Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Snow Job: Is More Power worth Less Pay?

Snow Job: Is More Power worth Less Pay?
Bevin Chu
April 25, 2006

Snow Weighing White House Spokesman Job
Time Magazine
April 25, 2006

If conservative pundit Tony Snow gets the okay from his doctors, he may become President Bush's third press secretary — and a rare outsider in an insular administration, By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON



Tony Snow, the conservative commentator and Fox News host, is awaiting a follow-up report from his oncologist before deciding whether to accept an offer to become President Bush’s third White House Press Secretary. Snow, 50, had his colon removed when he was diagnosed with cancer last year. One of his doctors initially approved him to take the grueling job, joking that the post wouldn’t give him cancer, although it might give him heartburn.

Comment: All joking aside for the moment, those familiar with the principles and practice of holistic medicine know that lying to others on a continual basis, then repressing the negative feelings one cannot help but experience about such lying, can very well give one cancer, in addition to ulcers and heartburn.

Time Magazine: The offer to Snow is a departure for Bush, who has rarely elevated outsiders to top jobs, let alone an outsider who brings his own celebrity and authority. But with his polls at historic lows for an historic length of time, the President has decided to make a few fundamental changes while sticking to his guns in other areas, notably retaining Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Comment: What "fundamental changes" has Bush decided to make? President Bush, like "president" Chen Shui-bian, who is also suffering from low ratings, has defiantly chosen not to make any fundamental changes, only cosmetic changes. If changing the White House's PR flak is genuinely considered a "fundamental change" by the US major media, then the Fourth Estate and by extension, the nation is in worse trouble than libertarians thought.

Time Magazine: White House officials said Bolten has made communications a priority and has calculated that it is in the President’s interest to engage reporters. The appointment could be expected to buy the White House at least temporary good will with the White House press corps. White House aides have generally been excited by the idea and view it as a breath of fresh air ...

Comment: Wow. Toss the White House press corps a scrap from the table by appointing a celebrity pundit, "one of theirs" to the job and their hearts are all aflutter. To characterize the job Tony Snow has been offered as a "snow job" is not a cheap shot, but a depressing truth. HL Mencken, where are you when we need you?

Time Magazine: Saying he was concerned about the loss of family time and the "massive cut in pay," [Snow added]: "The up side is that for somebody like me who's been a pundit for many years, you sit around and you think about the way the world should be, you become part of something that's very rare, which is an inner White House circle, where you've got to make decisions. So there is something that has a sort of perverse attraction, which is it's a meaty, substantive job with real responsibilities." The question for Snow, and his doctors, is whether the excitement is worth the hassle.

Comment: No, the question for Snow is whether more power is worth less pay.

As Butler Shaffer astutely observed in his recent article, "Power is What They Want":

We do not pay sufficient attention to the fact that statists are less interested in either the substance of their specific “problems,” or the merits of their proposed solutions, than in retaining and aggrandizing control over the lives of others. We spend far too much of our time giving credence to statists’ issues by making reasoned or empirical responses to their proposals, and too little time addressing the underlying power ambitions.

What Snow said was:

"The up side is that for somebody like me who's been a pundit for many years, you sit around and you think about the way the world should be, you become part of something that's very rare, which is an inner White House circle, where you've got to make decisions. So there is something that has a sort of perverse attraction, which is it's a meaty, substantive job with real responsibilities."

What Snow meant was:

Merely commenting on government policy for all these years without being able to make government policy was frustrating. Now I've got a chance to be part of the "inner White House circle" that issues commands that 290 million Americans must obey. Now that's what I call a "meaty, substantive job with real responsibilities!" Now that's got a real "perverse attraction" for me! In fact, it's got me tingling all over!

1 comment:

  1. Is more power worth less pay?

    Comment:
    That question depends upon how one adds. More power can add more pay. It may be a simple matter of time.

    I’ve added the China Desk to my daily routine. Reading honest and accurate commentary is vital, when the horizon is so precariously uncertain, vital to those of us who try to add accurately.

    In the past, while most of the commentary ignored China. I’ve wondered why? I’m almost as curious as to why most of the commentary continues to ignore China; rather the China vs. the U.S. question, almost as curious as to that power interdependence scenario, as I am curious as to why people do not, and will not, discuss commentary accurately.

    Are we all trained to talk at each other?

    Example:

    I have a question that may be important enough for people to discuss accurately so as to answer the question accurately, in a practically manner, whereby some form of agreement, as the validity of the answer, is sought after and reached.

    I ask the question and the question is ignored. Comments concerning the question may be issued. The comments go like this: Your question is stupid or your question is confusing. Comments are usually followed up with this: Learn to write or the answer can be found here – stupid.

    I’ll try here.

    Question:

    Power can make more power. It is not perpetual motion; rather a simple process of adjusting the form of energy.

    Why then can people not see a need to use power to make more power?

    I know for a fact that some people understand how power independence works, however, they tend to use constructive energy to empower destructive goals. So my question is aimed at anyone interested in figuring out how to better understand the real problem. My question is not aimed at those who already see the final solution as a means to an end.

    Discussion can occur here:
    http://www.power-independence.com/
    I’m not holding my breath

    ReplyDelete