MSM Hearts Hillary

You gotta love the MSM. According to them there is no way for anybody to win the the Democratic nomination except Hillary Clinton. Wow, it's amazing how their time machine works now, but didn't work in the build up to war. If you listen to the media, if Edwards wins in Iowa it kills Obama everywhere else and Edwards won't be able to win anywhere else (Hillary wins). At the same time the media also says if Obama wins Iowa it doesn't matter because Bill Clinton sat out Iowa and Edwards will never get the nomination without the first big win in Iowa (Hillary wins again). The only other option, according to the media is for Hillary to win in Iowa which means she will win everywhere else. So what is the fascination the MSM has with Hillary? Is it just a matter of the MSM willing Hillary to become the nominee? I would have to guess that if Hillary does indeed become the nominee, the very media that is in love with her now will be on the attack in the general.

When it comes to debates the talking heads all say as long as Hillary doesn't lose she wins. What the hell does that mean? In every post debate wrap-up I have seen (to be fair I haven't seen them all), there is at least one person saying Hillary won. In fact, only the last debate on MSNBC that I've seen has the number of people saying Hillary won been so low; Pat Buchanan was the only one stating that Hillary won the debate this time, but the others were quick to point out she didn't lose (however that seems to kick dirt in the face of all of their past post-debate analysis when they declared Hillary the defacto winner by “not losing”). In the pre-debate coverage it is all about how do the other candidates make themselves stand out from Hillary.

When covering the other candidates it seems to always be from the angle of how do they catch up with Hillary Clinton. When you listen to some of the people in the media they state that every Democratic candidate BUT Hillary is too far left to win. While few in the media actually come out and say that, t's implied by saying things like “John Edwards is courting the far left side of the party,” and “Hillary is a candidate that even some Republicans are looking at and saying they could live with her policies.”

Really though, this is a rant about the Media- not Hillary Clinton. I welcome reporting on Hillary along with all the other candidates as long as it is about something. Right now all anybody in in the MSM is doing is reporting on the reporting. I don't think I buy the case some are trying to make that Hillary is the least threating Democratic candidate to the Corporate overlords that control the media (at least not yet, we'll see where this Dan Rather stuff goes) and that is the reason they are so addicted to her. I think it is much simpler than that: lazy reporting (if one can even call it that). There is no journalism going on, these media outlets commission a poll and then yammer on and on about it. There's no digging around, there's no critical looks at her positions, there isn't really any arguments for or against what she is saying. It's not even just picking the low hanging fruit, it's buying the fruit that has all ready been picked, cleaned, and dyed to appeal to the eye regardless of the actual substance that fruit contains.

When someone tries to do a halfway thoughtful analysis of some of the claims the media is making, the discussion is steered right back to where it began. If someone tries to put some of these polling numbers into context, they are told how wrong they are and that the only context the poll numbers need are the polls themselves. Their argument is that the poll numbers are in line with the other polls, and since those numbers have always been in one candidates favor, they will always be in that candidates favor. But when reality is pointed out that in the past this is rarely the case, the media is quick to say this time is different. The past cannot be a predictor of what's to come this time they state because: Currently we have a very unpopular president, there is a woman candidate, there is an African American candidate, Democrats just want someone who can win, the campaign season started earlier this time, every single national poll has Hillary in the lead, one of the candidates is a former first lady, Republicans don't have a clear front runner, or any number of other nonsense they can come up with.

I have no problem with Hillary being the nominee (I do happen to think there are better candidates though), but can the media at least pretend that we still live in some sort of democracy? If we are to believe the media, all the other candidates should just drop out right now and we shouldn't even have a primary process. In fact we don't even need an election in 2008, Hillary won. I guess I really shouldn't expect anything more from an industry that punishes those who accurately report the news, and dare to ask a couple of difficult questions.

A new incandescent bulb

A while back I heard about California thinking about a bill baning incandescent bulbs, and just recently I heard about a bill like this being tossed around in Australia. When I heard about these bills I thought to myself about how horrible an idea it is. I am all for reducing greenhouse gases, but banning light bulbs? During the day my house is lit by natural daylight, and at night the bulk of the lights in my house have CFL bulbs in them.

CFL are great little energy savers, but they aren't the be all and end all of lighting. For one thing you can't use them everywhere. Some of the lights in this house I wish I could throw a CFL into but they just don't fit, the fixtures were designed for a standard bulb. They don't do well in areas with a lot of moisture (bathrooms), and they really don't have as pleasing light as an incandescent bulb does. Not to mention that a CFL will never have the throw (CFL are a softer, more diffused light) that an incandescent light will have. While they are getting better about this, CFLs still have the potential to give you a headache since they aren't consistently emitting light like an incandescent (most CFL have ballasts on them that step up the electricity to 120 or more Hz so they are less likely to cause headaches). Also CFL can't dim (useful in film making).

I am a film and video guy, so I use a sorts of different kinds of lights in my job. When I first heard of this proposed ban on incandescents I thought that it could have to potential to screw over a lot of low budget and even big budget filmmakers who use normal everyday, 98 cent incandescent light bulbs everyday for lights on set and as extra fill lights (a household light bulb in a chinesee lantern makes a great soft fill light). Also if it wasn't worded carefully it could cut off the supply of bulbs for the big film lights as well, not to mention all the lights in projectors.

So here is the good news, GE has devolved a new high efficiency incandescent lamp. The new bulbs will emerge as about twice as efficient standard incandescents bulbs and ultimately they will be four times as efficient and will make them comparable to CFLs. This is a much better solution that trying to regulate light bulbs. These lights are expected to hit the market by 2010.

By the way, I am no way trying to say don't use CFLs, just that these were silly bills. Bills like these were really only ment to give the impression that they are trying to do something for the environment without really doing anything. Why not try to regulate the way electricity is made instead?

GE's press release about the new bulb:
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/?epi_menuItemID=989a6827590d7dda9cdf6023a0908a0c&epi_menuID=c791260db682611740b28e347a808a0c&epi_baseMenuID=384979e8cc48c441ef0130f5c6908a0c&ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&div=946895406&newsId=20070223005120

Good for Barack!

In a speech today Barack Obama not only called for universal health care, but he said it should be in place by the end of the next President's 1st term! Six year until universal health care? I hope so!

I still haven't decided who my favorite is yet, but Obama just got some points today in my book!

Media Vs. Barack Obama

The attack dogs have come out early and are nipping at Mr. Obama already. Is Barack the best canidate for 2008? I don't know yet, but some of the things the media is saying about him are just silly.

Here's CNN saying he looks too much like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's President.



You could expect this from Fox, but CNN? Come on.