View Full Version : Economists Ignored OnCableDuringDebtCeilingCrisis

Gayle in MD
09-22-2011, 01:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">September 22, 2011 09:00 AM
Economists Virtually Ignored by Cable News During Debt-Ceiling Debate
By John Amato
Media Matters released a new study that tracked the amount of economists that participated on the three major cable news outlets, CNN, MSNBC and Fox during the debt-ceiling debate. You would figure the balance would be roughly two to one against economists who would be able to explain the debt-ceiling debate because cable news has become so tabloid-like, but if you thought that, you'd be way off.

A Media Matters analysis of evening cable news programs reveals that just 4.1 percent of guests who discussed the debt-ceiling debate were actual economists. This lack of credible economic experts helped create a media environment in which political and media figures could spread misinformation.

On August 2, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act, a controversial compromise bill that raised the nation's debt ceiling in order to avoid default while also cutting government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

Many economists criticized the deal, saying that budget cuts would only weaken the economy and further drive up unemployment. But their voices were largely absent from CNN's, Fox News', and MSNBC's coverage of the debt-ceiling negotiations.

Of the 1,258 guest appearances during segments that discussed the issue in the month leading up to the debt deal, only 52 -- or 4.1 percent -- were made by economists.

I have no problem with activists and pundits being given air time for their opinions, but these shows market themselves as "news" and should have a responsibility to inform the public on very important topics. Economic policy is very difficult for many Americans to understand on a basic level even though the debt-ceiling travesty was by far one of the easiest concepts to grasp.

The definition of "economist" used in this study is broad -- it includes any guest with an advanced degree in economics or who has served as an economics professor at the college or university level. It also includes guests who have worked as government economists (such as Ben Stein, who formerly "worked as an economist at The Department of Commerce").

These results are similar to a February 2009 Media Matters report showing that only 6 percent of guest appearances discussing the stimulus bill on cable news programs and network Sunday shows were made by economists. At the time, the lack of economic expertise on television helped lead to massive amounts of conservative misinformation, including the widely repeated falsehood that government spending wouldn't stimulate economic growth and employment.

So even using the broadest of definitions to define what an economist is, cable news failed to provide a modicum of interest in having qualified people to discuss complex legislation.


Hmmm, makes one wonder where this vast Liberal Media, owned and operated by Multi-millionaires and Billionaires, exists!

I'd also like to know how many on The Supreme Court, are multi- Millionaires, and Billionaires.



09-22-2011, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This lack of credible economic experts helped create a media environment in which political and media figures could spread misinformation.........

Economic policy is very difficult for many Americans to understand on a basic level even though the debt-ceiling travesty was by far one of the easiest concepts to grasp.......

At the time, the lack of economic expertise on television helped lead to massive amounts of conservative misinformation, including the widely repeated falsehood that government spending wouldn't stimulate economic growth and employment........</div></div>Very interesting. But i karnt help thinking that very bad krappynomicysts outnumber bad krappynomicysts, and that interviewing lots more very bad krappynomicysts wouldnt solve the misinformation problem.

09-22-2011, 04:10 PM
Individually, each network performed poorly in this measure: Economists accounted for 5.4 percent of guest appearances on CNN, 2.3 percent on Fox News, and 5.3 percent on MSNBC. Most of the economist appearances on Fox occurred on Your World with Neil Cavuto.

A list of economists who appeared on cable shows can be found here.

In contrast, cable news gave plenty of time to politicians, administration officials, political party officials, and political strategists. Overall, 47.3 percent (595) of the 1,258 total guest appearances by individuals discussing debt issues were made by political figures. By network, 47.7 percent of CNN's, 46.9 percent of Fox's, and 47.3 percent of MSNBC's guest appearances were made by political figures.

09-22-2011, 06:00 PM
Fox had 6 very-bad mouth-frothing tea-party krappynomicysts -- who gave 10 interviews in all -- Mitchell, Laffer (2), Dubay, Smith, Bowyer, Moore (4).
Plus Fox had 1 bad krappynomicyst -- Sperling (1 interview).

CNN had 10 (bad i presume) krappynomicysts for 23 interviews.
MSNBC had 8 (bad i presume) krappynomicysts for 21 interviews.

Total woz 24 krappynomicysts for 55 interviews.

09-22-2011, 09:15 PM
Jerry woz on Fox. The following keynes stuff woz probly one of hiz better articles.

The Shaky Foundation Of Keynesian Economics
Jerry Bowyer Contributor The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Jerry Bowyer’s Popular Posts
The “new economics” of John Maynard Keynes and his legions of academic acolytes was sold to the world on the basis of being a scientific advance over the outmoded dogma of classical economics. Keynes even titled his magnum opus The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in order to be reminiscent of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

As Forbes columnist Paul Johnson points out in the beginning of Modern Times, Einstein’s scientific discoveries were widely popular and various ideological movements attempted to tap into that popularity, portraying themselves as being like Einstein, heroically following the empirical evidence into the future, leaving superstition and primitive theory behind.

The problem, as Johnson also points out, is that the new ideologies were nothing like Einstein’s theory: They were based on pseudo-science; they ignored, or even suppressed, contrary empirical evidence; and Einstein’s well-grounded theory that space was relative in no way vindicated fads that said truth, reason, foundational principles or morality were likewise negative.

The great ideologues of the Victorian era, Marx and Freud, saw all human action as either disguised economic self-interest (Marx) or sublimated incestuous sexual desire (Freud and…ick!). Keynes chose Freud, mostly, and saw economies as essentially being driven by unconscious, pre-human impulses (animal spirits).

None of the three men, however, were what they represented themselves as being: scientists ignoring outdated modes of philosophical reasoning, following the evidence wherever it might lead. Keynes, as Marx before him, chose his foundational worldview. He didn’t induce it from the data, nor deduce according to the laws of logic, he adduced it. He chose the worldview which allowed him to be the kind of man he wanted to be.

Much has been made about Keynes’ homosexuality by both admirers and detractors. The admirers held that his androgynous complexity allowed him to tap into a masculine rationality and simultaneously a feminine creativity. Some of his detractors, for example on the religious right, used his lifestyle as a kind of ad hominum attack, arguing thus:

“Gay is bad (which doesn’t have quite as much traction as it did in the 1980s)
Keynes was gay
Keynes is bad
Therefore Keynesian economics is bad.
The fallacies in this reasoning are obvious.

A more nuanced version of this argument has been made by other critics — for example the supply-side pioneer Lewis Lehrman, who said, “I have five children. I have a vision of the future. Keynes had no children and no interest in getting involved in any relationship which might make possible their procreation. He was inherently short-run in his viewpoint.” Some Austrian economists have made the same argument.

But I think that there is a bigger issue here than guilt-by-sexual-association or even the ways in which marriage and family connect us with the future. Keynes’ sexual ethic was just a small part of an overall life orientation.

He and his fellow members of the Cambridge Apostles were firmly committed to an agenda of overthrowing every element of the Victorian society from which they had sprung. The rejection of thrift, or of any economic principles at all were of a piece with the rejection of any system of objective truth, any objective moral code, any form of theism and old-fashioned notions about standing up to the Germans, whether under the Kaiser or later under the Führer. In other words, the whole societal order was to be overturned.

G.E. Moore attacked traditional philosophy and theology, Lyton Strachey’s job was to use literature to debunk Victorian principles of self-restraint, and Keynes was to demolish classical economics, sound money and the virtue of thrift. The sex was only a part of it, and probably a subordinate part of it as well.

The apostles were committed to an ideology of the superiority of male intimacy over male/female intimacy not because they were born gay (many of them lapsed into heterosexuality once they were away from the club, some members having feigned homosexuality in order to be included in the group,) but because they saw all of Victorian society, which they hated, as a coherent whole. The salient point here is that they were not men who spent their professional lives following the evidence wherever it led: They had decided where it was all going to lead by their sophomore year of college! They chose the men they would be early in life and went about justifying that decision for the rest of their lives.

09-22-2011, 09:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally Posted By: LWW"On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible," and this is what's not taught. This is what's left out. "The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness, or exposure.

"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well." They were collectivists! Now, "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. ... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson," every kid gets. "If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future." Here's what he wrote: "'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'" That was thought injustice. "Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?" 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? ... In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. ... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians.

"The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'" Now, aside from this program, have you heard this before? Is this "being taught to children -- and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this?" What if Bill and Hillary Clinton had been exposed to these lessons in school? Do you realize what we face in next year's election is the equivalent of people who want to set up these original collectivists communes that didn't work, with nobody having incentive to do anything except get on the government dole somehow because the people running the government want that kind of power. So the Pilgrims decided to thank God for all of their good fortune. And that's Thanksgiving. And read George Washington's first Thanksgiving address and count the number of times God is mentioned and how many times he's thanked. None of this is taught today. It should be. Have a happy Thanksgiving, folks. You deserve it. Do what you can to be happy, and especially do what you can to be thankful, because in this country you have more reasons than you've ever stopped to consider.........</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dubb -- This iz mostly bullshit.
Whats this bullshit about the rest of the world experimenting with socializm for a 100 yrs -- there woz little or no socializm in the world -- kapitalizm woz everywhere in the world -- mostly forms of slavery in fakt.
Whats this bullshit about free enterprise -- all the world had free enterprise -- and i dont think it woz Bradford's idea in New Plimouth anyhow.
And i dont think Bradford's wife died in New Plimouth -- didnt she fall overboard (pushed????).
And, were they happy and flourishing after getting their own plots??? -- no!!!!!! -- famine and hardships continued.
Enuff food left over to trade with the natives -- bullshit -- it woz the natives who had food -- for this the natives got a few shitty allmost useless tools.

No mention here of the newcomers and the poor and the widows and orphans all being given a fair share of food etc.
No mention here of the continuation of the system that a portion of produktion go into a common store.
No mention here of the continuation of the system that half of one's excess produktion go into a common pool -- for the good government -- ie a tax.
No mention here that the land woznt aktually owned by u -- u koodnt sell it etc.
No mention that they inkreeced their big-gov from 1 man to 7 men.
No mention that later they had to hav a division of cattle etc, to help produktion and efficiency.

In the first years they had bad seed, bad ground, bad seasons, bad health -- they lost houses to fire -- they had no good equipment (eg for grinding corn) -- many newcomers brort no food with them -- they had food theft.
They stole food (corn) from the natives.

Even in the early "bad" years, they sent shiploads of goods back to England -- but most of theze were pirated by the Turks and French -- or koodnt be landed at the proper ports koz England woz at war.
Oh -- yes -- and the rest of the commentary iz bullshit too. mac.</div></div>Mac's komments etc apply allso to Jerry's krapp below.

09-22-2011, 09:46 PM
Lessons From A Capitalist Thanksgiving
By Jerry Bowyer (bio)

It’s astonishing and a little horrifying that America’s elites know so little about their country’s history. Case in point: Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute. Jared is an influential left-ish economic polemicist and a sometime adviser to Barack Obama on economic affairs. I’ve debated with Jared dozens of times over the past several years, but what happened this week was especially disturbing.

On Monday night, I told Larry Kudlow about the story of the first Thanksgiving.

I explained that the first Thanksgiving was a celebration of abundance after a period of socialism and starvation. It seems Bernstein never heard about this chapter in U.S. history; he called it an “exercise in revisionist history.” Admitting that he had never read the memoirs of Plymouth governor William Bradford, he nevertheless dismissed the story as untrue. But the facts are undeniable, and there is nothing to revise. Bradford’s historical accounts, which I quote below, have been read by schoolchildren for over 300 years.

The members of the Plymouth colony had arrived in the New World with a plan for collective property ownership. Reflecting the current opinion of the aristocratic class in the 1620s, their charter called for farmland to be worked communally and for the harvests to be shared.

“The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.”

You probably will not be surprised to hear that the colonists starved. Men were unwilling to work to feed someone else’s children. Women were unwilling to cook for other women’s husbands. Fields lay largely untilled and unplanted.

“And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

Famine came as soon as they ate through their provisions. After famine came plague. Half the colony died. Unlike most socialists, they learned from their mistakes, giving each person a parcel of land to tend to for themselves.

“At length, after much debate of things, the Governor … gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end.”

The results were overwhelmingly beneficial. Men worked hard, even though before they had constantly pleaded illness. Fields were not only tilled and planted but also diligently harvested. Colonists traded with the surrounding Indian nation and learned to plant maize, squash and pumpkin and to rotate these crops from year to year. The harvest was bountiful, and new colonists immigrated to the thriving settlement.

“This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

The colonists threw off the statist intellectual fashions of their day. They concluded that the ancient principles of private property as recorded in the Ten Commandments were superior to the utopian speculations of Plato and his 17th-century imitators. Human nature was a fact of life, self-centered, fallen. No cadre of elite philosopher kings could change the cold facts of reality.

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition … may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s … and that the taking away of property … would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.”

It’s genuinely scary to me that a leading member of the left intellectual establishment–a group that will shortly rule both of our elected branches–doesn’t know about America’s first experiment with socialism. On top of that, he doesn’t care to know. Neither did the philosopher kings who, ignorantly and blithely, imposed on our forebears a system that led to malnutrition, pestilence and mass fatalities.

But it has always been that way. Men in ivory towers, ivied halls, foundation-funded think tanks or bustling newsrooms dream up new forms of social organization. They write books, policy papers and five-year plans telling us all that is wrong with the way we live now and what could be done if we simply adhere to their analyses.

When the famines, tortilla riots or credit collapses come, the rest of us have to deal with the consequences. It has been proved that the “vanity and conceit” (Bradford’s phrase, not mine) of the philosopher kings ends in disaster–but by then they’ve already moved on to something else. When we remind them that their ideas have been tried–and found wanting–in the past, they cavalierly deny history, clap their hands over their ears and cry even more loudly for “change.” If we listen to them, we deserve what we will get.

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com.

09-22-2011, 09:59 PM
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist By Jerry Bowyer (bio)

Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold’s The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.

Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack’s character in Woody Allen’s “Bullets Over Broadway” captures the movement rather well.

Arnold taught me to question everyone–my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn’t supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.

That’s Obama’s world.

He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you’ve got Saul Alinski?

So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the US economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the little guy.

As Obama said, “the smallest” businesses will be exempt from fines for not “doing the right thing” in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.

The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.

It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.

The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand “accountability” and a “voice” for the taxpayers?

The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers’ multidecade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.

A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern—equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez’s of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that’s their job.

It’s not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers “hoarding” capital. “Hoarding” is a word we’ve heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, we’re told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.

Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They’re not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.

So why don’t they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, there’s the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?

Will Obama’s be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don’t know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won’t see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won’t see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who “go beyond the pale” in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don’t want to come together and heal the planet.

You’ve heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you’re about to see the bully part.</span>

This article originally appeared Forbes.com.
Posted by Jerry Bowyer on November 5th, 2008
Permanent link: Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist

09-22-2011, 10:55 PM
Teddy Roosevelt vs. the Noisy Environmentalists
By Jerry Bowyer (bio)

Whenever we’re in Washington, my wife and I try to visit the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial on Roosevelt Island. Everyone else goes to the Lincoln or the Jefferson or the Washington, and they are all wonderful. But the TR is different. There are almost never any crowds. That’s because it is hidden in the middle of the woods at the heart of the island. In fact, Susan and I discovered it quite by accident a few years ago as we were hiking through the woods.

You walk along a system of trails through thick forest, and then all of a sudden everything opens up in front of you and you find yourself in a clearing. Teddy is standing in the middle of it, in bronze, and he is ringed by massive stone panels, into which are chiseled some of his statements about manhood, the state and development. The site is peaceful, almost holy, and beautiful - usually.

But not last time we visited, at least not after EarthFirst arrived.

My wife is kind of an amateur naturalist (she and the kids are gradually working on a survey of the flora and fauna of Wilson’s Run, the valley adjoining our property), and they were enthusiastically identifying trees and wild flowers. That’s when the clamor started. Loud noises began to drift up from the south trail and echo around the pavilion.

Suddenly a hundred or more young men and women were stomping their way into the memorial, all wearing green shirts, on which were printed the words “EarthFirst”. They were chatting, flirting, and texting away. No one was looking at the trees. No one was reading the quotes on the obelisks. There were TV cameras, and they were getting tape on all of this. I leaned over to Susan “That’s for the funders”, I told her. “They’ll want to show the video to their board.”

We knew the TR Memorial would not be a memorial for the next hour or so, but a stage, on which young people (bored by the specific flora and fauna around them) would congratulate themselves, before the cameras, for their love of ‘the earth’. So we left, sadly, the sound of speeches, zeal and sanctimony trailed us into the woods for a hundred yards or so, until it was swallowed by the forest.

I wished that they had actually stopped for a moment to read the memorial, especially the part where TR admonishes us that, “Conservation means development as much as it does protection.” That’s probably the thing that mob needed most (even more than “Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive.”) Maybe if they came to understand that Teddy was not an early version of themselves; that the founders of their movement fought him, they might have a moment of self-doubt about whether the earth really should be put first. Teddy certainly didn’t think so. He thought people came first.

Teddy was a conservationist, not a preservationist. Not surprisingly, this meant that he wanted to conserve natural resources, not preserve them. To conserve is to save in order to use later. Cash reserves are money set aside for the future. Fuel reserves are there in case you need them later. Preserves are not supposed to change. Like a museum or an archeological site, they are to be frozen in time.

TR and his Director of Forestry Services, Gifford Pinchot created a system of ‘wildlife Reserves’. They argued that it would not be fair for one generation to do all the logging and all the digging and to leave nothing behind for future generations. They didn’t think of these reserves as something pristine, which would be rendered somehow ceremonially unclean by the signs of human development. They just wanted to share natural resources and beauty with future generations, like ours. In fact the shift in language from ‘resources’ to ‘the environment’ signals the shift in world-view from conservation to preservation. A resource, by its very nature, is to be used, sparingly, perhaps, but nonetheless, used.

This is why the Roosevelt-Pinchot philosophy is known to historians as the ‘wise-use’ movement. It’s why the administration’s forestry handbook contained explicit instructions for how to extract lumber and minerals from the protected lands. That’s why the memorial lauds ‘development’, which contemporary environmentalists forbid in places like ANWR.

The preservationists of the time, like Sierra Club founder, John Muir, fought against them. While Roosevelt/Pinchot sought to make nature useful to humanity, by opening it to efficient use, and protecting it from destruction, Muir claimed that nature was to be useful to nature itself, not to man. For Roosevelt earth is for us, for people. For Muir man and land were equals. It wasn’t the conservationist Roosevelt who put ANWR’s oil out of our reach, but the environmentalist Carter.

In other words, the activist/extras who stomped their way across the memorial that day, did it under a slogan (EarthFirst) against which Teddy most heartily disapproved.

This article originally appeared on TCSDaily.com


In 1905, Roosevelt created the Bureau of Forestry, with Gifford Pinchot as chief forester. Pinchot believed that timberlands should be managed scientifically, with selected trees harvested and others left to grow, so that rain would not cause excessive soil erosion, runoff, flooding, or water pollution. The timbermen found this idea incompatible with their pocketbooks, and protested vigorously to their representatives in Washington. Bowing to industry pressure, Congress attached a rider to an agricultural appropriations bill that Roosevelt could not avoid signing. The rider limited the president's abilities to set aside Western forest lands for preservation. Roosevelt responded with characteristic panache; before approving the bill, he signed 16 million additional acres of Western forest into federal protection. The timbermen howled louder, but Roosevelt had trumped them again.

09-23-2011, 12:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I LIKE THE FOLLOWING TEDDY STORY.
MAC. </div></div>

Me too. I wish Obama had the same mentality.


09-23-2011, 01:54 AM
The apostles were committed to an ideology of the superiority of male intimacy over male/female intimacy not because they were born gay (many of them lapsed into heterosexuality once they were away from the club, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>some members having feigned homosexuality in order to be included in the group,</span>) but because they saw all of Victorian society, which they hated, as a coherent whole. The salient point here is that they were not men who spent their professional lives following the evidence wherever it led: They had decided where it was all going to lead by their sophomore year of college! They chose the men they would be early in life and went about justifying that decision for the rest of their lives.


09-23-2011, 06:10 AM
It may be krappynomomics but there are only going to be two choices.
The reason that there is a world crisis is that Wall St has changed from its original purpose into an unregulated casino. The dice are loaded and the wheels are tilted. The cards are marked.

Massive fraud has been perpetrated and nobody has been held accountable.


Gayle in MD
09-23-2011, 06:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It may be krappynomomics but there are only going to be two choices.
The reason that there is a world crisis is that Wall St has changed from its original purpose into an unregulated casino. The dice are loaded and the wheels are tilted. The cards are marked.

Massive fraud has been perpetrated and nobody has been held accountable.

Q </div></div>

Yep, and the Repiglican policy, is to block any and every kind of Government regulatory oversight, of any and every one of their corporate, fascist, shadow "Free Market" thieves, and/or Repiglican Crony Government contractors.

Bush oversaw the most massive increase if defense spending in history, and those costs, and debts, are still on-going.

They are costs that were not easily overturned, or ended, by anyone who would have inherited the Bush Middle East, Fiasco, and his massive growth of the Federal Government, all of it approved, by the same Balnk Check Repigs, who are now screaming about the big bad government, only they only want to remove the parts, that serve Middle Class Americans, and keep all of their corporate thieves, and no bid contractors, on the government dole.