Jan Helfeld's blog
Dana Loesch, CNN TV commentator, was asked if she had a principle that permitted her to decide when we should go to war, and when we should not? She answered: I haven't even thought about it, implying that she didn't have a principle. When confronted with the fact that she didn't have a principle, she argued that she did have a principle and that her principle was, whenever our interests are threatened we should go to war. An examination of her principle proved that there was no principle.
Analysis of John King's interview. I asked John King of CNN : do you have an opinion on whether we should have gone to war with Iraq ? He said he had no opinions, then later you said he had an opinion, but he only shared Iit with his wife and finally, he said, we would be surprised how few opinions he has because he trains himself not to have opinions.
I asked John King of CNN : do you have an opinion on whether we should have gone to war with Iraq ? He said he had no opinions, then later you said he had an opinion, but he only shared it with his wife and finally, he said, we would be surprised how few opinions he has because he trains himself not to have opinions.
I am planning to do same day analysis of the Sunday talk shows. I will critique the shows explaining what's wrong with them and occasionally what's right, why the American people cannot understand the issues as presented by the mainstream media and what they should have done instead . I will identify the solutions and principles involved.
This show June 3rd Show is a good example of what's wrong.
Bright conservative thinker and author Dinesh D'Sousa is in favor of some redistribution of wealth even though he thinks Government should be limited to protecting the citizens and agrees that the government is not protecting the citizens when it redistributes their wealth but he still favors some redistribtion; he favors redistribution of wealth even though he agrees it creates a perverse incentive and is morally wrong. Go figure.
Alex Castellanos, TV commentator for CNN gives his views on redistribution of wealth. Castellanos says that if politicians had to take the money from the citizens personally, they would not be so enthusiastic about redistributing wealth. He thinks that if we let people keep their own money and decide how to spend it, they will do a better job than the government. He explained that the government is far away from the decision-making and therefore, can not make efficient decisions. Finally, he is in favor doing anything we can to reduce and mitigate redistribution of wealth.
Ambassador John Bolton first claims to have a principle to determine when we should go to war. He says that the Iraqi war was justified because they had attacked another country, had weapons of mass destruction and had attacked their own people. On further questioning, it turns out that if another country like North Korea is in the same situation, we should not attack them, thus that is not his principle. The same thing happened when he justified the war in Afghanistan based on them harboring terrorists that have attacked us.
David Gergen CNN TV commentator cannot answer simple questions. He does not know if the government should protect peaceful citizens against people that want to use force to take their money. He does not know if there are people in our society that want to use force to take other people's money. Apparently, he can't even understand the questions much less answer them. He is clear about one thing, he doesn't like the questions and he wants to leave.
Dana Loesch, CNN TV commentator is required to admit that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will reduce spending in absolute terms. At first she did not want to accept it, but later had to admit that the other candidates are only proposing to reduce the rate of increase in spending and not spending in absolute terms. Ms. Loesch, who is upfront about the fact that she is not a Ron Pauler, also says that Ron Paul shines on spending and other domestic issues. Sometimes all you need is a little coaxing to get to the truth.
Radio Host Lars Larson is in favor of some redistribution of wealth. He is in favor of foreign aid; for instance, giving money to Egypt. He thinks that if we don't give money to Egypt the security of the United States will be at risk. I asked, who will attack us if we don't give money to Egypt? He had no answer, and made a very quick exit.
We have heard this argument before, and it makes absolutely no sense. I started to explain to Mr. Larson that we have 8000 nuclear deliverable warheads and thus, the no country is going to attack us. It would be complete suicide for the leaders, as well as the rest of the people in the country. The decision-makers of the country, the leaders, do not want to commit suicide. We know this to be fact, including the leaders of Iran. Not a single one has committed a suicide bombing .
The idea that Egypt or any other country would attack the United States because we don't send money to Egypt is ludicrous. There is absolutely no connection between our sending money to Egypt and increasing the probability of the United States being attacked by another country. There are no facts or reasoning that support this conclusion . Egypt will not and cannot attack us, nor will any other country attack us for not giving foreign aid to Egypt, or for that matter, any other country. Obviously, whatever the reasons are for sending money to Egypt, it is not to protect ourselves.
David Gergen, CNN TV commentator and Harvard professor, refuses to answer fundamental questions about our political system. He will not answer whether you can live well if other people can legally gang up on you and forcefully take your money? He will not answer whether the Declaration of Independence contains a limited government view or does it support the view that the government should redistribute its citizens wealth? Nor will he answer whether other people's children should have a legal right to your money? Gergen does not want to answer any of these questions, that he calls philosophical, and decides to leave. Part 4
Jonathan Karl, ABC News TV commentator and reporter, first states that he has no position on whether we should have gone to war with Iraq! Later, it turns out that he has a position, but he will not share it with us. Why do he and other journalists first say they have no position? After 10 years of the USA having made this decision he still feels uncomfortable sharing his reasoning and analysis for this position. How can we learn lessons of history if the people that report, analyze and comment on political events will not share their opinions(at least with me)? Why are they happy to share their opinions in other venues? How can we know what is the right policy if we cannot examine the reasoning they use to support their public policy positions? Part three.
Chip Reid CBS news correspondent first says he has no opinions, but later admits that he does have opinions. Apparently, he has to pretend he does not have an opinion in order to be considered neutral. Does having an opinion prevent you from being objective and neutral? If as everyone agrees having an opinion does not prevent you from being objective, why is it so many journalists believe it is necessary to pretend they have no opinion and when first asked lie about the fact that they do have opinions? Who do they think they are deceiving any way? Don't they know that their opinions are implied in the selection of their questions?
US Rep. Steve King says all payments are redistribution of wealth. Why does he say this? First he says he is against governmental redistribution of wealth. When confronted with the fact that he is in favor of some farm subsidies and some foreign aid he argues that if these are examples of redistribution of wealth then everything is redistribution of wealth, implying that there isn't anything wrong with redistribution of wealth. To defend his point that everything is redistribution of wealth he says that, if he gave me a penny that would be redistribution of wealth.
David Gergen, CNN TV commentator objects to Jan's characterization of redistribution of wealth as some people being forced through taxes to pay for other people's goods or services. Gergen says that he and others are not forced to pay taxes. However, ultimately he has to admit that he and others are forced to pay taxes. Watch Jan make him walk back his statement. Unfortunately, because this contradiction is deep in his mind he will continue to revert to his original idea in the rest of the interview so don't miss the next chapters. Part two