Dumb and Dumber

Liberals have been making a big deal about a study last year by World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland called "Misinformation and the 2010 Election:  A Study of the U.S. Electorate."  In the study, consisting of 848 New Jersey voters, it was reported that watchers of FOX News were less informed on a number of election issues --  including stimulus, health reform law, climate change, income taxes and TARP.

The left hasn't been this elated since Chaz Bono completed gender reassignment surgery, which means they're having orgasms telling their friends and family on social websites.  Headlines scream:  "Watching FOX NEWS makes you stupid!"  Comments on Face book snicker:  "See I told you so. Sarah Palin really was an idiot and people's decision to vote against Barrack Obama was based on blatant lies and racism."

Rest assured, like all things in partisan politics, the left is only giving you the part that justifies their beliefs.

To start, the study was based on questions asked during an election year, when political ads fill the air waves like mosquitoes  drawn to the scent of blood.  If anyone can find the truth in these ads they deserve a week's vacation in Hawaii.   The possibility that  hot election issues like health care, taxes and the economy could be compromised isn't beyond believing.  Voters should know better than to believe most things coming out of mouths of politicians; perhaps it needs to apply to commentary news channels like FOX, MSNBC, CNN and NPR, as well.

After further review, the study didn't say viewers of FOX NEWS were dumb, just less informed than others.  In other words, the information coming from FOX NEWS was partial, incomplete or less comprehensive.  This suggests that the results are not based on a conservative tilt, as people who voted Democratic and watched FOX NEWS were also more likely to be misinformed.

The study also showed that viewers of MSNBC and CNN news fared only slightly better in many cases.  The second worse source was MSNBC, which was worse than FOX viewers on one of three questions and second worse on another.  Viewers of NPR, the love child of many an informed liberal, were deemed no better or worse than someone who watched no news at all.


World Public Opinion's interpretation of the answers is also interesting.  Take these three sample questions for example:

Will the health reform law increase the deficit?  The correct answer is no, based on President Obama's "assurance " that savings coming from the existing health care plan will offset the cost of the overhaul health bill.  Huh?  Just because the president says savings will offset costs, makes it true?  When was the last time any bill from Washington SAVED money?  Give me a break.

Is the economy getting worse?  Again, the correct answer is no, but since when is 9% unemployment, a looming deficit, increasing inflation and regulatory attacks on small business an indication of a growing economy?  And if you lost your job or know someone who did -- do you feel like things are getting better?

Is climate change occurring?  the study's answer is yes.  But who's to know if the changes occurring now didn't occur 10,000 years ago?  And the real question should be "Is man responsible for climate change?"  There is serious doubt about who's to blame, as recent emails continue to raise questions about global warming.

So this study may raise questions about what we are watching on FOX NEWS, but it doesn't prove anything about the intelligence of the people watching.  And while FOX NEWS does have some work to do, the rest of the mainstream media is not blameless.

So why is it that liberals think they're smarter than everyone else?  Or, why are they so quick to think conservatives are stupid?

Can you think of a recent Republican candidate who wasn't classified as some kind of bumbling fool?  Remember how President Reagan was just an actor, and President Bush couldn't put two coherent sentences together?  How about Sarah Pail, who was relentlessly attacked by the elite news media and comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, David Letterman and Comedy Central.

I can still see ABC's Charlie Gibson (looking over his reading spectacles) condescendingly asking Palin, "When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia.  Are those sufficient credentials?"  Did he ever ask Obama that question?  What were his qualifications?

Or how about CBS's Katie Couric, acting so nice, then stabbing her in the back by asking, "And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this -- to stay informed and to understand the world? ... which ones specifically.  I'm curious.  ... can you name any of them?"  I'm curious, Katie, did you drive CBS' broadcast ratings into the toilet all by yourself or did you have help? 


"Serious" news anchors like Gibson and Couric (both gone), and NBC's Williams and ABC's Sawyer must just pull their hair out when they see the ratings of FOX NEWS.  How is it possible for its viewership to increase, while the three major network news telecasts continue to shrink?  The only answer must be that the viewers are stupid.  A box of bricks.  A teabag short of a pot.  Bright as Alaska in winter.

For the left, the contrast between viewer's intelligence must be attributed to the following:

Broad-mindedness.   Liberals think conservatives are close minded, not open to new ideas and lifestyles, etc.  It's so bad that Dictionary.Com lists three definitions for "narrow-minded":  1) having or showing a prejudiced mind; biased, 2) not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind, and 3) extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.  It also features a list of synonyms, specifically "bigoted, partial, intolerant and illiberal."  No wonder conservatives are viewed as ignorant and stupid.

Ego.  Liberals control education -- many probably wish they were still in college.  This morning I listened to a guest on NPR who was talking about the need to tax the rich.  This guest was 1) liberal, 2) an educator and 3) an expert on economics.  To my way of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to try talking to an actual business owner who has to find the means to pay his employees, provide health insurance and pay taxes?

This academic background, while making liberals educated, doesn't make them smart.  But it does boost their egos.  For axample, look at a potential match up of Newt Gingrich versus Barrack Obama.   West Georgia College teacher vs graduate of Columbia, Harvard Law, and editor of the Law Review Journal.  Which one would you expect to use a tele prompter for help?

Empathy.  Liberals think they are sympathetic and "in tune" to people in need.  That makes them smarter.  The political left looks to validate their "feelings"by appealing to the needs of those who can't take care of themselves without the intervention of big government.  "I'm smart, so I need to help those less fortunate.  For them, our ignorance -- represented by greed, hatred and bigotry-- is a by-product of conservatism because it isn't sympathetic to the problems of minorities, gays, immigrants and the poor.

Conservative certainty.   Many on the right have confidence in things like religion, family values and our military.  Liberals struggle with the concept of believing in God.  Faith without proof conforms to their idea that conservatives are blind to fact or science.  Liberals also have trouble with our positions on abortion, gays and marriage (certainty about life, love and commitment is further proof of our ignorance).  And fighting a necessary war requires honor, dedication and heroism -- foreign concepts to a liberal's gray (not black and white) thinking.

The left hates FOX NEWS because it is popular.  Number one in ratings for cable television, easily beating CNN, MSNBC and considered a rising threat to CBS, NBC and ABC.  Anything they can do to discredit the organization must be done.  The monopoly that these news organizations have had for the last forty years has come to an end.  They can't understand why FOX NEWS continues to succeed.

In conclusion, the left are an intolerant bunch --contrary to being open minded-- who fall back to calling people who disagree with them (especially if they watch FOX NEWS) stupid.

Conflicting Signals

By now, we are all familiar with the alleged sexual harassment charges against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.  If you're not, what planet have you been vacationing on?

In my last post, I made a point to not address the truthfulness of the various claims being brought forth.  I have never been, and never will defend someone who is found guilty of sexual harassment, much less sodomy, rape or other forms of sexual assault on another human being. 

But the Cain accusations has me wondering how a man and woman today are supposed to act around work and at home?  And what role has today's media and the feminist movement had in my state of confusion?

Before upsetting many of you, let me be specific about the nature of feminism.   As I see it, the women's "lib" movement has been centered on giving women equal rights -- be it at home, at work, in athletics, in school, or in the voting booth.  I'm all for treating people equally, regardless of sex (or race for that matter).  I was raised to help around the home, was eager to help raise my two sons, and didn't feel like it was my job to be the only one bringing home a paycheck.

I'm also fortunate to have a wife who expects me to be a man about certain things, whether it means cleaning out the gutters, killing the occasional bug or cleaning up after the dog.  But it also includes admiring how she looks, smells, dances and makes love .  For more than 25 years we've worked successfully on family, marriage and our jobs.

So I don't see myself as someone who has a problem with treating women equally.  Where it gets tricky is when the rules are changed to make women something radically different.  I'm speaking about behavior that falls into one of the following :

. affirmative action feminist
. equity feminist
. femicommie
. gender feminist
. lesbian
. liberal feminist
. PC feminist
. post-modernist feminist
. radical feminist
. socialist feminist
. victim feminist.

I confess that I have no idea what a gender feminist is, but it's safe to say that I want nothing to do with them.  It's also safe to say that much of the confusion men face today has something to do with the constantly changing rules that govern the relationship we have with women -- is she into political correctness, socialism, affirmative action or equality?  Can't we just be men and women?

It is especially difficult (and dangerous) around the workplace, given the sometimes harsh realities of hiring practices, differences in management styles, and gender stereotypes.  What risks are you taking by asking a co-worker out to lunch, or closing an office door to preserve privacy?  Will you get in trouble by staying late at the office with a female co-worker present?

We shouldn't have to worry about passing a good joke around the office without someone being offended.  Or discussing a scene from last night's Sex and the City or True Blood over lunch.  Or wonder if what we are wearing on a sales call is sending the wrong message.  And yet all the employment experts tell you "if in doubt, don't do it."

Are we supposed to keep to ourselves, show no personality, then doubt someone's accolades as unwanted harassment?  No wonder everyone is stressed at work.  If it's not job worries, it's questioning someone's ulterior motives.

Compounding the problem, and adding a huge dose of hypocrisy to the debate about how men and women relate, is how the media -- magazines, television, internet and songs -- portrays this relationship between men and women.  My son, who has started his first year of college, often comments on his apprehension to go to parties, dances and campus activities that involve alcohol, drugs and sex.  How much of his reluctance is borne out of confusion over what he sees on television or songs he listens to on his IPOD?   If I was in the market to start a new relationship, would I know how to act, what to say or expect?

Take television -- its motto should be have sex, behave badly and embrace alternative lifestyles.  One the most popular shows is Two and A Half Men with episodes like "Thanks for the Intercourse" and "Twanging Your Magic Clanger" and "Hookers, Hookers and Hookers."  There's the bilge known as reality TV with shows like Sixteen and Pregnant, The Bad Girls Club, Jersey Shore and Wife Swap.  Flip the channel to MTV, FX and A&E and you can be entertained all day and night by repeated bad behavior and sexual liaisons that has nothing to do with real world expectations at work or home.

Magazines have banned smoking ads since the early 1970's, but have no problem with something selling sex.  In fact, it's common knowledge that "sex sells."  Ads depict women as something to be acquired, typically through the allure of breasts, cleavage, legs, butts or midriffs.   Selling beer in Sports Illustrated?  Better have a couple of young girls in bikinis.  Open a page in Cosmopolitan or Glamour magazines and you'll find thin, young and happy women displaying their charms to some clueless, unshaven guy laying in bed.  And it goes beyond just giving out the wrong image of women, as many of the articles involve body image and relationships.  For example:  "Get the Body You Really Want," "How to Get Your Husband to Listen," "Stay Skinny" and "What Men Really Want."

These stereotypes are disturbing given how unrealistic they are.  Lying about sex and relationships perpetuates the idea the women are primarily there to satisfy men.  In a study of Cosmopolitan and Playboy magazines, studies have found the both men and women's magazines contain a single vision of female sexuality -- that women should primarily concern themselves with attracting and sexually satisfying men.

This misinformation is also harmful for two other reasons.  1) young people often turn to media for information about sex and sexuality.  In 2003, a study reported that two-thirds of young people turn to media when they want to learn about sex -- the same percentage of kids who ask their mother for information and advice.  And 2) romance can often have a darker side.  An ad for Fetish perfume implies that women don't really mean 'no' when they say it, that women are only teasing when they resist men's advances.  The ad copy reads, "Apply generously to your neck so he can smell the scent as you shake your head 'no'."  Does this vulnerability contribute to being a potential victim of violence or sexual harassment as displayed in today's news?  Of course it does.

So while the alleged behavior of politicians and athletes/coaches today raises disturbing images (some real), I'm led to ask the proverbial question of which came first -- the chicken or the egg?  A look at today's feminist agenda and media's misrepresentation of expected sexual relations doesn't provide an answer.

Attack on Cain Shows Media's True Color

In political tomes, the first week of November 2011 will be remembered for the allegations against GOP front runner, Herman Cain.

As leaked by Politico, Cain is accused of the sexual harassment of three women while he was head of the National Restaurant Association during the 1990s.  I'm not going to debate the truth of these allegations, because there's not enough factual information available to determine who's telling the truth and who's not.  Rather, I'd like to present a history of the mainstream media's behavior to these types of attacks, at a time when Cain -- who is black and conservative -- is leading the GOP field for president.

Is Cain being treated in a similar manner as Democrats -- including President Clinton and presidential candidate John Edwards (to name just two) -- who were also accused of sexual allegations over the past decade?  And what, if any, does Cain's color and strong, conservative leanings have to do with the national media's attack?

Herman Cain.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Over a period of just three and one-half days, national news organizations ABC, NBC and CBS reported an incredible 50 stories on the allegations against Cain.  Politico, the web site that broke the story, has published 90 stories in five days.  The fevered pitch, despite the unsubstantiated and anonymous nature of the allegations and the women surrounding them, can be summarized by the following reports:

ABC's Brian Ross, on Good Morning America, described Cain's time as head of the National Restaurant Association without offering any facts, by saying,  "It fits with the kind of culture we were told that existed there, with young women who had been, sort of, lobbyists for the restaurant association, working with various states.  They were the new ones, the young ones.  And they say that's where Cain often socialized."

GMA's George Stephanopoulos gleefully stated the latest,  "Another woman.  Herman Cain facing new allegations that he was aggressive and inappropriate to a third employee, inviting her back to his corporate apartment.  Is the pressure finally getting to the front-runner?"

And finally on Today, Lisa Myers, adding to her own chaos, declared the story "a feeding frenzy."  She trumpeted, "Herman Cain, this story is quickly going from bad to worse."


Compounding the Cain problem are the payments that were allegedly made to these women.  As part of the settlements made back in the 1990s, no one can talk about what really happened, including Cain himself.  Never one to let facts get in the way of biased reporting, the media and political talking heads on cable are quick to attack Cain's "no comment" responses when in fact there is little he can legally say.

Legal experts always say that it's cheaper to settle in court than to fight false accusations for years just to prove your innocence.  Sad, but true.

Finally, the allegations are for something nobody can agree on, but certainly not rape or lying under oath.  Not that I condone sexual harassment of any kind, but the media is treating this like Cain raped and murdered his accusers.  As the editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, said "I think he's got it coming to him, don't you think?  Got WHAT coming to him, Mr. Bradlee?  Would you be referring to your politically-motivated, high tech lynching?  In Washington, you are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Unless you're a Democrat.

Bill Clinton.

Can you feel his pain?

We all know the facts about Bill Clinton.  But do you remember who it was that broke the story and when?

First the facts:   Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, allegedly would look for women, using state troopers as his procurers.  As President of the United States, Clinton engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.  He went to court and lied about it under oath and was impeached.  Other sexual accusations followed Clinton, including one that he raped Juanita Broaddrick.  Or that he sexually abused Paula Jones.

But you wouldn't know it based on the way the media treated any of those facts.  After burying the story of Clinton's sexual abuse of Paula Jones and his affair with Lewinsky for months, Newsweek finally published its findings after The Drudge Report leaked their cover-up.  Had it not been for this conservative, internet gossip site, who knows how long (if at all) it would have taken to attach Clinton's despicable behavior to Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky.

Equally important, was the media's reaction once the story broke.  Instead of questioning and attacking President Clinton for inappropriate behavior, the mainstream media instead attacked his accusers, reminding us that Clinton's poor judgement shouldn't overshadow his good deeds.

For example, Susan Estrich in Slate Magazine had this to say, "Are we (the liberal press) inconsistent in supporting Anita Hill and not Paula Jones?  Consistent with what?  With the goal of protecting women from sexual abuse?  I think that goal is served by supporting Bill Clinton.  I think that it is important for us, feminists in particular, to acknowledge that taking sexual harassment seriously doesn't mean that every time a woman complains, the man should be damned."

She continues, "Here's my bottom line.  I don't want a sex police in this country, and I certainly don't want to be a member of it.  I'll take care of my like, and let others take care of theirs.  There's plenty of very serious abuse out there, if the press is interested.  I'll give you a dozen people with worse stories to tell than Paula's, who don't have ideologues eager to help them."


I'm willing to bet that more people remember the attacks on Paula Jones, than her allegations against Clinton.  I vividly remember Clinton adviser, James Carville discrediting her by saying you never know what you will find "when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park."?  I seem to remember Saturday Night Live! doing a skit on Jones -- and it didn't make her look very good, either.

I wonder how long we will have to wait before the media discredit Cain's accusers?  I, for one, am not holding my breath.

John Edwards.

What were you thinking?

In 2006, John Edwards, a one time presidential candidate, had a romantic relationship with a former campaign worker, Rielle Hunter.  However, he refused to admit to it, claiming that there was nothing to the rumors -- including that he had fathered a child with Ms Hunter, even though he was married at the time.

The fact that Edwards was having a relationship with Ms Hunter -- while married to his wife of many years --was not the whole story.  The bigger story was that ABC, NBC and CBS refused to report on the story for more than 9 months.  Why?   Because Edwards was denying it.   The scandal was even covered by foreign newspapers and lampooned by Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien long before network news ever mentioned it.  Their excuses were as follows:

. the National Enquirer was tabloid trash, certainly not a reputable newspaper

. the national newspapers were afraid to step up on the story because, "Sex may sell, but it can really hurt your relationship with readers."  This according to David Carr, a columnist for the New York Times.

. they were waiting for verifiable proof.  ABC correspondent Kate Snow had this to say, "We at ABC were working on this story, and if we had had any proof and any verifiable facts, we certainly would have gone with the story.  It was just a matter of, we're not going to put something on the air until we know that it's true."

. most major news networks took the stance that the rumors of an affair were just not newsworthy.

Can you believe it?  These are the most laughable excuses I've ever heard, especially in light of how they are currently treating Herman Cain.  Without question, the media was trying to protect one of their own.  And not only one of their own, but truly one of the darlings of the Democrat Party -- young, good looking, and a liberal in his approach to helping the poor, minorities and women.  They saw so much potential in Edwards and refused to admit that their prized pupil was just another sleazy politician caught with his pants down.

There are many other Democrats who have received favorable treatment by the mainstream media, including Anthony Weiner, Barney Frank, Daniel Inouye, Gary Hart and of course, Teddy Kennedy.  Politicians have been having -- and getting caught -- in sexual affairs for as long as there have been politicians.  Both Republicans and Democrats.  The difference I am trying to make is that the media treats those affairs tied to Republicans in a much different way than those connected to Democrats.  Cain's treatment by the national media is a prime example.

Why?  A simple answer is that they want their candidates to succeed, and Republican candidates to fail.  A more troubling answer lies in the threat Republican politicians like Herman Cain and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas present to their liberal ideologies and public manipulations.  Conservative blacks cannot be allowed to break the DAILY IMAGE being telecast and reported in newspapers.

For if black conservatives are able to defeat the media's misrepresentations, than how many other media mistruths will fall next?