Sunday, July 8, 2012

Whoa, Koch Brothers Finally Make the Big Time

In tonight's episode of the new HBO series, The Newsroom, the Koch brothers were front and center.

The show is written from an insanely leftist pro-government interventionist point of view and this episode focused on the Tea Party. Rand Paul and his brief controversy over comments he made about  restaurants and private property versus the civil rights act, gets a brief 10-second mention.

But the serious focus is on the Koch brothers. Charles Koch and David Koch are both mentioned by name. It is implied (probably accurately) that the Koch brothers control the Tea Party. A full 15% to 20% of the episode has the Koch brothers being discussed.

Jane Fonda makes her debut on the show as the power (controlling stockholder?) behind the news outfit  featured in the series and in this episode she is concerned about the news team going after the Koch brothers. Her memorable line comes when discussing the brothers, where she states that they "will drop a Brinks truck on you" if you become a problem.

The show also mentions that the brothers can buy George Soros many times over.

Will the mainstream be diverted to the idea that the battle is between leftist interventionists and the Koch Brothers/ interventionists and that this is the full spectrum of views on politics and government?

Probably so.


  1. It is comical how the entire show is about being as objective as possible, yet it is so unbelievably biased to the left, as you mention.

    The 10 seconds of Rand Paul he asks, "So you would make it legal for a private business to refuse to serve black people" or something to that effect.

    There is never an answer to that question. The answer, (maybe no longer Rand's but certainly still the libertarian one) is a resounding yes.

    Supporting the freedom of private individuals to be racist does not mean you are racist, or support racism.

    It is not racist to oppose legislation that forces business or homeowners to allow everyone into their places of business, or homes.

    As an aside, who the hell thinks racism is solved by forcing the local KKK bar into accepting those racial groups they despise? How exactly does this elegant government solution work in practice, anyway?

    Or is it that the law came about at a time when market forces were already breaking down the institutionalized racism (racism that government enshrined and protected for so long) that the Civil Rights Act served more as an acknowledgement of that fact, as opposed to being the catalyst for such action.

    And does anyone really think if we lived in a society where the government could not mandate private businesses to serve everyone that Walmart would start throwing up "No Blacks Allowed" signs?

    I mean look at the political landscape and pop culture conversation in America today. The fear of even being perceived as racist is enormous. Firms spend millions of dollars on PR, yet the only thing stopping them from saying "No Asians, please" is the government?

    The only actual effect legislation like this has is to erode the sphere of freedom (yes freedom includes the freedom to be or say things we despise, that's kinda the point) while expanding the role and power of government over the private sector.

    And that's why libertarians oppose legislation like the Civil Rights Act, not because they are closeted racists.

    It's a testament to how intellectually retarded the political discourse in this country has become that this position is virtually never espoused for fear of being greeted with a foaming at the mouth "You racist!" response from the media, and most of society, alike.

    1. Actually, racists are the PRINCIPAL BENEFICIARIES of Civil Rights legislation.

      Suppose Racist Wall Street Bankster, Inc. decides it needs to hire an economist. Walter Williams is one applicant and Paul Krugman is the other. Is Racist Wall Street Bankster, Inc. better off if:

      A) They say, "We aren't going to hire Williams, he's black. Let's go with Krugman."

      B) They say, "We better hire Williams, or else we will be in trouble with the Civil Rights Act, even though we prefer Krugman since he isn't black."

      Doing option A will result in significant losses, if not go out of business entirely. Doing option B will increase their profits.

      As a result of Civil Rights legislation, a bunch of racists get to fatten their wallets instead of being forced by Mr. Market to live the rest of their lives in squalor.

  2. Don't know about other places but in NJ the local tea party seemed pretty straightforward - the leaders limited the political adjenda strictly to fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Its pretty hard to see how any crony capitalist, statist or interventionalist could benefit from that

  3. MyFirstNameIsPaulJuly 9, 2012 at 4:25 PM

    I agree with you, Robert, but I'm going to give the show a chance anyway. I was happily surprised at Homeland for explaining the cause of terrorism to be blowback, even though they show all the investigators violating people's rights to be doing so valiantly in the chase for legitimate bad guys (I'm hoping they'll address the privacy issues in the next season). So I'll give The Newsroom a season before passing full judgement.

    And speaking of the Kochs, have you seen the latest Reason video on public-private partnerships? The comments indicate that even Reason subscribers are not fooled.

  4. As a TV show, I've enjoyed the first three episodes of The Newsroom. However, Episode Three is certainly a very naked attempt to damage the Tea Party prior to the upcoming (fall 2012) elections. It seems like this may be the overarching goal of the program. When one adds the presence of Jane Fonda, with her background, the show’s bias is even more telling. As to libertarians and the free market, one of the central points of a free market is to let idiots run their own businesses into the ground and not bail them out. IT is the way the free market let healthy businesses survive and poor business models fail. Hence, a racist business owner who will not hire a proven specialist due to their color (or creed or sexual persuasion), and hires instead someone clearly not qualified, will likely weep rather than reap. "Conservatives" recognize that there should be some boundaries but often place a political priority on their own spending pets. But the Tea Party is more about limiting manipulative reach of government no matter who is trying to line their pockets with our money and recognizing that money belongs to the people that earn it and should not falsely be taken by governments or politicians to dole out to those entities and individuals that will help them gain power and control others. "The Newsroom" is an example of how the far left uses entertainments' bully pulpit to leverage political change by demonizing those who expose its bias. HBO’s “The Newsroom” is an entertaining exercise in “foaming at the mouth” propaganda. If it gets too deep for my waders, I'll get some hockey glass to protect my big screen TV and shoot pucks at it while I watch the writers twist their characters into a frenzy. //DOC

  5. So what did they say about the Koch brothers and the Tea Party is wrong ?