Tag Archives: culture/society

Conservative Pundits Strike a Chord as Nation Grows Wary of Liberalism

On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli helped create a movement whose political impact has not yet been fully realized. The ” Rant Heard ‘Round the World ,” as it has become known, was a profound, if hardly isolated example of the power of conservative pundits to enact political change. That power has grown as Americans have become more sympathetic to the economic conservative argument–both the moral/spiritual element of it, and the strictly economic one. The American people have by and large come full circle in a short time, and the pundits that retain the most influence in our society have changed accordingly. Santelli is the perfect example, as he was certainly not the prominent name he is now before he let loose on the floor of the Chicago exchange. Michael Barone explains the essential appeal of the rant. He wrote Wednesday that it “was both an economic and a moral argument.” Economic, because subsidies to the improvident are an unproductive investment. We know now that very many of the beneficiaries of the administration’s mortgage modification programs ended up in foreclosure anyway. Subsidies just prolonged the agony. But it’s also a moral argument. Taking money away from those who made prudent decisions and giving it to people who made imprudent decisions is casting society’s vote for imprudence and self-indulgence. It mocks thrift and makes chumps out of those who pay their own way. We should, Santelli argued, “reward people that can carry the water rather than just drink the water.” Barone also notes the amazing speed at which tea party rallies were set up all over the nation. The country seemed predisposed to the sort of objections Santelli had raised. “We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July,” Santelli said. As it turned out, thousands of previously uninvolved citizens flocked to tea parties all over America even sooner, and now they’re making their mark in primaries and special elections. New Deal historians can’t explain that. Rick Santelli’s rant does. A year and a half later, the tea party continues unabated. It has played large roles in electoral contests throughout the year–most notably in the election of Sen. Scott Brown–and will assuredly continue to do so through November. But more importantly, the spirit that made Santelli’s rant is still alive and well, as evinced by the continued influence of the same message of fiscal and personal restraint–a mishmash of conservatism, libertarianism, and populism. Earlier this week, Glenn Beck harnessed this same spirit when he promoted Friedrich Hayek’s monumental work “The Road to Serfdom,” on air. In about a day the book was number 1 on the Amazon and Barnes and Noble bestsellers lists. That’s a far cry from starting a political movement, but it is a power unrivaled except perhaps by Oprah. Beck’s wildly successful promotion of Hayek’s work demonstrates this point. Mediaite’s Frances Martel reported today on the tremendous success of “The Road to Serfdom” since Beck promoted it on air. Before Beck dedicated an entire program to it, The Road to Serfdom  was doing slightly better in the bestseller rankings than the average mid-20th century political science book, coming in at #295 on the Amazon list and #3,254 rank on Barnes and Noble’s site. The “slightly better” is partly due to the fact that Tuesday’s appearance wasn’t the first on a Fox network for the book: libertarian Fox Business host John Stossel started wearing a ball and chain to work to advertise the book (or at least the catchphrase) long before it landed on Beck’s radar. Now it’s topping both lists, and shortly after the program was over, the book title soared to the top of Google’s top search list. Beck and Santelli together demonstrated one fact: when conservative pundits speak, people listen. Why is that? Perhaps it has something to do with the message both Beck and Santelli offered: they both resonate with Americans in profound ways. The influence enjoyed by the likes of Santelli and Beck serve to counter the consistent pro-Obama reporting from the legacy media. But that influence is also born of a similar national mood to the one that made the media so influential in the run-up to the 2008 election. Voters unhappy with the Republican Party and President Bush were predisposed to the liberal messages being thrown at them daily by the liberal press. Now the nation’s mood has turned against liberalism–and hence against the mainstream media–and conservative commentators, though fewer in number, have the ability to enact political change.

View original post here:
Conservative Pundits Strike a Chord as Nation Grows Wary of Liberalism

Publisher Provides Disclaimer With U.S. Constitution, Will Media Notice?

Copies of the U.S. Constitution put out by Wilder Publishing and being sold on Amazon.com come with an odd disclaimer on the first page of the pamphlet, in part declaring: “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.” On Wednesday’s America Live on FNC, host Megyn Kelly reported the controversy, will the rest of the media follow? In an example of political correctness run amok, the disclaimer goes on to warn parents of the literary material to follow: “Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.” The provocative pamphlet also includes the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. On FNC, correspondent Trace Gallagher quoted the publishing company’s response to the controversy: “We specialize in classic books and we were receiving complaints about the values depicted in some of the books. We wrote the disclaimer so that we could stop having to point out to our readers that people held different values 100 or 200 years ago. It seems we’re dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t.” Kelly concluded: “You know, it’s one thing when you republish ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover,’ its another when you slap that thing on the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.” Gallagher mocked: “Warning children.” Below is a transcript of the full June 9 FNC report. One wonders when the mainstream media will report on the issue. 2:52PM EST MEGYN KELLY: Well, a reprint of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence stirring up a heated controversy. The publisher apparently feeling that it’s pamphlet, reprinting these documents, needs a warning label about values. Trace Gallagher reports live in our west coast newsroom. Trace. TRACE GALLAGHER: At the end of America Live, we just like to get people riled up, Megyn, we think this will probably do the trick. You know, we started researching this story this morning. We went on to Amazon.com and right next to the title, where it says the U.S. Constitution, somebody typed in ‘shame on you for adding this disclaimer.’ Amazon.com, by the way, has taken that down. But if you buy a copy of the U.S. Constitution on Amazon.com, what you will get is a disclaimer that says, and I’m quoting the following here, ‘This book is a product of its time, and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.’ So, of course, we called the publishing company, it’s Wilder Publishing. We called them, we emailed them, and we finally got a response and we have it right here. And the response is the following: ‘This is a generic warning that we put on all of our books. It was not our intention to tell people how to interpret the U.S. Constitution. We specialize in classic books and we were receiving complaints about the values depicted in some of the books. We wrote the disclaimer so that we could stop having to point out to our readers that people held different values 100 or 200 years ago.’ He ends by saying ‘It seems we’re dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t.’ KELLY: Oh, Warren. GALLAGHER: That’s the response from Wilder. Warren Lapine of Wilder Publishing. KELLY: You know, it’s one thing when you republish ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover,’ its another when you slap that thing on the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Well- GALLAGHER: Warning children.

Read more:
Publisher Provides Disclaimer With U.S. Constitution, Will Media Notice?

CNN’s Gupta: Womb is a ‘Sacred Space’ and a ‘Safe Refuge’ for ‘Babies’?

CNN anchor Dr. Sanjay Gupta refreshingly made an implicitly pro-life argument during a report about how toxic chemicals possibly affect the unborn children: “Here in the womb, enveloped in darkness and warmth, a baby’s life begins in earnest. It is a sacred space: pristine, insulated, more than nine months of safe refuge from the world outside ” . Dr. Gupta made that statement as he gave a voice-over for the first segment of his “Toxic Childhood” special, which first aired on Thursday evening at 8 pm Eastern. CGI of a baby in the womb played as he described the “sacred space.” The anchor continued on this note in his first question to Dr. Frederica Perera of Columbia University: ” We imagine a baby sort of nice and safe and tucked away in the womb , impervious to all the assaults that occur on the body. You say, not so fast?” So Gupta twice referred to the unborn human as a “baby.” Despite this pro-life language, the CNN anchor failed to mention the liberal affiliation of the Environmental Working Group, an organization whose study he cited during the report, and how they are a project of the Tides Foundation . On two earlier occasions as well, Gupta leaned towards the pro-abortion side. During a December 19, 2008 segment , he included only one pro-life voice among several statements and clips from pro-abortion groups opposed to the expansion of health care workers’ right not to participate in controversial procedures such as abortion and in-vitro fertilization. The doctor also failed to correct former President Clinton after he repeatedly referred to human embryos as not being fertilized during a March 11, 2009 interview. Over the past year, CNN has slanted several times towards the pro-abortion position. Correspondent Carol Costello’s June 2, 2009 report highlighted a prediction by former Washington Post reporter Cynthia Gorney that there would be a “huge backlash” against pro-lifers after the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller. CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin fretted in a November 23, 2009 column that “abortion, as the academics like to say, is being marginalized.” Earlier in 2010, CNN.com attacked black pro-lifers and anchor Kyra Phillips conducted a softball interview of a woman who Tweeted her abortion as it took place. On the other hand, CNN’s Anderson Cooper spotlighted a woman who decided not to abort her infant daughter despite her severe genetic defects during a June 2, 2009 interview .

View post:
CNN’s Gupta: Womb is a ‘Sacred Space’ and a ‘Safe Refuge’ for ‘Babies’?