Sanity Injection

Injecting a dose of sanity into your day’s news and current events.

Posts Tagged ‘Media’

New poll shows Native Americans are NOT offended by “Washington Redskins”

Posted by sanityinjection on May 20, 2016

Remember the big pressure campaign a couple of years ago to force the NFL’s Washington Redskins to change their allegedly “offensive” name? President Obama and 50 Democratic Senators proclaimed their support for this “civil rights movement”. And then, as with so many armchair liberal cause celebres, it just seemed to disappear; the professional protesters moved on to “Black Lives Matter” and suddenly the supposed legions of mortally offended Native Americans didn’t seem like such a compelling issue.

Now comes a clue as to why the pressure campaign hasn’t been revived. A new Washington post poll of 500 Native Americans across the country indicates that 9 out of 10 are not offended by the name “Washington Redskins”. 7 out of 10 said the word “redskin” was not offensive in general, and 8 of 10 said they would not be offended if a non-Native American called them by that term. These results mirror the findings of a previous poll in 2004. Naturally, Native American “leaders” continue to reject these poll findings, as will the mostly rich, white, left-wing politicians who were the prime movers behind the whole issue. (Never mind that these same politicans spend virtually no time advocating for the things that Native Americans say they need, like decent schools.)

The whole thing would actually be comical if it weren’t for the giddy participation of the mainstream media in whipping up hysteria to aid in this phony campaign. (In this regard, kudos to the Washington Post, which remains a faint glimmer of some journalistic integrity amongst the sad detritus of formerly respectable left-wing newspapers, for publishing this poll. See also a thoughtful WashPost op-ed on the issue here.) It should be of concern that the sources from which most Americans still get their news are demonstrably more interested in pushing an ideological political agenda than in any kind of factual reporting. You need look no further than the recent New York Times attack piece against Donald Trump, which went to a great deal of effort to characterize Trump as a misogynist based on his pattern of hitting on women as a rich single man. Keep in mind this is the same publication that consistently defended Bill Clinton for sexually harrassing and having sex with women as a rich married man. See Camille Paglia’s excellent destruction of this pathetic propaganda here.

Meanwhile, if sports teams’ use of cliches offensive to Native Americans is the issue, how come there hasn’t been any fuss at all about the Cleveland Indians’ continued use of the “Chief Wahoo” logo? Why hasn’t their trademark been revoked? Answer: Because the Cleveland Indians kissed the ring: Whenever anybody complains, they hide Chief Wahoo for a while, using alternate logos and uniforms, until the subject dies down. This appeases the professional Left, because what they really want is not actual civil rights change so much as acknowledgement of their power and righteousness. Kiss their asses and they’ll let you off with a slap on the wrist; dare to suggest that the emeperor has no clothes, as Redskins owner Dan Snyder has done, and you reap the whirlwind of attacks from their subservient media allies.

The point is not that the Washington Redskins or their owner, a wealthy successful man and organization, are some kind of sob story. The point is the one made so famously by pastor Martin Niemoller. With apologies to him: “First they came for the Washington Redskins, and I said nothing, because I was not a Redskins fan.” One day it’s a sports team. The next day it’s climate change “deniers”. The target changes with the wind, but the tactics are the same. Always ask yourselves: Cui bono? (Who benefits?)

Posted in Domestic News, Politics, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dissecting media bias: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the anatomy of propaganda as news reporting

Posted by sanityinjection on December 3, 2015

I call your attention to this superb piece by Emmy-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. In it, she uses the recent controversy over Donald Trump’s remarks about Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on 9/11 to illustrate the fundamental double standard the mainstream media applies to politicians they don’t want the American people to vote for.

It’s hardly a secret that many mainstream media reporters, editors, and talking heads abhor Mr. Trump and are appalled by the possibility of him becoming President. (I happen to agree with them.) Ms. Attkisson uses a technique she calls “the Substitution Game”, giving specific examples of how the media’s behavior would be very different if the person in question were someone they approve of such as President Obama or Hillary Clinton. She also points out how convenient it is for Ms. Clinton’s campaign to have the national media painting her potential election opponent as dishonest even as polls suggest that perecptions of her own dishonesty are one of her biggest problems with voters. Attkisson isn’t necessarily suggesting a well-orchestrated media conspiracy, but rather a culture of bias that permeates the major television news networks and newspapers.

If this bias were to be stated in its most naked form, it would be something like this: Dishonesty, in the form of intentional misrepresentation of facts or outright lying, is OK as long as it is in service of good liberal causes, but it’s abhorrent whenever it’s done by someone we don’t like or someone who disagrees with us. This fits in with a more general theme that the end justifies the means: that it is OK for the “good guys” (which in the view of so many influential media members means the liberals) are justified in lying, cheating, stealing, or doing whatever is necessary to advance their noble aims, but the “bad guys” – Second Amendments rights advocates, climate change skeptics, etc. –  are abhorrent if they use the same methods, because they have the wrong aims.

Attkisson is not saying that the media should not challenge counterfactual claims by public figures. Rather, she is questioning why they only seem to beat the drum about such claims when those figures are on one side of the political spectrum. When a huge segment of the broadcast and print media spends a lot of time making a huge deal out of controversial statements by Mr. Trump while deliberately downplaying and even ignoring those made by Obama and Clinton, even a relatively savvy news consumer who is not paying close attention can, over time, absorb that implication of what is important. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how propaganda works.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

McCain puts trash journalism in its place

Posted by sanityinjection on January 13, 2010

This is what passes for news nowadays: Someone writes a tell-all book full of juicy tidbits about some of the nation’s major political players. Reporters then spend the next week trying to goad said political players into saying more nasty things either about each other or about the book’s authors.

No one makes a better foil for this sort of trash than Sarah Palin. Everyone seems to either love to love Palin or love to hate her. Along with her own undeniable efforts to remain in the spotlight, this helps explain why she remains a major topic of conversation over a year after her failed 2008 Vice Presidential bid, and why FoxNews has just recently hired her to be a regular on-air talking head. (Personally, I am ambivalent about Palin; I find some of the attacks against her to be vile but I also don’t consider her a great spokesperson for conservative ideas.)

So it came as no surprise to anyone when Matt Lauer turned the conversation to the subject of Palin in his recent interview with Senator John McCain on the Today Show. Lauer wanted McCain to comment on allegations in the book “Game Change” that his campaign had done a lousy and hasty job of vetting Palin before she was selected to be his running mate. It should be noted that unlike some of the book’s other juicy bits, this is not a new allegation, though it may be made in more detailed fashion. McCain certainly has heard it many times before.

Lauer’s goal, of course, was to put McCain in an uncomfortable situation where he faced the following choices: slam your aides for doing a bad job, impugn your own judgment in selecting a running mate, or bad mouth someone (Palin) who worked hard on your behalf. You can almost see Lauer mentally salivating behind his mask of journalistic seriousness.

McCain, displaying the class for which he is legendary among those who have worked for him, refused to take the bait, twice stating that he would not know if the book’s allegations were correct or who the sources were that provided the information. He simply said he was proud of Palin and proud of the campaign that he ran, and sought to move on to other topics. But Lauer wouldn’t let it go. McCain got visibly irritated and suggested something more important to talk about:  “I just spent my time, Matt, over where three Americans were just killed in Afghanistan.”

Lauer wouldn’t even take that obvious hint and continued to press McCain about Palin, leaving the Senator no choice but to put Lauer firmly in his place:

“I am not going to spend time looking back at over what happened over a year ago when we’ve got two wars to fight, 10 percent unemployment in my state and things to do. I’m sorry, you’ll have to get others to comment.”

After that, even Lauer knew he’d been licked, and retreated with a weaselly attempt to sound like he was apologizing for asking the questions, without actually apologizing (which the media almost never does): ““I hope you understand my asking the questions.” Which actually means, “I have every right to ask these questions!” McCain of course took the high road and graciously treated it like the apology it wasn’t.

In fact, what McCain had skillfully done was to expose the degree to which Lauer and his ilk are out of touch with the American people, who are far more concerned with issues like health care, jobs, and Afghanistan than with endless navel-gazing over the internal functioning of the political process. Yes, we like juicy gossip, but the media likes to pretend that juicy gossip is actually serious news, and for once, they got caught in the masquerade of their own self-importance. Is it any wonder why so many of us retain our affection for the irascible Senator from Arizona? We cherish the knowledge that every now and then, like the child at the Emperor’s parade, he can be counted on to look someone right in the eye and publicly tell them the truth they would much rather not hear.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Are Republicans just the party of “No”?

Posted by sanityinjection on November 4, 2009

When Republican Senators and Congressmen have objected to Democrat initiatives supported by the President – such as the health care reform bill and the climate cap-and-trade bill – one of the criticisms leveled at the GOP (and dutifully repeated ad nauseam by the Obamedia) is that they are simply obstructionists who say “No” and never offer any counter-proposals of their own.

Of course, this is not true. Republican House and Senate leaders almost always offer alternate legislation on every major issue, which is routinely rejected by the Democrat majority and quite deliberately ignored by the media. Which makes the charge of obstructionism appear legitimate to the average person.

Case in point: The House Republican leadership, headed by Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, is working on a draft of its own proposal for health care reform. They plan to offer the bill when debate starts on the issue within the next week or so.

Compared to the Democrats’ 1,990-page legislation, the Republican draft currently stands at 230 pages, according to the Associated Press which has obtained an advance copy.  Here is a quick summary of what the GOP bill looks like:

  • Does not force more businesses to provide health insurance or force citizens to purchase it, but allows small businesses to pool together to purchase health care for their employees
  • Does not force insurance companies to accept everyone with a pre-existing condition into their general risk pool of policies. Instead, those patients would be able to buy into expanded high-risk pools.
  • Makes it easier to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to pay for insurance premiums
  • Limits medical malpractice liability for punitive damages after the model enacted in California and Texas, thereby reducing costs and unnecessary procedures
  • Rewards states for programs that save money and reduce the number of uninsured
  • Increases competition by allowing citizens to purchase health insurance across state lines
  • Protects individuals from having their health insurance policy arbitrarily cancelled by their insurer

One other item in the bill is stronger language prohibiting federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. While I personally agree with that, I think it may alienate some who could otherwise have supported the bill.

The GOP bill presents a very clear choice compared to the Democratic proposal. The Democrat bill is focused on establishing universal health care for all Americans at a massive cost which is only partially paid for by raising taxes. The Republican bill is focused on reducing the costs of health insurance across the board, thereby helping both those who already have insurance and those who will be able to afford it for the first time.

To make an analogy: If a poor child and a rich child’s toys fall into a deep well, which is the best way to get them out? The Democrat way would be to make the rich child’s parents hire a crane to lower a maintenance worker down into the well to grab one toy, hoist the person out with the toy and then send them back down again for the other toy. Of course, if the toys later fell in again the whole expensive process would have to be repeated. The Republican way would be to have both children fetch pails of water and empty them into the well until the water level rises enough to bring all the toys floating to the surface and preventing the problem from occurring again.

Why not let the people choose?

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Paglia on Nobel prize, war, tea parties, Palin, hate crimes, Polanski, academia

Posted by sanityinjection on October 14, 2009

Every month I resist the urge to post about Camille Paglia’s latest column at Salon.com. Although I continue to feel that Paglia is the most intellectually honest columnist around and worthy of reading every month, I figure the permalink over on the right hand side of the page is usually sufficient.

But this month Paglia touches on so many of the subjects I’ve discussed recently that I can’t resist. What’s great about this column in particular is the high quality not only of her commentary but of the reader e-mails she quotes, some of which rebut her opinions quite skillfully.

Here is just one tidbit to whet your appetite:

The mainstream media’s failure to honestly cover last month’s mass demonstration in Washington, D.C. was a disgrace. The focus on anti-Obama placards (which were no worse than the rabid anti-LBJ, anti-Reagan or anti-Bush placards of leftist protests), combined with the grotesque attempt to equate criticism of Obama with racism, simply illustrated why the old guard TV networks and major urban daily newspapers are slowly dying. Only a simpleton would believe what they say.

Read the full article here.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stop calling me a racist

Posted by sanityinjection on September 22, 2009

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of the incessant drumbeat from Democrats and the media that all opposition to President Obama is fueled by racism?

Of course there are racists out there, and some of them do go to town halls and tea party protests. But they are not even a sizable minority. They’re the fringe, and to seize on them as representative of legitimate protesters is typical sleazy politics for the Democrats, but it’s reprehensible journalism. Believe me, I could go to any Democrat rally or health care reform rally and pick out a few left-wing nuts who would make even Nancy Pelosi cringe.

Does it make me racist that I don’t want the government forcing me to pay for everyone else’s health care, or that I don’t want to be punished for the carbon my car emits (or that I emit every time I exhale?) Am I a racist because I think Obama has blundered badly on missile defense? Or that he has wasted a trillion dollars on political giveaways and pet projects that were supposed to stimulate the economy? Does it really enhance the body politic to create an environment in which any legitimate discussion of issues must be swamped by accusations of racism?

Let me make it crystal clear for Pelosi, Maureen Dowd and their associated lapdogs: I attribute none of these failings to the fact that President Obama is black. I see no connection between the color of his skin and the quality of his leadership (or lack thereof.) As Obama said on Letterman, “I was black before the election.” In other words, the fact that Obama’s popularity has plummeted cannot be attributed to racism, and even the President gets that. Rather, it stems from serious, widespread concerns about the President’s leadership, his trustworthiness (in terms of keeping his election promises such as not raising taxes on the middle class) and the direction in which he is taking this country. Even with all of this, I do believe the President is genuinely doing what he believes to be best for our country. I just think he’s wrong – not wrong because he’s black, but wrong because his ideas about America, the Constitution, and capitalism are the same wrong ideas shared by plenty of white people who would be equally distasteful as President.

Are we done now?

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

President Obama will take favorable press coverage wherever he can find it.

Posted by sanityinjection on August 14, 2009

With President Obama’s poll numbers dropping steadily and even the mainstream press starting to ask critical questions and treat Obama more like a politician than like the Messiah, the President’s media team is working hard to find new sources of wide-eyed, adoring press coverage:

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Cub-Report-53182032.html?nb=90

A guided White House tour and a visit with the First Family’s dog just isn’t enough to guarantee a positive spin from CNN anymore, but it seems to be effective with the 8-14 year old demographic 🙂

Posted in Domestic News, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Global warming hysteria remains out of control

Posted by sanityinjection on February 9, 2009

The global warming panic industry is a little bit like a stampede of animals. Once it gets going, it just rushes headlong forward, with no ability to re-assess or examine new scientific evidence, such as the confirmed cooling trend that has been observed in recent years.

I submit for your consideration two recent “news” articles. The first is from that shining example of quality journalism, the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll/

Globe “correspondent” Emily Anthes presents us with a remarkable example of cognitive dissonance – which is when you know one thing to be true but continue to behave as if it weren’t. She cites the sad example of the Australian kid who was so panicked about global warming that he refused to drink water. Now, a normal person would conclude that the poor kid was driven to hysteria by a relentless avalanche of media hype about global warming. Instead, Anthes actually argues that global warming itself is to blame, and suggests that the way to combat such psychoses is to all band together and work harder to fight global warming.

Are you kidding me?

Article number two is Agence-France-Press’ take on the wildfires raging in Victoria, Australia:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090209/sc_afp/australiaweatherfireclimate_20090209072445

AFP manages to avoid saying that global warming *caused* the fires, which we are now learning may have been set deliberately. But the focus of the article is the insistence that global warming is making the fires worse than they normally would have been. This amazing assertion, supported by statements from panic industry professionals, comes despite facts stated right in the article: 1) Australia has a long history of really bad bushfires that are natural for the type of climate and flora that prevail there; 2) The assertion that the fires were worse than usual because of the government’s failure to properly manage the forest.

The article also says that Australia recently had a “once-in-a-century” heatwave that contributed to the extent of the fires. Well, if it’s only happened once in a century, it can’t be laid at the door of global warming. Especially since world temperatures have been *cooling* for the last several years.

The article then tells us that the number of high-risk bushfire days in Australia could *double* by 2050 – under a worst-case global warming scenario – then cites Greenpeace as if it were some sort of scientific authority on climate change.

Seems to me that the Australian bushfires aren’t burning nearly as out of control as global warming hysteria.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Defending the Messiah

Posted by sanityinjection on December 16, 2008

No, not *that* Messiah…I’m talking about President-Elect Barack Obama, of course. Isn’t it funny how fast the media is turning on him? Just like they did with John McCain before him.

Everyone is frantically trying to find some way to connect Obama with corrupt Illinois Governor Blagojevich’s attempt to sell off Obama’s Senate seat. They won’t succeed. Whether you love or hate Obama, common sense tells you this is not plausible.

First of all, Obama and Blagojevich have never been close. Second, Obama doesn’t really care that much who his successor is. I mean, he might like to see one of his supporters in the seat, but he doesn’t need it that badly to have to pay a bribe for it. It’s not like Blago was going to appoint a Republican – whoever got the seat would be a reliable vote for Obama in the Senate.

The media is trying to make a big deal out of the fact that Rahm Emanuel had conversations with Blago’s people about who Obama would like to see in that seat. There is absolutely nothing illegal or improper about that – on the contrary, Blago would have been seen as snubbing the President-elect if he hadn’t asked.

Of course, it does take two to tango. Blago can’t be the only corrupt pol in Illinois. So suspicion naturally turns on the people who would have the most motivation to buy a Senate seat – not the President-elect, but the prospective Senators themselves. So it does make sense that Rep. Jesse Jackson is being investigated – I don’t know whether he’s guilty of anything, but he’s a much more logical target than Obama.

On another front, Obama is also getting flak because his Cabinet isn’t diverse enough. Apparently, it doesn’t include enough minorities, Southerners, or Republicans. To which I say: Who cares? What happened to the idea of picking the best people on their qualifications, regardless of their skin color, place of origin or having three heads? The purpose of the Cabinet is not to symbolize America’s diversity – it is to lead the administrative agencies that conduct most of the government’s business.

I have no doubt that President-elect Obama will provide plenty of opportunities for well-deserved criticism during his term of office. This stuff is just foolishness from people who should know better. My only criticism of Obama so far? Please burn that ridiculous “Office of the President-Elect” sign, it makes you look presumptuous and silly. Might as well wear a laurel wreath while you’re at it.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

This is *not* the Great Depression, part II

Posted by sanityinjection on October 15, 2008

Gregg Easterbrook explains, in language that normal people can understand, that there is a big difference between a financial panic, which is what we are currently in, and an actual recession or depression:

“Financial chaos is sweeping the world,” a New York Times lead story said last week. I didn’t notice any chaos in my part of the world — every business was open, ATMs were working, goods and services were plentiful. There are economic problems to be sure. But chaos? Collapse? Next Depression? Please, media and political worlds, let’s stop hyperventilating and show some perspective.

What is going on is a financial panic, not an economic collapse. Financial panics are no fun, especially for anyone who needs to cash out an asset right now for retirement, college and so on. But financial panics occur cyclically and are not necessarily devastating. The most recent financial panic was 1987, when the stock market fell 23 percent in a single day. Pundits and politicians instantly began talking about another Depression, about the “end of Wall Street.” The 1987 panic had zero lasting economic consequences — no recession began, and in less than two years, stocks had recouped all losses. (See John Gordon’s excellent 2004 book on the history of financial panics, “An Empire of Wealth.”) Perhaps a recession will be triggered by the current financial panic, but it may not necessarily be severe.

Politicians and pundits are competing to see who can act most panicked and use the most exaggerated claims about economic crisis — yet the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are, in fact, strong. Productivity is high; innovation is high; the workforce is robust and well-educated; unemployment is troubling at 6.1 percent, but nothing compared to the recent past, such as 11.8 percent unemployment in 1992; there are no shortages of resources, energy or goods. University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows that return on capital is historically high; high returns on capital are associated with strong economies. Some Americans have significant problems with mortgages, and credit availability for business could become an issue if the multiple bank-stabilizing plans in progress don’t work. But the likelihood is they will work. When the 1987 panic hit, people were afraid the economy would collapse; it didn’t. This panic is global, enlarging the risks. But there’s a good chance things will turn out fine.

Why has a credit-market problem expanded into a panic? One reason is the media and political systems are now programmed for panic mode. Everything’s a crisis! Crises, after all, keep people’s eyes glued to cable news shows, so the media have an interest in proclaiming crises. Crises make Washington seem more important, and can be used to justify giveaways to favored constituent groups, so Washington influence-peddlers have an interest in proclaiming crises.

An example of the exaggerated crisis claim is the assertion that Americans “lost” $2 trillion from their pension savings in the past month, while equities “lost” $8 trillion in value. “Investors Lose $8.4 Trillion of Wealth” read a Wall Street Journal headline last week. This confuses a loss with a decline. Unless you cashed out stocks or a 401(k) in the past month, you haven’t “lost” anything. Nor have most investors “lost” money, let alone $8.4 trillion — crisis-mongering is now so deeply ingrained in the media that even Wall Street Journal headline writers have forgotten basic economics. People who because of financial need have no choice but to cash out stocks right now are really harmed. Anyone who simply holds his or her ground with stocks takes no loss and is likely, although of course not certain, to come out ahead in the end. During the housing price bubble of 2003 to 2006, many Americans became much better off on paper, but never actually sold their homes, so it was all paper gains. Right now many Americans holdings stocks or retirement plans are much worse off on paper, but will be fine so long as they don’t panic and sell. One of the distressing things about last week’s media cries of doomsday is that they surely caused some average people to sell stocks or 401(k)’s in panic, taking losses they might have avoided by simply doing nothing. The financial shout-shows on cable tend to advise people to buy when the market is rising, sell when the market is falling — the worst possible advice, and last week it was amplified by panic.

We’ve also fallen into panic because we pay way too much attention to stock prices. Ronald Reagan said, “Never confuse the stock market with the economy.” Almost everyone is now making exactly that mistake. The stock market is not a barometer of the economy; it is a barometer of what people think stocks are worth. These are entirely separate things. What people think stocks are worth now depends on their guess about what stocks will be worth in the future, which is unknowable. You can only guess, and thus optimism feeds optimism while pessimism feeds pessimism.

There is no way the American economy became 8 percent less valuable between breakfast and morning coffee break Friday, then became 3 percent more valuable at lunchtime (that is, improved by 11 percent), then became 3 percent less valuable by afternoon teatime (that is, declined by 6 percent) — to cite the actual Dow Jones Industrials swings from Friday. And the economy sure did not become 11 percent more valuable Monday. Such swings reflect panic or herd psychology, not the underlying economy, which changes over months and years, not single days. For the past few weeks pundits and Washington and London policy-makers have been staring at stock tickers as if they provided minute-by-minute readouts of economic health, which they do not. It’s embarrassing to see White House and administration officials seemingly so poorly schooled in economic theory they are obsessing over stock-price movements, which they cannot control and in the short term should not even care about.

Consider this. On Black Monday in 1987, the market fell 23 percent. If you had invested $100 in a Dow Jones Index fund the following day, it would be $460 now, a 275 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That’s after the big slide of the past month, and still excellent. So don’t panic, just hold your stocks. And if you’d invested $100 in real estate in 1987, it would be $240 today, a 30 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That’s after the housing price bubble burst. A 30 percent real gain in 20 years isn’t a great investment — until you consider that you lived in the house or condo during this time. To purchase and live in a dwelling, then come out ahead when you sell, is everyone’s dream. Not only do stocks remain a good buy, America on average is still coming out ahead on the housing dream. (This example uses the Case Shiller Index for the whole country; because housing markets are local, some homeowners have lost substantial ground while others enjoyed significant appreciation.)

Economic problems are likely to be with us for awhile, but also likely to be resolved — the 1987 panic and the 1997 Asian currency collapse both were repaired more quickly than predicted, with much less harm than forecast. Want to worry? Worry about the fact that the United States is borrowing, mainly from foreign investors and China, the money being used to fix our banks. The worse the national debt becomes — $11 trillion now, and increasing owing to Washington giveaways — the more the economy will soften over the long term. It’s long-term borrowing, not short-term Wall Street mood swings, that ought to worry us, because the point may be reached where we can no longer solve problems by borrowing our way out.

Posted in Current Events, Domestic News, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »