I'm up early enough most days to catch the question cause I really want to win E.D. Hill's giveaway book, “Going Places”.
Today, I was totally prepared with a listing of famous celebrities born this date. Something made me more organized than on other days with the listing, and I'm gonna use a trick tomorrow.
My listing was short, but I figured I had a good shot with the email at the ready, too.
http://www.famousbirthdays.com/may.html
Unfortunately, there were two choices of celebrities from my listing, so I still had to google with key words, including Steve Ducey's aside hint, a former Marine.
Answer = Drew Carey. Guess who got their answer in first? a Marine from Quantico, so says E.D. Hill in announcing the person who emailed an answer quicker than everybody else.
And that isn't kind of um, coincidental?
Why didn't Fox include the fact the comedian is also: Drew Carey - Libertarian?
Cause Libertarian isn't a well-known political party or philosophy, that's why.
For an actor to reveal a Libertarian Party affiliation is big news. Yet, for Fox 'n Friends, the fact he's a former Marine is bigger.
Quotable
"The less [government] the better. As far as your personal goals are and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have to do with the government. You should never depend on the government for your retirement, your financial security, for anything. If you do, you're screwed..." -- Drew Carey in Reason (November 1997)
Here's what TV sitcom star Drew Carey doesn't like: censorship, anti-smoking laws, drug laws, immigration laws, "stupid big government in general" -- and award shows. (They're "publicity stunts" for needy actors, he explains.) Here's what Drew Carey does like: freedom, competition, free minds, free markets, and -- he won't deny -- beer, dirty jokes, and gambling.Those likes and dislikes tell you pretty much everything you need to know about Carey. He's not afraid to speak his mind. He's proud of his blue-collar sensibilities. And he's a libertarian.Carey left no doubts about his political philosophy in a November 1997 interview with Reason magazine. He had a quick answer when asked, "What's your basic attitude toward government?" Carey said: "The less the better. As far as your personal goals are and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have to do with the government. You should never depend on the government for your retirement, your financial security, for anything. If you do, you're screwed."
John Stossel appeared on CNN's Howard Kurtz' "Reliable Sources" for an interview. Stossel's was out and about promoting his new book is entitled: 'Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity,'
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1898820&page=1
It was hard to miss the tension or tugging between the two well-known figures.
Here's the introduction from Kurtz:
Plus, are the media scaring people to death? ABC's John Stossel says journalists are scare mongers. Is he stretching the facts?
Do you observe the twist in the question? Is he stretching the facts? The question implies Stossel is stretching the facts, and it's up to Stossel to disprove a negative right from the start.
Here's the section where the two duel, verbally - it's entertaining and enlightening
KURTZ: OK. Now, you say that reporters go along with environmental activists and other activists who you more or less describe as scare mongers. How much of this is influenced by your views about government regulations? You've been critical of the regulatory bureaucracies. You said that you wouldn't mind if the Food and Drug Administration just went away. So how much of this has to do with your own philosophy on these things?
STOSSEL: From my years of consumer reporting I have concluded that almost all government regulation makes life worse, so, yes, I look at life with that spin. I have a point of view.
KURTZ: You write, in fact, that -- or you've said that competition protects us if government gets out of the way. Now, that's...
STOSSEL: Beautifully.
KURTZ: That's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, but it is a viewpoint. So what I'm asking is, when you talk about these are all myths, are they myths or are they just a view of the world that doesn't agree with your view of the world?
STOSSEL: I think there are myths backed up by facts. And I list the facts and myths lies and stupidity.
KURTZ: Are there exceptions, whether it's dealing with tobacco or superfund toxic waste sites where government regulation is needed?
STOSSEL: Sure. And thank God we've had environmental regulation. I went for a swim in the Hudson River, and that was caused by regulation. But how much do we need? We keep passing more rules. Government's now 40 percent of GDP, and every year we add thousands of pages of regulations. It's time to stick a fork in it and say, it's done.
KURTZ: All right. Now, it seems to me that you set up some straw men in this book and knocked them down. For example, you write, "Myth, businesses rip us off. Truth, most don't. You think reporters are saying that most businesses are dishonest?
STOSSEL: Reporters look at business with great suspicious. And hype Enron and WorldCom as if that's the norm. And in a 10 trillion dollar economy, you're going to have Enrons and WorldComs, but they are the exception. I think reporters cheer on the ignorant politicians, who then pass laws like Sarbanes-Oxley that end up hurting the poor.
KURTZ: You seem to view journalists, from your own description here, as advocates, advocates for government regulation, openly skeptical of business. I mean, it seems to me what makes Enron or WorldCom newsworthy is that it is an aberration, that most corporations are not engaged in multibillion dollar accounting fraud.
STOSSEL: But the intensity of the and the sneering tone, suggests to me yes, they are an advocate, that you're an advocate.
KURTZ: How am I an advocate?
STOSSEL: I -- you did a page and a half on me and found no one positive to quote, at a time when I had 18 million viewers who presumably liked my work. When you profiled Al Hunt, you were filled with gushing quotes.
(should be denoted as Kurtz) STOSSEL: Well, it seems to me that -- that my profile of you 10 years ago was a little more fair on grounds than you remember. But I'll give you your view of it. Another myth cited in the book, "Schools are violent. Truth? Schools are pretty safe." Now, clearly there were thousands of stories about the Columbine massacre, and when there are problems in a particular school, the local press tends to write about that. But are the media really reporting that most schools are dangerous?
STOSSEL: At the time of Columbine, there were stories about how can you protect your child in school? How dangerous is school? Scary as all was "TIME" cover stories, when kids were safer at the time in malls and -- I'm sorry in schools than in malls and at home. But the gist of the reporting was that school violence was up, and it was down.
KURTZ: OK. It seems to me that 10 or 15 years ago, John Stossel, you have a point, there was a lot of alarmist reporting about chemicals and pesticides and the like. My sense in recent years is that the media focus more now on conflicting evidence, on how studies are confusing, whether it's chocolate or coffee or breast cancer tests. Do you not -- would you not agree there's been some improvement...
STOSSEL: Yes.
KURTZ: ... in this reporting?
STOSSEL: Yes, yes. Thank goodness, there's been some.
KURTZ: What do you think accounts for that?
STOSSEL: I think people get smarter. I hope I've had a tiny effect, making fun of people for hyping risks...
KURTZ: I want to come back to your point on journalists being advocates, journalists being anti-business, journalists being perhaps pro-government regulation. Aren't there a lot of journalists, who I read, some of whom I watch on television, who at least are trying to strike a balance and are not pushing an agenda? I mean, it just seems to me that you've concluded that they really are on one side of this debate.
STOSSEL: I don't think journalists are trying to push the agenda. I think most of you think you're right down the middle. But the people you hang around with all think as you do here in New York and Washington. And that leads to a bias.
KURTZ: So you think...
STOSSEL: Not everyone, but most.
KURTZ: So you think it is to some degree subconscious or, at least because -- in other words, you think that journalists are out of touch with ordinary people, who perhaps are and ought to be more skeptical of government regulations?
STOSSEL: Yes. I think we are steeped like tea bags in "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times", and it affects the way we view the world.
KURTZ: Are there people who, at ABC News who don't like what you do or don't like your point of view on all this?
STOSSEL: Yes. But God bless ABC News, they still feel I deserve a place at the table.
KURTZ: Does that make you uncomfortable, that some of your colleagues do not agree with your approach to journalism?
STOSSEL: Yes, very. I would prefer everyone to like me, but they don't.
KURTZ: But it does show that ABC, by putting you on and giving you the airtime that you get, believes in diversity, no?
STOSSEL: And thank goodness, there's one libertarian reporter in the mainstream media.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/14/rs.01.html
Unfortunately, Stossel backs down from the facts by this:
STOSSEL: I don't think journalists are trying to push the agenda. I think most of you think you're right down the middle. But the people you hang around with all think as you do here in New York and Washington. And that leads to a bias.
Now that's a myth. Cause journalists are trying to push an agenda, and are not right down the middle. Net the Truth Online is tracking them down, and will provide results of findings to follow.
EXCERPT: 'Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity'
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1898820&page=1
REASON Senior Editor Jacob Sullum interviewed Stossel in his office at the ABC News building in Manhattan.
http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.stosselint.shtml
Funny blogger. i laughed throughout what I could read... what were the whoppers?
Turning my attention to "Reliable Sources" (lest I write so long that you decide to skip to something else), his show had a segment where Kurtz interviewed Mr. Whine John Stossel, who complains about anything and everything that doesn't fit his rigid world outlook.
The interview Kurtz had with Stossel was a case study in timidity. Apparently Kurtz wrote an article on Stossel some 10 years ago that Stossel still carries a grudge. And that grudge seemed to have lightened Kurtz's skills as a journalist in his drive to ferret the truth.
There are a hundred different ways one could attack Stossel, and I will leave it to others who have done a fantastic job at it.My concern is the interview today. Stossel laid down several whoppers, all without challenge.
First, Stossel attacked the mainstream press for having a "viewpoint," playing on the tired line of a "liberal" viewpoint, yet quite proudly boasted of his having a "libertarian" viewpoint (one that escaped definition by Kurtz or Stossel). And Stossel's partviewpointiewpont is rigid in its approach to issues about government, the private sector, and the market. For Libertarians, any government regulation is evil because it places an artificial barrier in the relationship between the consumer and the provider. ...
also here http://www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs/mediablog.html
OTHERS
http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofileprinterfriendly.php?personID=92
No comments:
Post a Comment