<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Cocktailhag, the blog &#187; Michael Cannon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cocktailhag.com/blog/tag/michael-cannon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cocktailhag.com/blog</link>
	<description>She drinks, you know.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 03:15:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Victory, Even in Defeat</title>
		<link>http://www.cocktailhag.com/blog/baloney/victory-even-in-defeat-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cocktailhag.com/blog/baloney/victory-even-in-defeat-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cocktailhag</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Baloney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brooks Brothers Riot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cato Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charlie Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clear Channel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Broder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Brooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Gregory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dying Newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Beck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legacy Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lucy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Cannon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rush Limbaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Snoopy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[talk radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TV news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Walter Cronkite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cocktailhag.com/blog/?p=2875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[UPDATED BELOW:  UPDATE II One of the funniest things about the right is that they never lose, even when they do, and they even have rather disturbing success convincing others, or at least the media, that this is so.  A lot of us, and certainly any trained psychiatrist, would look at their behavior each day, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>UPDATED BELOW:  UPDATE II</strong></p>
<p><strong></strong>One of the funniest things about the right is that they never lose, even when they do, and they even have rather disturbing success convincing others, or at least the media, that this is so.  A lot of us, and certainly any trained psychiatrist, would look at their behavior each day, and think they were no more or less living in fantasy land than, say, Snoopy was when he battled the Red Baron on top of his doghouse; but continuing the Peanuts metaphor, the press reacts to these routine delusions like Charlie Brown does to Lucy holding the football.  The main difference is that Charlie Brown ends up on his back, humiliated, and our mainstream media keep their jobs, or even get better ones, so they can&#8217;t wait to kick again.  The New York Times never carried Charles M. Schulz&#8217; iconic comic, preferring unfunny written versions on its op/ed page, although it&#8217;s considerably less entertaining, much less just, when their string of Charlie Browns always get awarded the field goal for the ball everyone can see Lucy is still holding over her shoulder.  The Republicans have noticed this phenomenon, and adapted to it predictably.</p>
<p>Usually, they can point to some to some fly in the ointment of the other side&#8217;s victory, no matter how microscopic, and failing that, they have a lot of ways to cheat, lie, and bloviate their way to some semblance of at least doubt that they did, in fact, lose again.  The fact that they lost the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections, they <em>ought to be </em>by now<em> </em>a defeated and irrelevant minority in Congress, given their numbers, their leaders are all nincompoops, charlatans, and crazy people, none of whom can open their mouths without lying would, in a rational world, render them, well, not very interesting, at least as credible policy or political spokespeople.  But in our media landscape, lies are more interesting than truth, and crazy is much more interesting than sane, and they therefore continue to dominate public discourse, despite the fact that their policies, and even their people, are despised by a clear majority of Americans.  Ironically, that unpopularity plays to their psychological game; because they&#8217;re so vile, aggressive, and obvious about it, people do actually hate them, in addition to opposing them, in large numbers, so then these committed opponents of political correctness can cynically play the persecuted minority card and loudly cast themselves as oppressed and silenced victims.  Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome?  Anyone with a pulse or grasp of the English language couldn&#8217;t bear to watch the guy for a lot of very good reasons, but somehow they were cast as deranged meanies who just hated Our Leader, as Bush coasted blithely from disaster to disaster, quite predictably but free of any &#8220;mainstream&#8221; criticism for eight years.</p>
<p>You have to hand it to them, really.  Anyone who can cast themselves, often successfully, as deserving of the Affirmative Action on steroids they routinely demand and receive from the media and on the political stage, when all they ever fight for is the prerogative of the majority race, religion, and sexual orientation to oppress those who don&#8217;t conform, they&#8217;re at least standouts for their <em>chutzpah. </em>Then, treating the superrich, enormous and monopolistic corporations, and their many media mouthpieces as beleaguered Davids fighting the liberal Goliath, if nothing else, shows admirable creativity.  But most of all, it shows that we no longer have politics in this country; we have a rigged reality show, and the fact that this makes many people disengaged, uninterested, and no longer interested in voting, rigs the game in their favor, yet again.  Low turnout and disengaged voters tends to make them lose by less, or even occasionally win.</p>
<p>The worst thing about all this, of course, is that every pile of shit presented to Republicans sends everyone from Sarah Palin and Micheal Steele to David Gregory and David Broder excitedly digging for a pony, and of course they always find it, even if the pony does smell a little funny and can&#8217;t exactly pull a cart.  Bush&#8217;s dubiously legal &#8220;landslide&#8221; in 2004, and the shameful, Delay-tainted &#8220;victory&#8221; in 2002, have become so defensively sanctified in the small, pampered minds of our media stars that they continue to pretend to forget everything that, well, actually happened, either before or since.  And since nothing really happened at all unless it got on television, and the only thing our media outlets do even vaguely competently is bury their mistakes, too many Americans fervently believe a whole lot of things that are either just dubious or more often plain, unmitigated bullshit.  As the supposed guardians of our First Amendment, Walter Cronkite pointed out in 2004 that the media, particularly FOX, whose audiences were the most misled, ought to be ashamed of themselves for such malpractice and its horrendous results.  But, alas, he made a lot less money than David Gregory, you know, and Rush Limbaugh&#8217;s maids, especially the ones who get drugs for him, probably make more, too.  Money talks these days, and even when it&#8217;s lying, we all are forced to listen.*</p>
<p>*Fairness Doctrine, anyone?  Liberal Portland has ONE progressive radio station, which calls itself that, and FOUR right-wing ones, that call themselves &#8220;News Talk.&#8221;  Most are owned by Clear Channel.  Must be the magical &#8220;free market,&#8221; again at work.</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE: </strong>You can&#8217;t make this stuff up.  Before a cheering FOX host, the startlingly nebbishy Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute explains that the real danger of Health Care Reform is that it might force insurance companies to sell a &#8220;50,000 dollar policy for (a mere) $10,000.&#8221;  France spends about half of what we do per capita on health insurance, but even here we don&#8217;t pay nearly that much for our inferior and selective care.  And, after he praised insurance companies for &#8220;saving more lives every day than Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi will in their entire lives,&#8221; he won the rhetorical point.  Talking, as though it were the most natural thing in the world, about $50,000 dollar medical insurance, would, you&#8217;d think, at least raise some eyebrows, and maybe want to at least be adjusted slightly for the talking points, at this politically sensitive time.  But not on FOX.  Lord, have mercy.</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE II: </strong>Just when I thought these delusional righties couldn&#8217;t get any dumber, along comes this, and some of the chosen language sounds vaguely familiar..  Emphasis on the &#8220;liar.&#8221;</p>
<p><em>There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide people into two kinds, and those who don&#8217;t.</em> — Unknown</p>
<p>I<em>&#8216;m starting to think that one of the greatest dividing-lines of humanity is not the one between Republicans and Democrats, nor between rich and poor, labor and management — it&#8217;s the huge chasm separating those who live in reality, from those who don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>And the folks in la-la land have us outnumbered.</p>
<p>Case in point: Congress is digesting a bill &#8220;extending aid to over a million people in danger of exhausting jobless benefits,&#8221; according to the Associated Press. No, there isn&#8217;t any clause in the national contract empowering the Federal Government to do such a thing, but never mind that — there is aproblem, and government is the solution to all problems — right? Now, good news! Some folks can be out of work for up to 99 weeks! Who pays for that, you ask? We do — the people who might have employed them, directly or indirectly, had our money not been confiscated by Washington to pay their unemployment &#8220;benefits.&#8221;</p>
<p>Here in Reality, people respond to incentives. When, for example, the government raises the payout to poor women for each additional baby born out of wedlock, the result is more children who will grow up with no daddy but the Government. After decades of the same experiment yielding the same result, there&#8217;s no use hiding behind the Law of Unintended Consequences. This is simply cause-and-effect; direct, documented, historical reality.</p>
<p>People do what they are rewarded for — what we pay them to do. Now we&#8217;re paying them not to work.</p>
<p>To Utopians this kind of talk seems very mean-spirited. I want to watch the unemployed roast their own children over the rubble of their former homes before they die in the streets, they&#8217;ll say. And that&#8217;s what would happen — in Utopia — if there were no omnipotent Godvernment to bail people out of every scrape. It&#8217;s impolite to ask a Utopian how Americans have gotten along without comprehensive government programs in the past, or why no Utopian program has ever succeeded. It&#8217;s unrealistic to expect a Utopian to think realistically.</p>
<p>Those few of us here in Reality see that when people have more time to look for work, they usually take that time — and hence tend to be unemployed for a greater period. The longer you can extend your hunt for a job (or a house, or a car&#8230;) the better your chances of finding a good one. If you&#8217;re the one unemployed, you&#8217;re simply maximizing your opportunities by taking all the time you can. When the free government money is about to run out, you might take a job you didn&#8217;t like so well — but you would be employed. You would be a taxpayer, not a &#8220;tax eater,&#8221; to quote the grand Utopian, Lyndon Johnson.</p>
<p>Is it harder to look for a better job while you&#8217;re working? Maybe, but people do it all the time. Career counselors often say that a person holding a job stands a better chance of landing another one, compared to an unemployed applicant. With this bill Congress is not &#8220;aiding&#8221; the unemployed — it ispromoting chronic unemployment.</p>
<p>What we have here is a &#8220;Public Option&#8221; for jobs. The Government is competing with employers for your labor (or your non-labor). Your options are to take a crummy job and pay taxes, or to let the suckers do that and get your &#8220;money for nothing.&#8221; Just like the &#8220;Public Option&#8221; in health care, the government confiscates resources from its private &#8220;competitors&#8221; and uses those resources against them.</p>
<p>As Realist Ronald Reagan put it, &#8220;Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.&#8221; Ouch, Ron — that&#8217;s harsh! Or at least it sounds harsh to our brains, muddled as they are by Utopiaspeak. Once, there was a social stigma attached to &#8220;being on the dole.&#8221; It was something that honest, hard-working folks disdained. But after a couple of generations of &#8220;welfare entitlements,&#8221; the ideal of self-sufficiency has been supplanted by the notion of &#8220;getting what&#8217;s coming to me.&#8221; Government has corrupted our morals.</p>
<p>Realist Ben Franklin spoke against government giveaway programs for the poor. I trust you&#8217;ll have no trouble applying this quote to unemployment &#8220;benefits:&#8221;</p>
<p></em></p>
<ul><em>I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.</p>
<p></em></ul>
<p><em>There are two kinds of people in the political world. One side accepts as fact that human beings respond to incentives (seeking pleasure and avoiding pain); and the other side believes that good intentions will conquer history, psychology, economics and any amount of bad judgment. They will beat, or cheat, reality itself.</p>
<p>It just has to be so.</p>
<p>The Senate tally to ratify the unemployment extension was 98-0.</p>
<p>© Dan Popp</em></p>
<p>Have you ever heard such rubbish in all your life?  If you&#8217;re a regular Hag reader, I think you have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cocktailhag.com/blog/baloney/victory-even-in-defeat-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
