Previously in this space, I have shared that I have been in a dialogue with Bailey Dabney, publisher of the Claremore Progress, regarding Claremore’s tea party last week and the Progress‘ coverage of it. What I did not share was that Mr. Dabney was gracious enough to invite me to respond on the pages of his paper as a guest columnist, rather than in a letter to the editor. He certainly did not have to do so. And when he received my column, he didn’t have to print it, but he did. You’ll find it on the Op-Ed page of today’s (April 21, 2009) Progress and also online here.

[UPDATE—April 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.]

In response to my (and others’) claims that the Claremore Progress’ audio report posted on their site was inaccurate (see original post below), whoever Twitters for the paper as WillRogersPaper just tweeted this:

Some RC folks upset as being characterized as being “angry” while at TEA Party and not in street. Todays Progress

And as proof that participants were demonstrating in the intersection, they offer a link to this twitpic (click for big):

Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? What you see here are not tea party demonstrators protesting in an intersection, though the Progress intends you to think that. You see one man (“Born Free – Taxed to Death”) standing off the curb, though not being a hindrance to traffic, holding his sign. The rest of the people in this picture, which the Progress obviously intends you to interpret as protesters in an intersection, are actually crossing the street at the designated point (i.e., the crosswalk). You see a couple young men transporting signs (obviously not waving them) crossing from east to west, and another group, appearing to be mostly women, crossing from west to east. Notice they all have a raised foot, caught by the camera in the action of walking across the street, at the legal place to do so (presumably after receiving the illuminated “Walk” indication). The woman in the red hoodie holding up her sign is on the sidewalk (notice her height). All in all, a weak attempt to substantiate a fabrication with a misleading picture. Seems the Progress continues to ratify everything people have been saying.

This goes perfectly to my previous point. One can report what actually happened, or because of bias, agenda, or just sloppy journalism, they can report what they want and offer up a clearly mischaracterized picture  as support.

I reassert my previous points: protesters were not demonstrating in the intersection, the demonstrators were certainly not a disturbance to traffic, they were not angry, raving maniacs. It was an orderly demonstration by patriotic Americans, which–judging by the public response as it happened–has significant support. Guess it’s too much to ask that the Claremore Progress get it right, or at least correct the record when they are shown to be wrong.

Oh, and just one question for Progress reporter Krystal Carman, who received photo credit for previous Progress pictures and presumably this one: “Did you cross the street, and if so, where? If you were photographed doing so, would it be fair to accuse you of practicing the craft of alleged journalism (or photography) in the intersection?” Didn’t think so.

[End of Update]

[Original Post]

I was on the scene at yesterday’s Claremore tea party. Loyal readers will recall I provided audio reports from the scene throughout the morning demonstration. I did this using a nifty little program called AudioBoo. Lo and behold, today I see that the Claremore Progress has updated its report about the tea party by uploading an audio report using AudioBoo. I wonder where they got that idea? I don’t mind being a trendsetter. But, the Progress is missing the point. The beauty of technology is that it allows one (in this case, me) to do reports from the scene of the action as it happens. It’s a waste of the technology to use it as the Progress has.

What did they do? Well, according to the Progress website:

Progress Managing Editor Randy Cowling and Staff Writer Krystal Carman talk about the event.

Click the play button below to listen to their commentary.

What a joke! Were these people even at the same event I was? Aside from seemingly missing the metaphorical meaning of a tea party, they seem to be awfully concerned with the distraction to traffic. I was at the 11 a.m. event the entire time, and I never once saw anyone in any intersection. There were ROCO sheriff’s deputies on scene who I witnessed showing demonstrators where they could and could not stand (from the sidewalk out). If there were ever anyone in an intersection, the deputies would no doubt have dealt with it. Demonstrators were lining the streets at intersections, but that is not being in an intersection, and they were certainly not a distraction to traffic. In fact, if you listen to my reports from the scene, you will hear lots of honks of support from the allegedly distracted passersby.

Further, I spoke with several people there, and no one was emotionally angry. Sure, people are passionate about where they stand. But it was no hateful crowd ranting and raving. It was a very collegial and good-spirited gathering. Again, if these were raving lunatics, you could have heard that in my reports. Judge for yourself. It’s also shocking to hear the surprise in their voices as they share that the public is allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights without a permit. Maybe the Progress should be required to get a permit to exercise theirs.

And finally, I would challenge the numbers quoted. There were far more than 50 at the 11 a.m. event, and if they’re off by that much once, how many other things are being slanted by this rag? I’ve alleged the Progress‘ bias for a long time, and these two hacks have proved my point. For too long, certain papers (which are rapidly dying) have reported the news after the fact and after it has passed through a less-than-objective filter. And in print, they can use certain verbiage that makes them seem fair. Audio is another thing. You can hear the bias in the Progress‘ audio report. Just give a listen and judge for yourself.

[NOTICE: MUST CREDIT www.tysonwynn.com WHEN USING MY CONTENT. PLEASE SEE CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.]

I was your man on the scene at the Claremore OK tea party today. I used a nifty little program that allowed me to post audio from the scene via my iphone. (I know this may be a little more geekiness than you need to know, but it uploads to my AudioBoo, which is linked to my Twitter, which is linked to my Facebook (search for me there)). For your listening convenience, here are all of today’s audio reports from the scene.

^Wayland Smalley speaks to the small crowd which gathered before the event began. He didn’t know there were approximately 100 others already demonstrating. (I wasn’t in especially close proximity to Mr. Smalley, so the audio quality isn’t as good as those below.)

^Denise Clinton (no relation), coordinator of the Claremore tea party talks about the event. She also didn’t know how many more were already gathered.

^Interview with demonstrator Steven Knight

^Interview with Sherri Stone, Rogers County GOP Chairman

^Interview with Erin, 16-year-old coordinator of Claremore Homeschool Young Republicans

^Interview with Don James, retired state trooper and tea party participant

^I provide post-tea party wrap up

Pics (Click to Bigify)

And This

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on AudioBoo

We fired up the mics for a new WynnCast tonight, wherein we were joined by Denise Clinton (no relation), coordinator of the Claremore, OK, tax-day TEA party and then Kristin Hoover, also known as The Redneck Diva. Some great President Reagan audio opened the show, and we talked about everything from tea parties to Twitter to tornadoes and trailer parks. Give a listen…

Click Here for WynnCast Goodness

Unfortunately our new president has a bad habit of not telling the truth, especially in regards to numbers.

Thanks to Randall Hoven at The American Thinker blog, you, too, can learn the truth regarding exactly who the Washington big spenders really are. You shouldn’t be surprised.

Included:

Myth. Our national debt doubled in the last eight years.

Fact. Nope, no matter how you measure it. In fact, if adjusted for inflation, real economic growth and population growth, it didn’t budge at all.

***

Myth. President Bush increased spending dramatically. Specifically, he spent more than President Clinton did, dramatically increasing our national debt.

Fact. Only if measured in nominal dollars. But by that measure, or even in inflation-adjusted dollars, Clinton spent more than Bush 41, who spent more than Reagan, who spent more than Carter, on down the line. Measured in a meaningful way, namely as a fraction of GDP, Bush spent less than the pre-Bush average, including that of President Clinton. Similarly, he kept national debt below the pre-Bush average.

***

Myth. Republicans spent more on bailouts than Democrats. After all, Bush’s bailout, supported by John McCain, was $850B while Obama’s stimulus was only $787B.

Fact. It is true that 850 is more than 787. But when you get into who really asked for what amounts, and who voted for those amounts, the Democrats are responsible for 80% of all bailout spending – and the worst 80%.

***

Myth. Bush spent irresponsibly huge amounts of money on his unnecessary war in Iraq and defense generally, crowding out non-defense spending.

Fact. No he didn’t. What he spent was nowhere near unprecedented, as a fraction of GDP. And he spent more on non-defense than Clinton did, even measured as a fraction of GDP.

Read the whole post; Hoven includes all kinds of numbers to back up his claims. What I particularly identified with is the opinion he expressed at the end of his piece. It is something I have tried to articulate for several years, though probably not as effectively as Hoven. He says (pay attention, those of you who consider me a partisan, here comes criticism of my own party):

Myth. When Republicans were in charge, they spent too much.

Opinion. Yes they did.

But why do I say that? I say that because I am a limited-government conservative. I waited 50 years for Republicans to be in charge so they could do what they always said they would do: cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations. They cut taxes a little bit in their first year or two, and that was it. I didn’t want them to do the same thing that had been done the previous 50 years; I wanted them to cut, cut, cut.

Instead, Bush gave us prescription coverage under Medicare, No Child Left Behind, ethanol subsidies, massive transportation bills, etc. I’ve written of this previously (e.g., here and here).

But when all was said and done, spending levels remained about where they were for the previous 50 years (as a fraction of GDP). That is only upsetting to me because I thought Republicans would cut spending.

But if you are a Democrat, you should be pleased as punch. Your worst fears turned out to be unfounded. Here you had a Republican President and Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate and you still got more spending overall, especially on health and education.

Bush didn’t touch Social Security. He expanded Medicare and Clinton’s AmeriCorps. Grandma was not pushed into the street or forced onto dog food. That draft you said was coming right after the 2004 election if Bush won? It didn’t happen.

The only people who should be upset with the Republicans in office are the Republicans who voted for them. The rest of you got what you wanted, namely the same damn status quo that we’d had for the previous 50 years of Democratic-majority rule.

Lessons? Never forget how large a role the Congress plays in spending or cutting (yeah, right!). In retrospect, Clinton’s presidency looks good in some areas because the then-new Republican Congress forced him to do some good things (that worked, by the way). And, as I have said several times before, big government liberals should have loved Presidnent George W. Bush. He brought no threat of paring the government’s size. This leads to the last lesson: liberals consider no government too large, nor any rate of growth too rapid. So long as the populace has one uncommitted dollar, some politician somewhere will develop a plan to help you invest it for the betterment of society.

At least they have the best of intentions.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
-Winston Churchill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, looks like we’re going to get a triple-decker on that proverbial cr@p sandwich. And we are having it forced down our throats by the Obama administration because “it’s good for us.” I have visions of myself sitting at the kitchen table, sandwich on the plate in front of me, shaking my head defiantly that I will not eat it. Mama Obama smiles at me and tells me I can either eat it now or have it cold for breakfast. This, my friends, is the result of a squandered majority and a flubbed election. In short, this is what happens when you run John McCain as the Republican nominee for president. Let’s learn a few lessons here.

But my main point in posting is this: Obama’s policies are decidedly socialistic, I don’t care how he dresses them up. They are not fresh and new, though they might fall from the lips of a charismatic Beautiful Person. They’re all old and tired. And they will fail again, causing great pain upon the masses, as they always do. That’s the problem. Recessions are no fun, but they come when a booming economy slows down. In the socialist paradigm, there’s no boom to bust. It’s all just perpetual drudgery due to the loss of, first, economic freedom, then political freedom, and, ultimately, all freedom. This kind of expansion of the federal government, especially at the hands of Obama surrogates who so obviously lack character, is the first step toward the Gulag.

As for me, I’ll take the ups and downs of capitalism and the free market. Mainly because socialism has no ups. Just a steady and interminable march downward.