I took him up on the issue, and said I didn’t believe their reporting (as opposed to their opinion shows) is any more biased than the other networks, but since it leans the other way than the other networks, by comparison they seem more biased than they are.

Put another way, if you’re standing at a 15-degree angle to the left of vertical, and you think you’re standing up straight, then people who aren’t leaning at all will seem to you to be leaning to the right.

If you encounter someone who’s leaning 15 degrees to the right of vertical, then to your perspective they’re practically falling over. But it’s not the magnitude of their bias that you’re seeing; it’s the magnitude of the difference between yours and theirs.

So it is (I posit) between Fox and pretty much the entirety of the other other televised news outlets. (MSNBC is an outlier which actually HAS fallen over after leaning too far left, and it can’t get up and wouldn’t want to if it could, so let’s just quietly move on and let it lie there peacefully.)

Now, “Fred” is a smart guy, and a compelling writer. He’s also quite liberal in his politics (from all the indications I’ve ever seen from him). He may, in fact, be considerably more liberal than he realizes, simply because of his peer group.

I’m a techie, and I’ve been roaming around the Interwebs since before Al Gore invented them, and I’ve noticed something over the 20 years or so I’ve been soaking up the culture: people in the major tech centers (the sort of places Paul Graham says you can’t just create) are overwhelmingly, breathtakingly liberal as a group. That doesn’t mean you won’t find there individuals of tremendously varying political positions. But the median tech-head from Silicon Valley, SF, Portland, Redmond, MIT, Caltech, or Stanford is so far to the left of the country-wide median, they may not even know anyone as far right as what passes for “the middle” in modern American politics.

That’s a long way around to saying this: I know people whom I consider friends in the tech world who will (I think) be both shocked and a little ashamed for me to know I voted for George W. Bush not once, but twice, and would again over either of the two clowns currently running. They’d be shocked because I had not previously given them indications of being either brain-damaged or an evil minion of Dick Cheney’s Halliburton Cabal. And they’d be a little ashamed for me (and probably of me) because they’d know that all right-thinking people were appalled at my lack of clue and lack of class. It would be like my vomiting in the punchbowl at a wedding and then passing out and falling on the wedding cake. It’s a faux pas, unheard-of in any polite circle they can imagine.

And it’s the “circle that they can imagine” part that’s oddly childlike. Their political spectrum has a left and a right, and they argue with great passion against those on the “other side”. It’s just that their entire spectrum, if translated to the color spectrum, would fit between Angry, Pulsating All-War-Is-Wrong Violet and Indigo-tinted CO2-Covered Global-Warming-Death Blue. The very existence of an all-out Green is but a rumor, and no one — except the insane and those in tune with the Dark Arts — even speaks of Yellow. Red and Orange are simply inconceivable to them. If there were a Yellow, surely there could be nothing beyond it but utter madness.

I’m overdrawing it a tad. But the fact is, someone sitting comfortably in the middle of the spectrum would see them all as about as purple as they could be, with no difference worth commenting on among the lot of them.

In the same way, someone sitting deep in the Red area wouldn’t be able to see much past the “left-wing nutjob” sitting at Green, and would dismiss anything insufficiently red as a “bunch of hippies anyway” and not think more about it.

Now, in this maelstrom of provincial cluelessness, what would an ‘unbiased’ news network look like if we had one? What would they say? And if they said it, who would like it? Is the middle of the political spectrum even very populated? Is that even a fair question? Many people have pointed out that most of our politics don’t line up in a linear fashion at all. There are at least two dimensions in the political grid, as our Libertarian friends are fond of pointing out. I think there are many more than that.

This brings me back (at long last) to Fox. I don’t think that Fox is conservative, though they lean to the right compared to the other networks. However, compared to a legitimately conservative outfit like National Review, Fox is hardly conservative. (Keep in mind, I’m only talking about the “news”, not the various opinion-tainment shows on Fox).

What they are is populist, and wildly so. There are political issues where populists graze freely among the fields of conservative ideas (but without ever knowing whose land they’re on). On others, they wander happily among the poppies of liberalism (again, blissfully ignorant of the fact). But Fox, I think, doesn’t care, as long as their audience is engaged and growing.

The funny thing is that, for both Left and Right, typically populism is seen as a sort of “politics for stupid people”. It’s a different beast than Conservatism, which is “politics for evil, greedy people” and Liberalism, which is “politics for narcissists and commies” (depending on who you ask). Everybody hates everybody, and everybody thinks everybody else is evil, stupid, ignorant, or all three.

Fox, I think, noticed that nobody was serving the populist herd in the news game. The liberal wing had pretty much locked down control of major media, and the conservatives had gone a different route, with think tanks, foundations, magazines and so on. Fox jumped in and fed the masses the sort of news the masses like.

To conservatives (and I know whereof I speak), Fox is an occasionally welcome relief from the relentless agenda of liberally slanted major news networks. But it’s hardly conservative, and is sometimes maddeningly obtuse about issues that (conservatives think) shouldn’t even be debatable.

To liberals (and I have observed this as an almost unanimous reaction), Fox is a hideous conservative menace, an aberration that does not deserve to exist and is corrupting and destroying All That Is Good in the Universe (sort of Dick Cheney if he were a news network instead of a Sith Lord).

But it’s ironic that so many people, particularly people from my professional herd, genuinely believe that Fox is pretty much the house organ of the Republican Party, and can’t conceive of the notion that it could be anything else.

Historian Robert Conquest recently pondered why so many of his fellow scholars had been for so long incapable of grasping the true nature of the Soviet regime. He concluded by blaming “a clerisy that has hardly heard of opinions other than those appearing to be…the acceptable expression of concern for humanity” and that has demonstrated “a strong tendency to silence those who disagree with one or another of the accepted beliefs.”

Can you think of an issue about which people pretend that there exists no “other” side, or that anyone who says, “Wait, I don’t think that’s what’s happening here, this evidence here suggests otherwise,” is a lunatic, or out to destroy humanity, the world, decency, puppies?

It’s so easy to slide into this kind of closed-mindedness. I believe what I believe, and I think I have good reasons for it. I enjoy finding other people who seem intelligent and well-spoken who share that belief. But from there it’s only a lazy little slip over into “ALL people who are intelligent and well-spoken WILL share this belief; everyone else is an evil slug.”

I suspect many readers not only thought of a great example of such narrow-minded idea bigots, but also assume that most smart, “good”, and well-informed people would agree.

So, for instance, if you believe “Bush lied, kids died” is an accurate and pithy explanation of the current conflict in and over Iraq, you thought “stupid/evil neocon warmongers”. If, on the other hand, you think “Global warming is a Commie plot”, you thought “stupid/evil Gore-cult worshipers”.

But the point I’m trying to make here is that if I (or you) begin to think that nobody in their right mind could disagree with my example “clerisy of narrow minds”, then I’ve slipped into the same mindset, thus joining one myself.

p.s. – I know that I’m a card-carrying member of about 14 different “clerisies” myself. But I’m working on escaping. Are you?

Now, you don’t have to accept that the Laffer Curve is true if you don’t want. You don’t have to accept that the earth is round, or that the sun goes around the moon, or that the Washington Redskins are evil, no matter who coaches them. Facts don’t care if you believe them, and you certainly don’t have to believe them.

Still, it’s just willfully ignorant to go around trumpeting that you reject the “Laffer Curve Theory” if you don’t even know what it is. And most of the people I’ve heard take issue with it clearly didn’t know what it actually says. I’m not saying that, “They disagreed with me, so they were wrong.” I’m saying that they were busy disagreeing with some straw man they’d concocted that had hardly any resemblance to the Laffer Curve itself.

So, if you want to know what the Laffer Curve is about, Larry Kudlow pointed to this terrific video a few days ago, from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. It’s only around 7 minutes long, and moves quickly, and is quite clear. Just don’t get distracted by the short appeal for a flat tax toward the end; the Laffer Curve is not connected to any particular means of taxation.

p.s. – I’m not a flat-tax proponent myself, largely for pragmatic reasons, namely, I don’t think it would remain transparently applied, and would quickly turn into a bureaucratically-managed VAT nightmare. But that’s another story.

“The House passed a lobbying reform bill in May that required that the sponsors of earmarks be identified,” said Flake. “There’s no good reason why that policy hasn’t been implemented.”

No good reason, indeed. Another excellent example of the backbone so sorely lacking on the Leviathin of spending that has nearly consumed the Republican majority.

(H/t to The Club for Growth, which was a major factor in putting Flake in the House to start with.)

Wesbury says:

During a quarter century of analyzing and forecasting the economy, I have never seen anything like this. No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy.

Bizzy, Wesbury, and several others linked in that article all make a similar point – the economy is demonstrably robust, by almost every common measure. And yet the reporting on it is almost uniformly doom-and-gloom amongst the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, as Bizzy calls them; I love that!).

One comment is instructive, though:

You seem to miss the obvious reality here.

Instead of blaming the public for being so stupid as to be manipulated by the evil MSM, you should recognize that when people are asked for their opinion of the economy, they answer from their own perspective, according to their own sphere of expertise. The general public are not trained economists, able to plumb reams of economic statistics in order to make meta-level judgments about the state of the economy as a whole. They answer on the basis of their own economic situation, and the situation of their family, friends, and (very) local communities.

That the economy as a whole is healthy, but that over 40% of the people feel that THEY are in a recessionary situation, should illuminate the problem that republican economic policy tends to bring about. The persistent lack of effective trickle-down from policies that explicitly favor those at the top.

Buzz! Nice ideological backflip, but no dice. TBlumer ably rebuts it:

There’s a vast difference between how people see their own situations and that of the economy. Part of it may be anecdotal (knowing neighbors, friends, or relatives who are struggling), but I doubt that it’s much of a factor, because if it was, it would rub off into worrying about their own situation a lot more.

SO the vast majority of the explanation for the difference between how they feel about their own situation and prospects and how they see things for the economy as a whole is that they’re hearing a constant drumbeat of pessimism about the economy from the WORMs,

In his September 19, 2005 “Digital Rules” column, Forbes editor Rich Karlgard notes an ABC News/Washington Post poll from July which claimed that 59% of Americans were not happy with the economy, but also that 59% liked their own financial condition. He says these conflicting sentiments make no sense.

Well, they do make sense when you realize that the liberal press relentlessly hammers home a message of economic doom and gloom. What’s more, they relentlessly say that everyone around you, all your neighbors, are unhappy and losing their jobs. But individuals look at their own financial condition and realize that everything’s great for them, and then assume that theirs must be a special case and that everyone around them is hurting or otherwise the news wouldn’t be so bad. It makes people think that all their neighbors are broke or losing their jobs, so that makes them unhappy with the economy as a whole.

Of course, the news is trumped up or carefully spun to make it almost unrecognizable. It’s done that way in order to try and harm a president that the press unanimously loathes. But when it’s almost uniformly reported as fact that the economy’s bad and people are having a hard time, lots of people tend to believe it, in spite of the evidence to the contrary in their personal situations.

It’s kind of like if everyone on the block has a great marriage, but they’ve heard that everyone else is getting a divorce, so they don’t say much (don’t want to make the neighbors feel bad over their failed marriages) and they fret publicly about the state of matrimony.

Karlgaard notes in his December 12th, 2005 column:

Sorry, grinches, but the U.S. economy looks like Santa’s sled is being powered by GE/Rolls-Royce jet engines. The third quarter clocked a 3.8% GDP growth rate. The third quarter! Recall: This was the quarter of Katrina, Rita and $70-a-barrel oil. The buckle-your-belt, we’re-going-down quarter. But we didn’t go down. We went up. So did the stock market–up 5% since President Bush raised Ben Bernanke to Alan Greenspan’s throne at the Fed.

TBlumer concludes:

And I finally understand (a bit) why some allegedly conservative politicians in Washington who should know better are considering a tax increase (known in some circles as “repealing the Bush tax cuts”). Please, ladies and gentlemen – ignore the polls, vote the reality.

Here’s to sheepdogs! Grrr…

Still, as a proxy for the off-the-reservation nuttiness that passes for consensus among the moonbats these days, it’s useful to examine the talking points she trots out from time to time. I found Saturday’s dispatch on Kos illuminating.

I shall try to refrain from pointing out the grammatical errors, and will skip over the myriad logical howlers, and focus on a couple of salient points that nicely reflect the (eternal, unchanging) narcissistic double-standard on the Left.

Now, lest anyone has forgotten, let me remind you that, according to Maureen Dowd, “The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.” But as Chrenkoff ably demonstrates, “apparently only if they also become mouthpieces for the angry left.”

But let’s see what Mother Sheehan, whose moral authority is “absolute”, has to say about such “absolute moral authority”:

I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves. … How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don’t understand it. I don’t understand how any mother could want another mother to feel the pain we feel. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these “continue the murder and mayhem” moms to see the light.

“I have been silent” on the Gold Star moms who “still support this man”, she says. But now (by contrast), she says they need to “start thinking for themselves,” “I am starting to lose a little compassion for them,” “they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America,” and “they should not wish it on another” makes it pretty clear that Sheehan has declared it time to stop ‘giving a pass’ to these annoying moms who just don’t get it.

I am Cindy! My moral authority is absolute, d’ya hear? Absolute! Hear me roar! Wake up and be as smart as me!

Ah, well; self-examination and objective standards have never been the strong suit of the “Speaking Platitudes to Power” crowd.

The Kos link was via Goldstein, who, as usual, sums it up perfectly:

Sheehan said to her supporters today (I’m paraphrasing), “when the history books talk about the Camp Casey movement, you’ll be able to say you met Casey’s Mom�—proof positive that Cindy Sheehan believes her own press clippings and truly does see herself as a modern day Gandhi or King, Jr.
…
The f***ing hubris of this woman. Astounding!