Hypocrisy or just abuse of power?

[TheBisexualProfessor]

OK, if you're easily offended, just pass this one by. And if you just want to rant about the former administration in DC, ditto! But if you want to have a reasoned conversation, please reply.

By now we should all be getting used to being told by the Obama Administration that we all have to cut back, we all have to "be green," and we all have to sacrifice. But remember what you learned when you were a kid: some folks talk a great game, but they don't do as they advise others to do.

A few days ago the Obamas wanted to throw a pizza party for some staffers. Great idea. I'm all for pizza parties, and I'm all for rewarding and thanking hard-working folks. But why did the Obamas have to fly Chef Chris Sommers from St. Louis to Washington just for pizza? How does that encourage anyone to "go green," and why is there no outcry in the press ... the same media who went nuts over corporate greed recently.

Look, I know a plane ride for a chef to Washington isn't the same as a $5 Million bonus. But it sends an important signal. Is there something to the complaints out there that Mr. Obama really IS arrogant?

Maybe it's just a simple example of poor judgment. But we're seeing lots of poor judgment lately. The previous admnistration would have been raked over coals for something like this, but Mr. Obama gets a pass. Is this wise? Doesn't it allow for abuse of power?

Like it or not, the "green" regulations and business regulations coming out of Washington will be enforced by a government that has police power. That means that citizens who don't abide by those regulations can be forced to comply. So how is an episode like this Sommers case not an example of an abuse of presidential power? Has government gotten too big, too powerful, and too expensive?

[bityme]

I think it is those who support politicians that have gotten too big and powerful.

Picture this: The economy bombs because lenders gave out bad loans. Investors who bought the loans lose money and then collect on insurance policies that protected them against losses. The insurance company becomes insolvent.

SO

The government gives money to the insurance company to keep it going. Then it gives money to the banks and investment houses to encourage lending. But they don't start lending because they still have the toxic assets to worry about.

Why didn't they go to the source?

How about going to the guys with the bad loans. Give them a grant that pays the loan down to current market value and gives them an interest rate and payments they can handle. Make the grant repayable at the rate of 50% of their gain when the house is sold, up to the total grant, without interest.

This way, the bank or investment house gets paid, they have money to loan and don't have to worry about toxic assets. So the government doesn't need to give them money.

The best part, you don't have to bail out the insurance company because there are no loss claims on the bad loans.

Why will it never work? Because in my suggestion the money goes to the little guy, not to the big guy who contributed to the campaign of the politician.

Recipients of AIG political contributions: #1 Obama, # 2 McCain, # 3 Clinton

They are all used to continuing their extravagances. Whether its the chef for a White House pizza party or the economic bailout, the little guy doesn't matter.

Just my :2cents: as an economics teacher who can't understand why the "government economists" don't see the logic of actually solving the problem.

[MetaSexual2]

As bityme points out, there is a lot to criticise about the continuing culture of corruption in Washington, and the Obama administration already has a lot to answer for. There are also plenty of weighty issues to attack on, such as the recent civil liberties decisions.

The pizza chef issue is just silly though, and is a very good example of the what the Republican party is doing wrong in terms of political strategy. This is small potatoes and it comes off as whiny and petty to hype it. For the Republicans to survive they need to evolve into a responsible opposition party that goes after Democrats on issues that really matter and work on dumping the moron wing of their party. If this doesn't happen, they could find themselves in the minority for a long time.

Government in general has certainly grown too large in certain areas, but its a matter of priorities and efficiency. The current administration hasn't added any significant additional bureaucracy (yet), but the previous one certainly did (most significantly in Homeland Security and the intelligence reorganization). Again, on regulation, its a matter of priorities and effectiveness, not ideology. It is not very bright to make a blanket statement that increasing government size or regulation is either good or bad, it is the possible effects of (or lack thereof) that regulation that is important. One key example... nearly all economists (even rabid free-market ones) agree that the lack of effective regulation of the financial system is a primary cause of the current financial crisis.

[wolfcamp]

If this is the biggest complaint you have, then you don't have much to complain about. A plane ticket from St. Louis costs $500 at most, and much less, certainly, than the cost of food for the party. A chef would have been hired anyway. This nit-pick is invisible in the background noise of Washington spending and decision making.

I agree with MetaSexual2. The Republicans are going to have to rise above this kind of whining and come up with some solid ideas if they are ever to have any credibility in the future.

[FalconAngel]

Fact of the matter to all of this, which seriously includes both of the major parties, is that none of these people really and truly know what it is like to be middle class, poor or jobless.

They are made up of, mostly Lawyers and others who have a "guaranteed work" job and have been in politics for many years or decades. The exceptionally few that did actually come from "lesser means" have forgotten what that is like or never had to remember because it was their parents that struggled, not them.

Time getting through college does not count.

ALL of these people who sound the call of frugality for us never have to do the same. They cry about how they can't fly their corporate jet to vacation anymore because it cost more that taking the airline, when most of the people hearing their complaints can't even afford to take a "no travel" vacation because they are just trying to make ends meet.

What we need to do is no longer elect lawyers and the rich to office. They all suffer from the "Marie Antoinette" syndrome. They are clueless as to how the majority of the country lives and cannot understand how the economic crisis came about.

We also need to hold politicians accountable when they overdraw their congressional bank accounts. Let them feel the sting the exact same way that us "common people" do.

The nation has gone from a "nation of the people, by the people and for the people", to a "nation of the people, by the people and for the rich and clueless".

Obama is right about one thing, though. No change for the better will occur without work.

What he doesn't seem to realize, though, is that will require all of us, not just us common folk, to do the work. The rich will have to start giving sacrifice of their own to the country. If that means paying their fair share of the tax burdon or hiring more people to work, then so be it.

We are in this economic crisis for a few reasons; one is that another rich Republican, Richard Nixon, took us off the Gold standard. Another reason, related to the ultra rich, is that aforementioned "Marie Antoinette syndrome".

The vast majority of them, with only a handful of exceptions worldwide, have no clue about being one of the common people, so they spend money like it's sand; not caring where it comes from and without a single clue as to what financial struggle is really like. Why should they? They have never really had to work all that hard to get where they are, if they ever had to work at all to get the money they enjoy.

[Georgie_Girl]

They should have just ordered from a pizza place. :)

[bityme]

A plane ticket from St. Louis costs $500 at most, and much less, certainly, than the cost of food for the party. A chef would have been hired anyway. This nit-pick is invisible in the background noise of Washington spending and decision making.

Why would they have to hire a chef at all. The White House has a perfectly adequate, full time kitchen staff.

We have to start holding them accountable for the nit-pick items too!

We need a grass roots campaign. RE-ELECT NO ONE. Send a message to them that they need to be responsible to the majority of the voters, not just the privileged few.

[allbimyself]

If this is the biggest complaint you have, then you don't have much to complain about. A plane ticket from St. Louis costs $500 at most, and much less, certainly, than the cost of food for the party. A chef would have been hired anyway. This nit-pick is invisible in the background noise of Washington spending and decision making.

I agree with MetaSexual2. The Republicans are going to have to rise above this kind of whining and come up with some solid ideas if they are ever to have any credibility in the future.Some get it some don't. Claiming this is republican whining is as bad as the Bush apologists claiming that anyone criticizing him wasn't a patriot.

[MetaSexual2]

Some get it some don't. Claiming this is republican whining is as bad as the Bush apologists claiming that anyone criticizing him wasn't a patriot.

If "getting it" means being capable of the type of cognitive dissonance wrapped up in that statement, that has truly wonderful Orwellian implications. I commend you on your mastery of pithy doublespeak.

Seriously though, drawing false moral equivalencies is a very poor debating tactic. Trying to equate telling someone they are being hyperbolic over the cost of plane ticket with calling nearly half the US population unpatriotic is not very honest.

[allbimyself]

If "getting it" means being capable of the type of cognitive dissonance wrapped up in that statement, that has truly wonderful Orwellian implications. I commend you on your mastery of pithy doublespeak.

Seriously though, drawing false moral equivalencies is a very poor debating tactic. Trying to equate telling someone they are being hyperbolic over the cost of plane ticket with calling nearly half the US population unpatriotic is not very honest.Thank you for proving my point.

[hudson9]

I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the irresponsibility of this! $500 to fly a famous chef in for a special occasion?! Does Obama realize if he keeps this up, after another 1,226,298,000 times doing this, he could have paid for the Iraq war? Hell, add only another 20 times to that and he could have paid for all of Rush's Oxycontin!!

You call this responsible?

[JP1986UM]

I have a parent who was addicted to Oxycontin for severe debilitating back pain, are you going to make fun of my father too?

Just asking.....

I thought Mr. Limbaugh was no longer addicted and had gone thru detox and rehab, or does no one ever get off prescription pain meds in your world?

[_Joe_]

Maybe when he called Papa John's pizza, there was a busy signal ?

[hudson9]

I have a parent who was addicted to Oxycontin for severe debilitating back pain, are you going to make fun of my father too?

Just asking.....

I would only make fun of your father if he hypocritically criticized and denigrated other people with substance abuse problems or degenerative nerve diseases. If he would show the slightest degree of remorse for for the things he has said about other people with substance abuse problems, or indicated that he thought that his tax rate might be slightly less important than being able to fund treatment programs, or if he showed any concern for people who need Oxycontin for pain relief but can't afford it because they have no or inadequate health insurance, then I wouldn't make fun of him.

So for clarity, my issue is with Rush, no one else. And I will say a prayer for your father, for his back pain, and that he should have access to the medications and healthcare he needs.

[macman885]

I think it is those who support politicians that have gotten too big and powerful.

Picture this: The economy bombs because lenders gave out bad loans. Investors who bought the loans lose money and then collect on insurance policies that protected them against losses. The insurance company becomes insolvent.

SO

The government gives money to the insurance company to keep it going. Then it gives money to the banks and investment houses to encourage lending. But they don't start lending because they still have the toxic assets to worry about.

Why didn't they go to the source?

How about going to the guys with the bad loans. Give them a grant that pays the loan down to current market value and gives them an interest rate and payments they can handle. Make the grant repayable at the rate of 50% of their gain when the house is sold, up to the total grant, without interest.

This way, the bank or investment house gets paid, they have money to loan and don't have to worry about toxic assets. So the government doesn't need to give them money.

The best part, you don't have to bail out the insurance company because there are no loss claims on the bad loans.

Why will it never work? Because in my suggestion the money goes to the little guy, not to the big guy who contributed to the campaign of the politician.

Recipients of AIG political contributions: #1 Obama, # 2 McCain, # 3 Clinton

They are all used to continuing their extravagances. Whether its the chef for a White House pizza party or the economic bailout, the little guy doesn't matter.

Just my :2cents: as an economics teacher who can't understand why the "government economists" don't see the logic of actually solving the problem.

Don't forget that it was the government (during the Clinton administration) that strong armed the banks into making these bad loans in the first place.

Also to Falconangel...about the rich paying their fair share.
The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the taxes
the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the taxes
the top 40% of wage earners pay over 90% of the taxes
it would seem to me that the rich are paying their fair share

:flag4:

Atlas will shrug

[AmericanBeauty]

As a DC Resident Obama is spending WAY too much money and he's acting like it's no big deal at all.

But that's what politicians do they lie and then spend money that they don't have.

Also as far as GLBT rights go he's not for them as he's appointed Rick Warren and Tony Dungy.

[hudson9]

Don't forget that it was the government (during the Clinton administration) that strong armed the banks into making these bad loans in the first place.
This is so demonstrably false that even most of Fox News isn't making this claim any more. As to:


The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the taxes
the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the taxes
the top 40% of wage earners pay over 90% of the taxes
it would seem to me that the rich are paying their fair share

Atlas will shrug

Don't shrug -- examine the facts:
Between 1967 and 2005, the income increase experienced for the 95th percentile was 555.73% as large as the increase in median income over the same period. In fact, according to Social Science Quarterly:


Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be...

And it's not just median income Americans who are unequal beneficieries of the income shift to the top. The top 1% had more than 200% more increase in income than the top 20%! (So, even if you're a Dr. or lawyer, your still getting screwed by the investment bankers...). But, don't believe me, ask Alan Greenspan:


As I've often said... this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing. - Alan Greenspan, June 2005

And the disparity only gets more extreme as you examine even more privlidged slices of the top 1%... see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU
for a concise explanation of the "L-curve."

So, to say "the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the taxes" -- well, that's because they (especially the top-most sliver of that 5%) control such a disproportionate share of the wealth.

Consider: Median income of the 300 million people in the U.S. is about $40,000/yr.
The top 25% of Americans average $80,000/yr.
The top 10% average $118,000/yr.
The top 5% average $166,200/yr.
The top 1.5% average $250,000/yr.
Rush Limbaugh makes $37.5 million per year (just from his broadcast contract)
Glenn Beck makes $10 million/yr.
The average major league ballplayer (including the guys hitting .185) is $3 million/year.
The AIG execs. were getting bonuses of a million or so each...
...just so you have some idea of what kind of income levels we're talking about. Unless you're making over $1 million/yr., you have a lot more in common interest with people making $40k/yr than with Rush, et. al.

You ain't Atlas. Rush is Atlas. Still wanna shrug?

More detailed and comprehensive info easily available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

[BrotherJack]

They should have just ordered from a pizza place. :)

Maybe dried bread and thin gruel, home made all American humble ''apple'' pie and slugs and snails and puppy dog tails (Oh, No....wrong thought processes...I just meant l'escargot), would have been more appropriate.

Pizza....not all that healthy! Salads, yoghurt (low fat Greek) and bananas...lots of bananas...that's the way to go!!!

[12voltman59]

Most of you probably do not know who John C. Bogle is---he was the founder of the Vanguard Group and its Vanguard Fund--one of the most successful financial organizations out there---they did not take part in all this financial skullduggery that other financial firms had done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bogle

He is a highly respected person in the financial world, both for his sound sense of financial acumen and for his common sense ways of looking at our financial system---

Among his many works on financial issues and matters--he has an award winning book, "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism."

http://books.google.com/books?id=3vJVbxJ46kUC&dq=John+C+Bogle+The+Battle+for+the+Soul+of+Capital ism&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=sqrkScDSCYH1nQfsw9yrCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

Bogle has made himself millions and helped others do so as well via his funds--so he does believe in capitalism and is very much in all sense of the word-"a capitalist."

But in his book--released in 2005--he argued that capitalism had lost its way and detailed its failures.

Much of what he talked about in that book has come to pass--but in conjunction with talking about the failures of capitalism--he has been quite vocal in saying that one of the biggest problems we face in this nation---the ever widening disparity in incomes between those at the top of our society and the rest of us.

In this 2007 interview on the PBS program---The Bill Moyers Journal---that began as a discussion of private equity firms purchasing nursing homes, moves to a general discussion on many of the fundamental problems we now have allowed to seep into our financial system--including the very real problem of income disparity and other topics:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09282007/watch.html

The discussion is a good general discussion on this situation by a man who knows----on the problems in our financial system and our society. Very wise words from a very wise man. The problems he details here--of the problems inherent in the fundamental structure of our current system---if not addressed and corrected--even if we get the economy "moving" again--- that will only be a temporary fix.

Take the time to watch the video.

As far as Macman's comment regurgitating the rightwing talking points memo bulletin piece that "this is all the fault of Barney Frank and the Democrats who forced banks to make bad loans" ----that is simply a total load of 100% USDA Prime Grade Bull Hockey Pucks. That statement holds some truth, but not all the truth, not the whole truth, so help us God!

This statement comes from one of those Orwellian myth making programs that takes a small kernel of truth--then conflates, inflates and exaggerates something into something that is far from the original truth it does contain---so such statements are told over and over again in many ways taking on "truthiness" and becomes a mantra that gets repeated over and over by those who want to scape goat only one group of people--and glossing over the roles of other elements that have far more "blood on their hands."

This current situation has come about for many reasons and there is more than enough guilt to go around to many quarters---but to try to say its all because "poor"* people wanted to buy homes by any means necessary----is BULLSHIT that "just cannot allowed to stand!"

(*---poor meaning primarily blacks and to some degree---latinos)

[AmericanBeauty]

Voltman-What does your tangent have anything to do with Obama and how he's spending way too much money that we don't have?

Also for the record WHITES as well people of over races, were spending way too much money on homes that they couldn't afford and the banks were giving loans away like free water so they are to blame too.

[diamond_tether]

This pizza thing doesn't actually bother me. At all. And here's why...

The Obamas have chosen to use their own money to redecorate the Oval Office, something that *every* president gets a budget for out of our tax money. The last rug alone cost us over $60,000.

They've also chosen not to take money from the White House Historical Association, which funds the president buying a new set of china (as in the dishware). It's not our tax money, but it does send a clear message that wasteful spending isn't something they're truly interested in. And for the record, the last set cost almost $75,000.

Is Obama arrogant? Maybe, but he's also the first minority to make it into the president's office in this country. He's got plenty of reason to be self-confident. Besides, if he's not being called arrogant, he's being called soft and weak due his behavior on foreign relations.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/30/obamas-to-use-own-cash-to-redecorate-white-hosue/

[wolfcamp]

Some get it some don't. Claiming this is republican whining is as bad as the Bush apologists claiming that anyone criticizing him wasn't a patriot.

This is quite a different situation. The charges of non-patriotism were actual strategic attempts by that administration to intimidate and belittle the protesters who were against extreme neocon ideology. The Bush apologists were defending a multibillion dollar war of choice, the loss of freedoms and privacy, and a host of other intolerable actions. That was an accusation leveled directly at a group of people specifically for their opposition views.

The current situation is just a party to bolster staff moral. They spent a few hundred hudred dollars. So fricking what?!?

People can be patriots even if they disagree.
Whining is just whining.

To try to draw this comparison is asinine.

[wolfcamp]

Why would they have to hire a chef at all. The White House has a perfectly adequate, full time kitchen staff.

We have to start holding them accountable for the nit-pick items too!

We need a grass roots campaign. RE-ELECT NO ONE. Send a message to them that they need to be responsible to the majority of the voters, not just the privileged few.

um...wasn't it those staff that he was having the party for?

"Hey, we are going to honor all your hard work by throwing you a dinner party.!!! Oh, by the way, you have to cook the dinner yourselves." :rolleyes:

[wolfcamp]

Don't forget that it was the government (during the Clinton administration) that strong armed the banks into making these bad loans in the first place.

Also to Falconangel...about the rich paying their fair share.
The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of the taxes
the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the taxes
the top 40% of wage earners pay over 90% of the taxes
it would seem to me that the rich are paying their fair share

:flag4:

Atlas will shrug

There were banks that acted responsibly through that period, which proves that nobody was being strong armed if they didn't want to be. It was a quest for quarterly profits, and greed on both sides of the table, that drove those bad loans. Were there policies in place that allowed it to happen? Probably, and that is what we need to fix with new regulations.

20% of the people control over 90% of the wealth in this country. Maybe they AREN'T paying their fair share. Does the term wage earner include those who made millions in the derivatives markets?

[allbimyself]

Again, missed point. It ain't about the money.

For a president who lists the environment as a top priority, added 600 lbs of CO2 emissions (source British Airways carbon calculator) to bring in someone from St Louis when someone local (or doesn't DC have any top chefs?) would have been just fine, is hypocrisy.

And don't tell me that it isn't that much. Leaving a cell phone charger plugged in when not in use, using incandescent vs fluorescent bulbs, etc. etc. adds even less CO2. For reducing emissions EVERYONE must cut UNNECESSARY emissions wherever possible, including the president.

I couldn't care less about the monetary cost. I do care about the example being set.

[MetaSexual2]

The anal-retentiveness of this whole thing is hilarious, but it gets better...

The restaurant in question paid for the flight, and wrapped the trip with another business meeting. The only thing the White House paid for was the pizzas and scheduled the party around the chef's prearranged trip.

[hudson9]

OK Allbi -- but keep that in mind the next time you take a vacation anywhere but in your own neighborhood -- after all you could have relaxed at home, you didn't HAVE to fly to Disneyworld, or drive to Six Flags, or even take the bus downtown to the movies -- heck, imagine the carbon footprint you made going to the movies! You could have ordered from NetFlix! Or pay-per-view! And did you REALLY need to drive to/from the grocery store? You COULD have walked 20 minutes pulling a wagon...

Yes, I "think globally, act locally" -- I turn off any lights not needed to be on at home and at the office, and I DO walk to the post office instead of drive, but every once in a while you need to do something NICE for yourself or your people, to keep morale up -- it's an INVESTMENT so that you/they will have the energy to do MORE, so can we keep things IN PERSPECTIVE?

Hell, he COULD have flown the whole staff to Chicago instead of just the chef to D.C. THAT would have been unreasonable. But to complain about 600 lbs of carbon, in the context of (not even global, but just) US carbon load is like complaining about a fart in a hurricane!

[allbimyself]

OK Allbi -- but keep that in mind the next time you take a vacation anywhere but in your own neighborhood -- after all you could have relaxed at home, you didn't HAVE to fly to Disneyworld, or drive to Six Flags, or even take the bus downtown to the movies -- heck, imagine the carbon footprint you made going to the movies! You could have ordered from NetFlix! Or pay-per-view! And did you REALLY need to drive to/from the grocery store? You COULD have walked 20 minutes pulling a wagon...

Yes, I "think globally, act locally" -- I turn off any lights not needed to be on at home and at the office, and I DO walk to the post office instead of drive, but every once in a while you need to do something NICE for yourself or your people, to keep morale up -- it's an INVESTMENT so that you/they will have the energy to do MORE, so can we keep things IN PERSPECTIVE?

Hell, he COULD have flown the whole staff to Chicago instead of just the chef to D.C. THAT would have been unreasonable. But to complain about 600 lbs of carbon, in the context of (not even global, but just) US carbon load is like complaining about a fart in a hurricane!

I think you better get to know me before you spout off. I have traveled outside a 100 mile radius of my home ONCE in the past 4 years. That was for my bro-in-laws funeral. I avg less that 100 miles driving a month.

He COULD have used a local chef. BTW, according to press stories, it wasn't a staff party. It was for his family.

[allbimyself]

The anal-retentiveness of this whole thing is hilarious, but it gets better...

The restaurant in question paid for the flight, and wrapped the trip with another business meeting. The only thing the White House paid for was the pizzas and scheduled the party around the chef's prearranged trip.
If true that would certainly refute my points. Do you have a source? I've googled and not found anything to support your claims.

[MetaSexual2]

If true that would certainly refute my points. Do you have a source? I've googled and not found anything to support your claims.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/10/right-wing-slams-barack-obama-for-ordering-pizza-really/2

...and to correct myself from above, Obama paid for the pizzas himself.

[allbimyself]

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/10/right-wing-slams-barack-obama-for-ordering-pizza-really/2

...and to correct myself from above, Obama paid for the pizzas himself.

Well, that's interesting. I'd like to see it confirmed simply for the fact that Christopher claims to have spoken to John Fitzgerald at Pi and that the chef in question was Chris Sommers when every other story states it was Ryan Mangialardo (also including interviews with Mr Mangialardo.)

[wolfcamp]

Well, that's interesting. I'd like to see it confirmed simply for the fact that Christopher claims to have spoken to John Fitzgerald at Pi and that the chef in question was Chris Sommers when every other story states it was Ryan Mangialardo (also including interviews with Mr Mangialardo.)

That's one reason this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Nobody has the facts straight. There was no reference story in the original post. My take on this is that the Obamas had a party to honor the employees at the White House. We're probably talking about receptionists and custodians and kitchen staff. I think that's great. I've worked for big companies that treat you like you're a nobody. It gets pretty old to work your tail off with no recognition. Obama tries to make people feel like they are "Somebody". If people want to trash him for that, then that's their business. I'm sure the employees appreciated it. It's really all about people. If you treat people right, they treat you right. THAT's the point I didn't miss.

Coincidentally, I went to see Chris Matthews (Hardball) speak here on campus today, less then two hours ago. Someone asked his opinion about the demise of newspapers. In his response he said the news wires and the syndicated new shows are still the best source of facts. He said the blogs are biased and aren't trustworthy yet, and we shouldn't depend on them for our facts. This is a case in point.