The program is just what one would expect from PBS: earnest, well-researched, skillfully presented, and eager to lick the boots of government while criticizing individual freedom for everything wrong in the world.

There are two important lessons to be learned from the Great Depression, in my view:

1. The government causes business cycles and downturns through its erratic, manipulative policies intended to benefit powerful voting blocs at the expense of those less able to fight back. The market works when left alone, and government interference should be limited to redressing actual harms done by one party to another. This includes combating fraud, enforcing valid contracts, and setting clear but liberal guidelines for transactions made across political borders. And nothing more.
2. The Great Depression brought on a cultural conservatism and moral regeneration of the American people. This is an aspect of the era which few people seem to understand. It was in the early ’30s, for example, that the movie industry was finally badgered into imposing a Production Code ensuring all widely distributed films would conform to a set of standard plot-lines, language restrictions, and limits on visual sensationalism (a move which undoubtedly had salubrious results but was probably unnecessary given the change of public taste in a more conservative direction; in addition, the movie studios engaged in it voluntarily, even if under the threat of state regulation; thus the Code was surely less drastic, damaging, arbitrary, and politically controlled than it would have been if imposed by government). During the 1930s the American people revolted against what they saw as the social and cultural excesses of the 1920s just as strongly as they did against what they saw as the economic excesses of the time. Earnestness and attention to the political, economic, and moral implications of human action were on the rise in all media. Breaking economic and political corruption was a major concern of the American culture.

The Great Depression was widely seen at the time as a punishment for the economic, social, and moral changes of the 1920s, when the nation had moved in a more classical-liberal direction affording greater economic, social, and personal freedom. The Roaring ’20s were seen in retrospect as a time of excessive license in all things (which they indeed were in some cases), and the Depression was viewed as an understandable payment that had to be made–the hangover after the party.

Thus the nation decided to swear off the booze of individual liberty altogether. As a cure, the people turned to government control of the economy and tighter moral strictures against individual freedom. If this sounds like today’s regnant political agenda, that’s because the two are indeed identical in means, motive, and opportunity. And they are both criminal in their stupidity.

I believe that both the moral reaction and economic impositions of the Depression era were overwrought and unnecessary, but the moral reaction was the more justifiable of the two because it largely avoided using government force for its implementation. As a result of its relatively voluntary, organic nature, the moral response to the Roaring ’20s managed to do some good, as noted above, while refraining from doing much harm.

Of the economic puritanism of the time, the very opposite was true. That is the way of government action.

Given PBS’s track record as a die-hard advocate of a statist, progressive agenda, it should surprise no one that the American Experience series refuses to incorporate liberal notions such as these, choosing instead to smother the truth in a miasma of irrelevant moralization.

Right at the beginning of episode 1, “The Crash of 1929,” the narrator refers to “the promise and the illusion of the 1920s,” setting the moralistic tone of the episode. Immediately thereafter, the noted statist economist the late John Kenneth Galbraith is shown saying, “Let us not think for a moment the illusion, the aberration of the 1920s is unique. It is intimately a part of the American character.”

In other words, people will go mad if not constrained by a gigantic, all-powerful benevolent government. We are undoubtedly supposed to be grateful for the warning.

Immediately thereafter, two commentators criticize the lovely Irving Berlin song “Blue Skies” as emblematic of the 1920s “illusion” that freedom was a good thing. The machinations of stock market manipulators in the decade are limned in some detail, and the commentators explicitly condemn the lack of government regulation.

What they do not note is that fraud of the sort described in this part of the program is illegal now and was illegal then. Thus while the perpetrators of such actions were morally responsible for their wrongs, from a social perspective the real culprit behind such market manipulation was in fact the government, in failing to perform its basic function of preventing fraud, enforcing valid contracts, and otherwise preventing people from harming one another.

Indeed, a commentator in the program explicitly states that such manipulation was legal at the time, which is quite wrong and would be deceptive even if true. Yes, it was the case that there were no specific laws explicitly criminalizing a variety of particular manipulative actions in the stock market, but those acts were fraud and could have–and should have–been prosecuted under existing laws. In addition, the failure to have laws preventing such fraud would be a failure of government criminal law, not of economic policy.

Economic regulation, however, is the agenda here, and every possible means is used to argue for it. The episode briefly criticizes New York Mayor Jimmy Walker for his fiscal imprudence, but the moment is conveyed as a critique of 1920s excessive exuberance and liberality, not as a matter of government corruption and a failure of government to do its duties.

Similarly, the role of the Fed in the 1920s bubble (which it fed by debauching the currency) and in the subsequent Depression (which it created and prolonged by tightening the currency far too much and excessively interfering in the markets, thus preventing the needed corrections from occurring) is alluded to but presented in moralistic terms, as another example of excessive liberality followed by a painful but necessary corrective action.

Individual investors are likewise presented in moralistic terms, depicted as greedily and foolishly chasing after “the one lucky break,” as one person puts it. One is given no understanding of how the investors’ actions could in fact have seemed at the time to be rational, not speculative. The reality is that, then as now, an individual must look at the possible returns and risks involved in investing one’s money and also in not doing so. If the government reduces apparent risk to zero–as the Fed did during the 1920s and 2000s–what on earth does one think investors will do but continue to invest in a wide variety of ventures based on increasingly risky foundations?

This is what happens in all bubbles, and it is what happened in the most recent one, but American Experience refuses to acknowledge this critical fact. Thus here too a failure of government is elided and its effects blamed on the allegedly free choices of individuals in an allegedly under-regulated market.

Tellingly, as the program describes the stock market crash of 1929 and the events that led up to it, nothing about Fed policy or the money supply is mentioned. Yet the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has convincingly argued that the manipulation of the money supply caused both the bubble and the bust. That particular truth, however, does not contribute to and in fact contradicts the program’s agenda for government power and against individual liberty. Thus it, too, is redacted from the story.

Near the end of the episode, Galbraith blames it all explicitly on the investors–the “suckers” as he crudely and callously calls them–and says that such crashes happen every twenty or thirty years because that’s how long it takes for the “suckers” to forget that their earlier greed and foolhardiness led to disaster. The alternative explanation–and the true one–is not given any attention: that every twenty or thirty years the government’s renewed manipulation of the economy as a means of buying votes results in disaster.

The program concludes with an argument that what the stock market crash taught Americans was a great lesson in humility. Certainly that was the lesson that the American people took from it. The real lesson, however, is that governments’ attempts to manipulate the economy always bring catastrophic consequences in time.

Of course it’s true that many people did many bad things both in the stock market and in other areas of human endeavor in the 1920s. But that’s always the case, human beings being what we are. What was different about the 1920s and ’30s was the choices government made, and the consequences were world-changing.

The real moral failure to be found in American Experience: The 1930s is in many people’s continual refusal to recognize that freedom of choice is a good, and coercion an evil, regardless of who is doing which.

To hear Politico tell it, CNN’s stuck in humiliating fourth place behind FOX, MSNBC and their own Headline News because they’ve made the mistake of not appealing to the great unwashed who prefer partisan bickering and echo chambers:

With the proliferation of media across platforms these days, there’s less shared knowledge among people, who are increasingly heading to niche outlets for information. At the same time, there’s a large appetite for the new media world where the MSM gatekeepers no longer hold as much clout, and “he said, she said” journalism gives way to strong point of view. …

There’s no doubt that the over-the-top, and politically partisan, hosts are having more success attracting viewers on nights when there’s no major news event.

And what better place for Politico to get an opinion on such a matter than The Nation aka: “The flagship of the left“:

(more…)

And that would be very wrong.

But when I saw this video, I couldn’t resist. It’s of a panel, in which students are pointing out how predictable cover letters won’t help you get a job in the post j-school world. So what would? How about a rap?

And so it begins, as one student unleashes his inner Jay-Z, listing in all earnestness a lengthy promise of his many qualifications.

Roll tape, roll-tapers:

So, no surprise: the student raps benign pap that his professors and like-minded dorm-rats would applaud – from railing against complacency, to never losing touch with “his humanity.” But I’ll repeat the part the kid really wanted them to hear:

“There’s no need to hear crazy, or create a false sense of parity, like Fox News and Hannity.”

And that’s the big point: That when applying for a job, the student knows to regurgitate the shared assumptions of the elitists around him. In short, if you bash Fox News, you might land an unpaid internship at Mother Jones.

That still exists, right?

Now, it wasn’t a bad rhyme, but it was a bad idea – emboldened by the present comfort of conformity and driven by the need to prove to those hiring that the applicant holds the “right beliefs.” It’s silly and stupid, but also sad: these beliefs are cemented even before they enter a paying newsroom.

And what’s the crux of these beliefs?

That Fox News is evil.

Which to me, is pretty cool. I like being considered evil – especially when those doing the considering are sheep who can’t rap.

And if you disagree, then you’re probably racist.

Tonight we’ve got the lovely Juliet Huddy, the hilarious Brad Morris and Blood Manor’s sex and deadly, Rachel.

So why is this happening? I’ll tell you, if you just calm down.

The White House is focusing on Fox News because there is no one else around to mess with. I mean, aside from Rush, and perhaps a reunited version of April Wine – they got nobody. The Republicans are hanging back, somewhere, waiting for their moment, which may never come. The Dems, however, have everything – the Houses, the President, the media, the international community of dimwitted Norwegians- but they can’t get their crap together.

So, whose fault is it? Fox News.

Yeah, we’re the ones preventing Obama from closing Gitmo. We’re the ones who can’t settle on a health care reform plan. We’re the ones who flew to some weird country no one cares about to grovel for the Olympics. We’re the ones dawdling on Afghanistan. We’re the ones who think wearing a burqa is a more important right for women, than freedom of speech.

Look, it’s flattering that the White House is obsessed with 1211 Sixth Avenue.

But Red Eye knows better.

What Obama doesn’t want is someone to debate – however, it’s something he desperately needs. Indirectly, that’s why the White House and the moonfaced media focus on Fox News and its fans. We aren’t elected officials, we’re just the only target in the room.

But seriously fellas, you gotta get over us. Enough with the crank calls and putting Ex-Lax in our Red Bull. America has real enemies out there: and they hate you as much as they hate us.

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.

Tonight – an awesome lineup!

Greg Proops is in studio, along with the delightfully deranged Amy Schumer, and the mad genius Andrew Breitbart!

It’s a good thing there are conservatives willing to expose this administration for what it is.

President Obama and Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the Office of Public Engagement

But the question is, what’s next? How can this be countered and how can the Obama administration be forced to back down? As it is, liberal groups, news organizations and individuals continue to cover up for the administration. Perhaps someone will be thrown under the bus again, but the thugs of Team Obama will remain in place and continue to “transform America.”

Exposing their tactics is necessary to fight them, but it’s not enough to actually beat them. Mr. Breitbart and team have learned that the tactics the left has used against conservatives for decades; to discredit them works wonders. But if conservatives want to take back the government, we have to copy the left’s organizing skills as well.

It’s an outrage that the NEA has been turned into a propaganda tool by the most liberal president the U.S. has ever had. But there is a reason the administration spoke to artists on the August conference call and was willing to take the risk of exposure: artists influence the people. The effect isn’t always immediate–it may take years for artists to truly influence society as a whole–but it’s there. If you want to “transform” society you need artists on your side.

Liberals have always understood this. They’ve been working with artists for decades. A lot of art already is politicized. The only reason this is a scandal now is because the radical left isn’t some fringe group at this moment but is in charge of the government. As Buffy Wicks put it, “we [meaning they] won.”

If they weren’t in charge of the government but were still activists, some would still be outraged, but it would not be considered a big thing. The strategy is nothing new–the only new aspect of it is that these people have taken over the government and continue to use artists as propaganda tools.

Whether we like it or not, this strategy has paid off. Liberals have influenced society tremendously by, among other things, using the arts to indoctrinate the American people. They’ve done this in the United States and in Europe. They’re influencing society by doing what free market thinker Friedrich Hayek told conservatives to do: getting second-hand dealers of ideas on their side who then slowly but surely influence society by a constant and never-ceasing flow of propaganda.

If we conservatives want to fight back in the long run, instead of just bringing down this particular liberal administration, we have to do what liberals have been doing for years. We too have to get as many second hand dealers of ideas on our side. Then and only then will be successful in the long run.

Breitbart has taught us that the strategies the left has used to discredit the right can be used against them. We have to act on that, continue to do what Breitbart and some here at Big Hollywood have been doing. But we have to do more than that: we have to destroy and create. And the wonderful thing is that to do this we can learn from the left once again, we can use their tactics against them in this aspect as well.

If we want the victories of the last weeks to be permanent, we should copy the left’s strategy in every way possible. Destroy and create.

Let’s get going.

They were not going to report this blockbuster unless they were forced to. And they were. What’s more, it ain’t over yet. Not every hint I dropped in that piece about what was to come has played itself out yet.Stay tuned.

When filmmaker and provocateur James O’Keefe came to my office to show me the video of him and his friend, Hannah Giles, going to the Baltimore offices of ACORN – the nation’s foremost “community organizers” – dressed as a pimp and a prostitute and asking for – and getting – help for various illegal activities, he sought my advice. In the past, Mr. O’Keefe created brilliant social satire that rocked his college campus and even made its way on to the talk-radio and cable-news shows, but the magnitude of his latest adventure had the potential to rock the political establishment.

I was awed by Mr. O’Keefe’s guts and amazed by the footage, but explained that the mainstream media would try to kill this important and illuminating expose about a corrupt and criminal political racket, and that the well-funded political left would go into “war room” mode, with 25-year-old Mr. O’Keefe and 20-year-old cohort Miss Giles in the cross hairs. I felt I had a moral obligation to protect these young muckrakers from the left and from the media, and to devise a strategy that would force the media’s hand.  (more…)

So if there was one thing I learned from the coverage of those big protests last weekend, it’s that signs matter.

See, when the media covers an event they don’t really want to understand, they will focus on the protester’s placards. But as a regular, long-term consumer of all things media (and fiber), I cannot recall this ever happening with the media coverage of the WTO protests, the NOW marches, the no-nuke concerts, the anti-war demonstrations. If I remember correctly (and regular use of Ambien has made it a challenge), the media instead chose to focus on the heroic faces of the protesters. Often, these folks would be huddled together, holding a candle, singing “Give Peace A Chance,” or something equally annoying. Fact is, they were young, heroic, speaking truth to power – so who cares if the signs were offensive: that reality would only undermine the ideal. That’s why you never saw them.

To me, most of the sillier signs this weekend didn’t reflect idiocy, but inexperience. I’m willing to bet nearly all of these folks had never been to a march before, unless it involved Dimes. Which is why the event resembled a picnic, not a protest. Sure, there were some tacky signs, but they were usually held by tacky people who sport more buttons than friends. And the fact is, leftist protesters have had far more experience doing this sort of thing, so they know the drill. They know when to cry, and when to raise a fist(after smashing a chair through a Starbucks window).

Finally, you media types who call these folks crackpots need to realize you’re only doing so because to them, you’re irrelevant. They no longer need you. Those protesters believe in the individual over the system, small over big government, private versus public. They don’t believe in you.

Granted, however, I’ve been known to call people who disagree with me – the Garafalo’s, the Olbermann’s – crazy, too.

But I’m right.

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a racist.

Patrick Courrielche reported on the call this morning:

Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, was to represent the White House and key representatives from the National Endowment for the Arts were also to participate.

Did you catch that? Kalpen Modi is the given name of the actor known as Kal Penn.

Naturally, Penn’s decision to leave a co-starring role on Fox’s hit series “House” and perhaps delaying the release of “A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas” garnered due media coverage.  Some at Big Hollywood felt it premature to cast judgment at that point despite the implications of an increasingly blurred line between entertainment and politics. Still, while actors have been known to run for office, leaving the red carpet for the red tape of government bureaucracy was, in retrospect, fishy.

While Penn bided his time, waiting for an opportunity to parlay his Hollywood chops into a victory for the administration, this NEA story began to unfold and now we’re at a point where George Will wondered aloud on This Week if the NEA has broken any laws.

So the question is, what did Kumar know, and when did he know it?

Was coordinating a transformation of the NEA into a propaganda arm of the Obama Administration his role from Day 1?  Was this a plan of attack handed down from the President himself?

An appeal to the cult of personality is an essential ingredient to this adminstration’s success, and using Kumar to sell the Obama agenda to the arts community on behalf of the White House is worthy of our ire.

The Kumar story emerges on the day Obama addressed students, complete with lesson plan (a repeated theme in the lesson is “What is the president asking me to do?”).  Moreover, just last week Ashton Kutcher’s “I Pledge” video resurfaced in a public school (to parental outrage) where Kutcher and a motley crew of celebrity activists “pledge to serve our President.”

Whether or not Obama actually coordinated with Kutcher, Demi Moore, and the Asian Guy from MadTV to make that video is not the point–after all, Obama might not have been able to fit them into his schedule between golfing and brunch with will.i.am—but Kumar works for him… and for us. He ought to be held accountable.

A historical trend exists in totalitarian states where art lionizes its leadership, while in free states art holds power accountable.  Same goes for the mainstream press.  Given Obama and Kumar’s NEA strategy, it is clear that with regards to the arts world, we are headed down a path where the state’s influence spreads wider than it ever has, and the man with the most information might be the one who just passed the blunt.

Color me a narc, but let’s bring him in for questioning.

In my humble opinion… None of the above. Death is not only a passing on, but a time for everyone else to truthfully reflect on one’s life. To skim through the unsavory parts (or in Kennedy/MJ’s case, skip entire chapters all together) is to do the world a disservice. How are the rest of us shmucks supposed to learn from past mistakes if we can’t even acknowledge them to begin with?

The fact that the media decided to smooch the Kennedys’ rears through the death of Ted is appalling. Not only was there no mention of the Chappaquiddick river “incident” or his character assassination of Clarence Thomas, but the coverage was carried out in a way that assumed everyone was in agreement with the man’s misguided agenda.

I guess I shouldn’t expect much from a media who, when covering Michael Jackson’s death reminisced of his “Thriller” days and praised his supposed upcoming comeback tour while ignoring the entire gap in between. Really, Mainstream Media? Getting kids sloshed with “Jesus juice” hidden in a soda can before escorting them to his boudoir doesn’t even deserve a passing glance?

It may sound insensitive of me, but in all honesty, I’d want my own death to be handled the same way that I’m preaching here. Granted, I’ve never killed anybody or molested any little boys but I’d want the same amount of people to dislike me in death as do in life. If you think I’m an annoying little pissant right now, please don’t show up to my funeral acting as though you felt any differently.

Basically, handle my death as the mainstream media did Ronald Reagan’s. When the Gipper died, the media made sure to cover “both sides of the story” and even sadder, they genuinely seemed dumbfounded at the fact that so many people were seriously mourning the man. They had spent such a long time painting him as an evil warmonger that they didn’t even realize how diametrically opposed they were to the mainstream American opinion.

The media’s ignorance of America’s Conservative roots are only surpassed by Barack Obama’s incapability of grasping Ted Kennedy’s “50 years in public office” as a perversion of the founding fathers intent for our government.

I get that it’s always sad to see a life lost, and my heart always goes out to a family in suffering. However, to give more credit than that to someone like Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Jackson would be disingenuous. Isn’t the truth more important than romanticizing the dead?

“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” -Henry David Thoreau

Sean Penn, take notes.