and on this evening and I'm not sure I can even continue to do that. Their entire evening line-up is so woefully in the bag for the Democrats that it's disgusting. This passes for news in our country. It's not just tonight; it's an instance of the straw breaking the camel's back. The discussion of how the "right-wing extremists" are organized by "big money" and "lobbyists" to create a faux-grassroots ("astroturf") movement against the health care reform legislation is beyond hypocritical.

First of all, freedom of speech is supposed to be protected in this country. So, MSNBC has the right to take such a position. However, it borders on fraud to present yourself as a news orgainization or refer to yourselves as journalists in such circumstances. The people who show up to these town halls have every right to say any stupid or idiotic thing that they want to say as well.

Now, for Fox News... the other side of the coin (and go ahead and throw in most "right-wing" radio hosts - certainly Limbaugh and Hannity). Again, these folks are not journalists nor are they a "fair and balanced" news outlet. Yes, they do "balance" MSNBC, but that's a different story. They are nothing but another operator in mediatainment and both of them are for big government (don't believe what Fox News says otherwise).

One last mini-rant: Glen Beck. He's been getting more irritating lately. He's obsessed with ACORN (which is actually relevant given my issue with MSNBC's portrayal of right-wing activists - ACORN does the same thing on the left) and has been straying from his libertarian-leaning and somewhat anti-Republican rhetoric as of late and moving back toward the typical Fox/Hannity/Limbaugh/GOP garbage that he previously leaned towards before his latest book.

Ok. No links... just a rant tonight. I'm still here.

Loose Ends... Vol. LIV

I'm way behind on the news of the world, so I don't have much to say here tonight. I'm on a mini-vacation for a few more days which could equate to more or less posts. Not sure which.