Remember that "Liberal-TV" idea that was thrown around awhile back? Well, now Al Gore is involved.



A few points about this:


-does no one else see the irony in this proposal? "a bunch of rich white folks run the airwaves slanted to their own interests, so let's get together another group of rich white folks to slant it to our interests!" It's the pot calling the kettle black, their crack-influenced idea that they're "speaking for the little people" is an insult.


-woo boy, where to start on this one...


"The ascendancy of conservative outlets such as Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel — and particularly such ratings powerhouses as commentator Bill O'Reilly — have been a growing source of frustration for Democrats."


Not to mention certain cable news channels that happen to be owned by the same people as Time magazine...

Hey, people can change the channel if they want to. Personally I take the whole mainstream media with a huge grain of blog-fortified salt no matter who it is (and thus question the reliance on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc...), but c'mon, AOL using an arm of their media empire to conveniently throw shade at a competitor? It's obvious from watching FoxNews that it is a conservative-leaning network, regardless there is no way that they could've acknowledged that in this article that wouldn't seem a conflict of interests.



"And while liberal commentators such as former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower have made a stab at syndicated talk shows, they have by and large been unsuccessful. In March, the MSNBC cable news network canceled Phil Donahue's talk show after a disappointing six-month run against The O'Reilly Factor."


And they assume that this is because of a lack of a designated liberal media source? Please, Phil had the same company behind him that Chris Matthews does, and you don't see his ratings going anywhere near as deep as the ratings for Donahue's show. Maybe it's that, hmm, people don't like Donahue anymore?



" However, some liberals point to the success of Hillary Clinton's just-released memoir as evidence that a marketplace exists for their viewpoint. "


Sorry Dems, that was preaching to the converted. Most of the hype behind Hillary's book was because of the assumption it'd have plenty of inside dirt in it, I guess the media even screws you guys when it kisses the ass of one of your own...



"Gore has shared their frustration. In an interview last December with the New York Observer, he described the conservative outlets as a "fifth column" within the media ranks that injects "daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective." "The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," Gore said. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times , Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them,"


Anyone with a functioning brain can tell that FoxNews and the Washington Times lean right. Point being? And Rush Limbaugh never said he was anything but a stanch conservative republican, he's not a reporter, so I don't see why Gore is acting like him not being objective is some sort of secret. Expecting objectivity in the media is folly anyway, I'd rather that they admit it and move on than keep trying to hide it.



"and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires"


So let's make a network financed by limousine liberals? How is this an improvement?



Who knows, maybe this "liberal TV" will bring out to light what's been denied for so long, and get people expecting facts from an honest perspective rather than empty claims of objectivity and lies. If that is the result, then great, liberals I applaud you.

But if the current trend is any indication, it'll probably go the way of CNN-SI.

-Larry Elder, f^$#ing idiot...



(interviewing Henry Manne, dean @ George Mason University school of law, who wrote a book arguing that insider trading be legalized): "Q. A "little guy" hearing this is going to say, "Well, I'm not an insider. How could it not harm me that I'm not privy to information that other people are privy to?"

A. That was one of the very first myths in this field since my book in 1966. The serious scholars don't make that argument at all any more"



Who would he count among the "serious scholars"?



"Q. Another argument you make is that it helps to move the price of a share to its "correct level." What do you mean?

A. It's very important in the world of finance that shares be accurately priced. There are many things that turn on that — compensation does, the whole takeover field turns on it, people's investment decisions turn on it, so it's very important that we have actual reflection of what's going on. Well, how do you get that? The SEC says, well, we'll get reports that come out three or six months later, and that will inform the market of what's going on. That's baloney. The way the market works is that informed people do their trading, and every time they trade on good news, they drive the price up; every time they trade on bad news, they drive the price down."



Except that when it's someone trading on the advice of one of their golf partners that happens to be very close to the board of directors, that person can jump the gun way in advance of even a peep for anyone else. How is it a good thing for the stock market to deliberately slant towards people that already have deep connections?



"Q. Let's talk about the recent state of corporate accounting scandals: Enron, Global Crossing, etc. What impact would insider trading have had on these kinds of scandals?

A. I don't think the scandals would ever have erupted if we had allowed insider trading ... because there would be plenty of people in those companies who would know exactly what was going on, and who couldn't resist the temptation to get rich by trading on the information, and the stock market would have reflected those problems months and months earlier than they did under this cockamamie regulatory system we have."



...and you know how the information would spread like that how?



There is clearly a misunderstanding at work here, it's not necessarily about the information but how you get it. The reason insider trading is illegal is for the same reason that waltzing into a casino and cheating at the poker table w/ the assistance of the dealer gets you both kicked out. If one person can go behind everyone else's back and get obviously ground-breaking info simply by virtue of being buddies w/ someone deep within the company, then what's the point of anyone else trading on it? That person is going to win anyway, would you put your money on something that you knew you had no chance whatsoever of winning at? Obviously not. Insider trading defeats the purpose of even having a stock market.