O'Keefe Lying Again

Last week, a Project Veritas "sting" operation directed at National Public Radio cost some NPR executives their jobs. Beginning with Senior Vice President for Fundraising Ron Schiller, who was depicted on tape disparaging the Tea Party movement and suggesting that NPR should move away from federal funding, the fallout eventually cost NPR CEO Vivian Schiller her job as well. That's sort of the NPR way "act in haste, repent in leisure."

The Glenn Beck-branded website, The Blaze, may seem an unlikely defender of NPR but when the site's editor, Scott Baker, and video production specialist, Pam Key, examined the raw footage, they found "questionable editing and tactics."

—The video "does not explain how the NPR executives would have a basis to believe they were meeting with a Muslim Brotherhood front group," and indeed "includes a longer section of description that seems to downplay connections of the MEAC group to the Muslim Brotherhood as popularly perceived."
—The video is edited to make it appear that Ron Schiller "is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC['s]" advocacy for Sharia law, but Schiller's "Really? That's what they said?" remark is actually made in reference to "confusion" involving the "restaurant reservation."
—Schiller is actually complimentary of Republicans, and prefaces his criticism of the Tea Party by indicating that it's his own opinion, not NPR's. (Plenty of conservatives and Tea Party activists have averred that NPR has treated them fairly.) Baker also finds footage in which Schiller and director of institutional giving Betsy Liley express a hesitancy to disparage the "education of conservatives" and defend "intellects of Fox News viewers."

Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member for broadcasting and online at the Poynter Institute, says there are "two ways to lie. One is to tell me something that didn't happen. And the other is not to tell me something that did happen." After comparing O'Keefe's edited tape to the longer version, "I think that they employed both techniques in this," Tompkins says.

One "big warning flag" Tompkins saw in the shorter tape was the way it made it appear that Schiller had laughed and commented "really, that's what they said?" after being told that the fake Muslim group advocates for sharia law. In fact, the longer tape shows that Schiller made that comment during an "innocuous exchange" that had nothing to do with the supposed group's position on sharia law, David reports.

Tompkins also says that O'Keefe's edited tape ignores the fact that Schiller said "six times ... over and over and over again" that donors cannot buy the kind of coverage they want on NPR.

O'Keefe continues to maintain that their video is "very honest." It's easy to see why: the effects of his "sting" operation manifested themselves in several public firings, so he can couch his claims—however dubious they may be—in the fact that NPR's response was a de facto acceptance of the video's premise.

Which is why organizations like NPR shouldn't freak out and start firing people until all the facts are known.

Obama's Waterloo

Over the Summer, when Jim DeMint claimed that by blocking health care reform it would be Obama's Waterloo he was really saying that the Republicans would not support it only because it was Obama's agenda. Even if there were ideas the Republicans liked they would unite against it, use their media machine to squash it, and stomp all over the bloody remains of it.
Yesterday I heard two stories on NPR, the last Bastien of true journalism. One highlighted the fact that the current Health Care bill passed in both houses is not that dissimilar than the health bill the Republicans crafted to counter the Clinton bill in the '90s. And, I heard Lamar Alexander (R-TN) state to Robert Siegel that the Republicans favor a step by step approach and not the comprehensive approach favored by the Democrats

SIEGEL: But realistically, are we at a moment when if Republicans could see three of their six steps combined with three things that Democrats like and that you might not like that much, are we at a time when that actually can make sausage in the legislature? Or is this a time when nothing is going to happen?

Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, we could, but wouldn't it be better to say can't we find three things we all agree on? I would think allowing insurance to be sold across state lines to increase competition, reduce prices might be one of them. Usually, we agree on...

SIEGEL: But some people would say in that case, the risk you run is that the least regulatory state, the elusive state might put out insurance policies, might regulate them and there would be a race to the bottom and everybody would buy policies from state X where they don't do much in the way of regulating insurance.

Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, that's true, but that's a problem you would have to address in the legislation, but permitting more competition across state lines might be the better result. I think on any of these proposals, the difference between Democrats and Republicans isn't just left versus right. It's step-by-step versus comprehensive in our goals.

Siegel didn't let him off the hook he said the Republican energy plan calling for 100 nuclear plants, offshore drilling, and making half of the cars electric sounds like a huge program. Alexander said "Well, it's four steps, though. Each of those four steps is not a big surprise. It's these 2,700 page bills that are big surprise."

So a bill, just because it's 2700 pages, is a big surprise and the status quo is better? Sounds to me like they want to humble Obama even if it hurts Americans. They only want bills in simple 4 step process and will ignore the very ideas they promoted 17 years ago just because they are coming from the other side of the aisle.

Interesting

This story is from NPR morning edition.
I like the part about how

"House- and Senate-passed bills have far more in common with the bill put forward by Republicans in 1993 than with the competing plan pressed by then-President Clinton and congressional Democrats."

and

"...to claim that this bill is somehow a left-wing government takeover is rhetoric of a rather extreme sort, no question about it."

Very interesting...

Goldman Under Investigation

So that are a few things that really stink about the financial meltdown. I don't claim to understand all of the intricacies of the market or for that matter even some of them (I think they are intentionally confusing). Two of the financial tools that I find interesting are short selling and hedging. Right now Goldman is under investigation for backing risky sub-prime loans and simultaneously betting against them. According to McClatchy Newspapers,

"Goldman was the only major Wall Street firm to safely exit the subprime mortgage market. however, that Goldman sold off more than $40 billion in securities backed by over 200,000 risky home loans in 2006 and 2007 without telling investors of its secret bets on a sharp housing downturn, prompting some experts to question whether it had crossed legal lines."

Now for some definitions
Short Selling: selling a financial instrument without actually owning it. The purpose is to drive down the price. It is a way to manipulate the market and is illegal under SEC rules. Some people claim it's a benign practice but used over and over to artificially drive the price of a financial instrument down can be destructive. Again this is the process of selling something YOU DON'T ACTUALLY POSSESS. Kind of fuct.

Hedging: Off setting your exposure in one market but taking an opposite position in another market. This is what Goldman is accused of doing. By helping to create and promote the credit default swaps that became the toxic assets key to the meltdown and the betting that those very securities would lose value they hedged and won big time. Additionally, they received back 100¢ on every dollar they invested in other toxic assets, because of the AIG bailout.

Now they whole demonic financial system is trying to demonize Obama as anti-capitalist, anti-market, and anti-investment. They (anyone who doesn't share my views) sucker punched Obama on healthcare will they do in again on finance?