Conservative resources

[spotty_dog]

Since the election, I'm working really hard to be an informed citizen. I've been reading daily news and other publications regularly, as well as books about the history and future of our country's social structure and civic infrastructure.

But I really prefer to see all sides of an issue. And although I'm trying to avoid the strongly-left bubble-enforcing material, I'm still feeling a lack of balance since I don't have any strongly-right bubble-expanding material to refer to.

So I thought I'd come here. If you identify as conservative, and especially if you supported Trump in this election, where do you get your news/opinion/current events/politics? Especially thinking of [MENTION=5155]Kudzoo[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1247]GrayMatterWife[/MENTION], but anyone who can pipe up, please do.

I'm reading NY Times daily (avoiding the opinion columns), scanning the WSJ headlines and picking up any interesting articles via my library's news database, and I'm reading the Economist and the Atlantic magazines through my library's Zinio app.

Where else should I be looking?

[GrayMatterWife]

. . . So I thought I'd come here. If you identify as conservative, and especially if you supported Trump in this election, where do you get your news/opinion/current events/politics? Especially thinking of [MENTION=5155]Kudzoo[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1247]GrayMatterWife[/MENTION], but anyone who can pipe up, please do.

To be clear: I am a fiscal conservative, a security hawk, and a Constitution originalist--so you understand where I am coming from. Although I voted for Trump, I certainly don't consider myself a "supporter" of him. As I have mentioned here before, I voted for the person I felt would do the least amount of damage on the issues I prioritize.

I get my daily print news (and I read a LOT of daily print news) from the same a lot of other Americans get their news: WSJ, NYT, LA Times, Dallas Morning News, WashPo, etc. I hate the Atlanta Journal Constitution (the paper in the town where I live), so I don't really read it. USA Today is written for the reading level of the average second grader, I swear; it is a waste of space; I don't read it. I also read the entire news and business news sections of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch every day, because my job is in StL.

I get my daily TV news primarily from FoxNews and FoxNews Business because I find the news broadcasters to be the least snotty and elitist. I don't think their endless bevy of blonde beauties helps with their general image, though. Christiane Ammanapour certainly has more gravitas in her presentation. However, I get the distinct feeling that CNN and MSNBC news broadcasters (1) think I am ignorant because I am conservative, and (2) are condescending assholes who are trying to sell me their version of truth...so I generally don't watch CNN or MSNBC. It's too bad. I used to watch those stations a lot. But, in general, I don't watch much TV news anymore--Fox or otherwise. And I never watch the news on ABC, NBC, or CBS. I doubt I've seen those evening news broadcasts in more than a decade. They are superficial.

I subscribe to and read the following magazines: The Economist and The Weekly Standard.

I read HuffPo, National Review, and The Federalist websites regularly.

My homepage is The DrudgeReport, which is a clearinghouse of conservative-leaning (but not uniquely so) news articles and editorials posted on other websites.

I often read the op-eds in the NYT, LA Times, and WashPo. I rarely agree with the stuff I read there, but it would be hard to call oneself remotely informed on current positions in popular political culture if one does not know who Thomas Friedman is... I've read almost everything he has written since "From Beirut to Jerusalem" in the 80s.

[spotty_dog]

Oh, National Review, that's the one I was trying to remember recently. My uncle had referred to it.

I don't really have a way to watch TV news, and my life is much more conducive to reading than to watching in general, so print media it is.

Pulitzer Prize-winning commentators, that is a category I should definitely peruse!

I've always admired people who keep themselves informed. I have just frankly not been one of them. I watched TV news for a while in my 20s, listened to NPR on my commute and maybe took a local newspaper sometimes, but Facebook has been my main source of current events for about a decade now. I'm ready for a change.

Thanks for the input!!

[Kudzoo]

I have given up on most corporate news. They are beholden to special interest, whether that be corporations or political groups. I will read or watch Fox, CNN, or MSNBC if I want to be a masochist and annoy myself from time to time. Forbes & WSJ seem to be the most conservative leaning publications. If nothing else I will browse WaPo or NYT, to understand outside perspective. I tend to lean Libertarian and mostly read Reason Magazine, FEE (The Foundation for Economic Education) [you may like that one [MENTION=1247]GrayMatterWife[/MENTION] they're based in Atlanta] or Intellectual Takeout, for an external perspective. I would fall short of being a Trump supporter, but have found myself as a defender lately. Not for his childish antics, but on the criticism of his appointments and executive actions which have yet to begin. I'm in a holding pattern, but appreciate the America first approach. Especially on the economy. The world is a lot less black and white than the media pushes.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[Vanquisher]

Here's an infographic that I found interesting. I don't know that you'll agree with the classifications, but...

[spotty_dog]

I would fall short of being a Trump supporter, but have found myself as a defender lately. Not for his childish antics, but on the criticism of his appointments and executive actions which have yet to begin. I'm in a holding pattern, but appreciate the America first approach. Especially on the economy. The world is a lot less black and white than the media pushes.

I try to be a counterpoint and a voice of reason to my liberal auntie who rages at everything Trumpish. I bet you'd like my crotchety uncle, who voted third-party but who bristles at other people's hair-trigger Trump criticism.

I honestly do want to believe that a non-traditional off-the-cuff no-sanctity-for-tradition approach, checked by Congress, could work. But it's getting harder to believe. His influence on foreign policy is already being felt, and with two children in public school, I'm aghast at DeVos and her ignorance of all things public education policy.

(Edit: Jeebus. As a former physicist, I wanted to believe that Perry was appointed to Secretary of Energy because of Texas's role in nuclear waste disposal. But no, he thought he'd be a "global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry???" His criticism when he offered to dismantle the department was that "They’ve never created one bit of energy, the best I can tell???" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/u...ald-trump.html We have a President-elect calling for an arms race and an Energy secretary who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. This just isn't even close to a joke any more.)

[MENTION=1013]Vanquisher[/MENTION], I found that graphic a couple of weeks after posting this thread. I've used it as a rough guide to my explorations in news media. The original has a little more detail. https://www.facebook.com/vanessa.ote...55006385626062

It's a good reminder to ease back on my reliance on NY Times -- and to catch up on my reading of the Economist! Thanks for the resources [MENTION=5155]Kudzoo[/MENTION], I hadn't heard of most of those print media!

[GrayMatterWife]

. . . FEE (The Foundation for Economic Education) [you may like that one [MENTION=1247]GrayMatterWife[/MENTION] they're based in Atlanta] or Intellectual Takeout, for an external perspective. . ,

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Thanks!!

[SoonerTexan]

Edit: Jeebus. As a former physicist, I wanted to believe that Perry was appointed to Secretary of Energy because of Texas's role in nuclear waste disposal. But no, he thought he'd be a "global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry???" His criticism when he offered to dismantle the department was that "They’ve never created one bit of energy, the best I can tell???" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/u...ald-trump.html We have a President-elect calling for an arms race and an Energy secretary who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. This just isn't even close to a joke any more

You know, I was rolling my eyes at this myself earlier today, but I'm starting to think the criticism (which mostly seems to come from an NYT article--every other article points back to it as the source) is a little unfair. Is the the best candidate? Probably not. I'm not entirely sure he is the worst, though. And it apparently isn't the first time someone with little experience in the area (maybe even less) has been named...by a Democratic president, no less. You may not like how he ran Texas, but he did run it for years, and that isn't insignificant.

[spotty_dog]

Yeah, it certainly isn't a prerequisite for the Secretary of Energy to be a PhD, but through history the appointment to this Cabinet post seems to have reflected the focus of the department. Past secretaries were determined to work on energy infrastructure, or on climate change, or on new technologies, and had experience that was relevant in those areas. But for the last several years the department's major thrust has been nuclear nonproliferation and negotiation with Iran, which is why there have been nuclear physicists heading the department up. If the president sees a different route for the department, especially as he literally said he's in favor of nuclear proliferation and that the Iran deal was a horrible mistake, then okay, it's fine, I get that he'll carry out that vision by going another direction with his appointment. But appointing a guy who until last month had NO idea that the department has almost NO oil and gas influence (that's the department of the Interior!) -- even though he's been on record since 2011 talking about how the department should be abolished? It really just feels like lunacy, with absolutely no big-picture foresight, and that's not just partisan politics, I don't think.

Maybe it's that I think nuclear nonproliferation is really REALLY important, with North Korea claiming a successful test a few months ago, and Russia bragging about its modernization, and Trump riling up Pakistan-India relations and China-Taiwan relations, and of course the omnipresence of Iran and the tenuous nuclear deal. And ever since I heard a talk from Dr. Richard Smalley about energy production back in 2004, I've been pretty convinced that safe nuclear power is pretty much our only viable way forward to meet our energy needs in the coming decades (whether we try to scale back fossil fuel use and emissions for climate change reasons or not.) So that kind of leadership in that department would be super too. I'm not criticizing his governorship, I know little about Perry except that his politics are WAY conservative for me. But that doesn't even really play in to my concerns about this appointment, especially after watching a little of his confirmation hearing. :\

Speaking of which, I've heard several appointees basically saying "I'll hire the right people and have them look into it," (about the most basic aspects of their departments that they've had weeks and months to learn about) and it reminds me of my PTA nonsense. The guy we've got as president of the PTA is a good guy. He agreed to take the role because he's pretty confident about talking to people and making decisions with sound judgment. But he doesn't know jack about what the organization does now or has done in the past. And he doesn't have a clear vision for where he wants it to go. And his lack of direction is reflected in our lack of efficacy. So you only have to be a good leader to hold a high-level management position? I'll submit that you still need to know whom and what you're managing, and why.

[SoonerTexan]

Yeah, it certainly isn't a prerequisite for the Secretary of Energy to be a PhD, but through history the appointment to this Cabinet post seems to have reflected the focus of the department. Past secretaries were determined to work on energy infrastructure, or on climate change, or on new technologies, and had experience that was relevant in those areas

Except for Bill Richardson under Bill Clinton. I wasn't old enough at the time to understand how or why he was the pick. It apparently didn't go well either, though?

But appointing a guy who until last month had NO idea that the department has almost NO oil and gas influence (that's the department of the Interior!) -- even though he's been on record since 2011 talking about how the department should be abolished? It really just feels like lunacy, with absolutely no big-picture foresight, and that's not just partisan politics, I don't think.

See, I agree with you in that I really don't think he is the right person for the job. (Actually, I think the best people for the job are rarely going to get it due to the nature of political appointees, which sucks, but is what it is). I don't think you can assume he will be an absolute disaster based on what he said during a debate 5 years ago and the New York Time's assertion that he just didn't understand what the Department was about at all. I think it was a bit of a hit job, actually.

Actually, unless he never read the policy paper written in his name for his 2012 run ( I mean, I guess it is possible), he had a decent understanding of what the Department of Energy does. Actually, moving the nuclear functions under the Dept of Defense doesn't seem like the worst idea ever, though he's clearly already backtracked from that now that he is potentially going to hold the reins. You can read it for yourself (Page 13)

http://documentslide.com/documents/r...ashington.html

[SoonerTexan]

Continued:


Here is the relevant portion:

Department of Energy
The Department of Energy should be eliminated, with key functions transferred to other more appropriate departments.
The Department of Energy also represents an over- reach of the federal government. Since its establishment in 1977, the Department of Energy has grown to a budget of over $45 billion, 17,000 federal workers, and 100,000 contract workers.54,55 e department also operates 37 different subsidy programs, and continues to spend taxpayer dollars to skew the energy market.56 To make matters worse, nearly 90 percent of the department’s budget is spent on contracts with third parties, with little to no oversight for those who receive taxpayer funding.57

Instead of funding an over-sized federal agency to exert influence on the market, we should allow private industry and the private market decide which technology is the most cost-effective for the American people. Instead of allowing the federal government to decide which forms of technology and sources of energy merit further research and development, we should give industry the freedom to invest in the technology they believe will succeed in the market- place, through tax incentives for research and development and significantly lower corporate tax rates.

There are numerous examples of unnecessary programs within the Department of Energy. Over $9 billion are spent annually within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which administers federal subsidies through speci c programs for each major renewable energy source or efficiency technology.58 By abolishing EERE‘s programs, the federal government could save up to $24 billion over a 10-year period, and even the Congressional Budget Office agreed that the private sector performs technology development, demonstration of commercial feasibility and the deployment of new technologies better than the federal government.59 Eliminating the Office of Fossil Energy Research would save $1 billion, particularly in an area where private industry has the resources and desire to conduct this research independently (funding at least $20 billion on R&D alone in 2010).60 e Power Marketing Administration is another example. e administration exists to provide primarily market wholesale power from hydroelectric dams operated in select states. Eliminating federal funding for Power Marketing Administrations would save over $1billion. e programs described above represent a small selection of the many unnecessary programs embedded in the Department of Energy. e only way to guarantee the Department of Energy does not continue to grow, or allow a re-introduction of federal intervention in the energy market, is to fully abolish the department.

However, within the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and other key nuclear programs must be preserved and re-located to the Department of Defense. Our nuclear technology and capability (both civilian and military) are essential to U.S. national security, and must be preserved. The Department of Defense is a natural location for our nuclear programs, protecting our vital national security interests, and preserves the structure that supports our nuclear power system.

And this is exactly why you have people who refuse to believe anything the "liberal media" says--sometimes mainstream media is guilty of bending the truth if they can get away with it too.

[SoonerTexan]

Also, this particular line of the NYT article really hacks me off:

For Mr. Moniz, the future of nuclear science has been a lifelong obsession; he spent his early years working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Mr. Perry studied animal husbandry and led cheers at Texas A&M University

That's irresponsible journalism. What if we worded it like this instead?:

For Mr. Moniz, the future of nuclear science has been a lifelong obsession; he spent his early years working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Mr. Perry spent six years in the United States Air Force and led the State of Texas as Governor

And the cheerleader thing? They're going to use the fact that he was a yell leader at A&M to try and discredit him? How is that relevant at all? Heck, my FIL was a full on cheerleader in spandex in college and he was president of his specialty's professional organization last year.

[spotty_dog]

And this is exactly why you have people who refuse to believe anything the "liberal media" says--sometimes mainstream media is guilty of bending the truth if they can get away with it too.

I'm not a fan of half-truths, I usually try to get to the bottom of things before making judgments based on half-truths, and I should have looked deeper since there is no direct quote attributed to the accusation that he literally thought he'd be an "ambassador for oil and gas." And yeah, clearly there had to have been *some* background behind his campaign call to demolish the department, even if he couldn't recall any of it under pressure.

But I do think that even the position paper (and his nomination acceptance where he said, "I look forward to engaging in a conversation about the development, stewardship and regulation of our energy resources, safeguarding our nuclear arsenal, and promoting an American energy policy that creates jobs and puts America first,") shows a failure to grasp that much more of the budget is in nuclear research than in industrial energy research.

I don't know. It's all of a part and parcel with the rest of the appointments. I do keep trying to see some kind of non-traditional tradition-busting shake-up that will bring new ideas and efficiency (even if they're not the ideas that my progressive bleeding heart wants to see.) It's so hard though, both because of the liberal bubble and also because seeing SO much of our staid democracy and world order shaken up at once is overwhelming and scary. (<-- Yes, I see the irony, I know that Obama represented an upheaval that was overwhelming and scary to a lot of people too. But dang do I see a lot of babies thrown out with bathwater, and biting of hands that feed you, and so on, with this new administration…)

[SoonerTexan]

I will say I learned way more about The Department of Energy today than I EVER knew before. It's kind of a weird mish mash of an organization. Maybe Rick Perry had it right back in 2012?

We know so little about what our government truly does and how it runs. It's scary on all counts.

[spotty_dog]

We know so little about what our government truly does and how it runs. It's scary on all counts.

I'm kind of finding it to be a silver lining of this tumultuous process. The Senate has to confirm HOW many appointments? What kinds of bills can and can't they filibuster? HOW do members of congress receive feedback from constituents? The President's Daily Briefing tries to coordinate information from HOW many intelligence agencies? It's like a crash course in civics, except unlike my high school class in 12th grade, I actually care. >.<