Friday, June 6, 2008
Media Bias
Whether bias has always been present or not, because of the internet, the media is now feeling pressure to become more fact-based if they are to survive as an informational outlet. Media are fighting for viewers and readers using hype and highly emotional stories. Unfortunately, the American people are easily manipulated and mesmerized by “reality” stories, causing the news to shift to less important drama while giving real news a pass. Some examples of news almost unworthy of the national attention and playtime received are car chases, Natalie Holloway, mine disasters, OJ, Paris Hilton, and Jessica Lundsford. While these stories may merit some airplay, they received much more attention than straight news stories regarding crime and punishment in America, successes of the U.S. healthcare system, or the economy.I’ll follow with some examples which should interest the public, but would not be "acceptable" to some news outlets. NOAA gave 2007 a 75% chance to have a worse than average hurricane season, but according to Florida State University, hurricane activity is lower in 2007 than in any other year since 1977. If hurricanes had been worse, we would be bombarded by stories about global warming and how the Bush administrations policies were either causing them or leaving us unprepared for disasters because the National Guard is fighting in Iraq. Since everyone understands the complex mechanism of global warming, I'm certain they can explain why there are less hurricanes in just one year.Here's another story. Recently, the Democrat head of the Homeland Security Committee told congressional aides visiting a NASCAR event to undergo vaccinations prior to the trip. These vaccinations included hepatitis, diphtheria, tetanus, and influenza. The story was blown off as a necessary precaution since they were touring medical facilities at the track. One wonders if they get these same vaccinations prior to travel to Johns Hopkins or Walter Reed. This story could be indicative of a little bigotry. Where's the national outrage and an explanation?Extremely important were Hillary Clinton's remarks at an Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee luncheon. Hillary said she would immediately end the war in Iraq upon taking office. She's also said she supports the war, will create a plan for withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, and has stated that she will not take any options off of the table with Iran, including war, if Iran pursues nuclear weapons. I don't personally know anyone who has changed their mind about war more than once...and everyone I know is not a US Senator running for President. Also, at a town hall meeting in South Carolina in October, Hillary stated that any attempt by Iran to disrupt the oil flow would warrant military retaliation. Is she for or against war? Would someone please ask her bluntly and in-depth what she does believe?Although the mainstream media mentioned all of these issues, they aren't debating and investigating them as they should. It’s dangerous when the daily stories involve emotional news instead of important news which would enlighten the public. I know the issues I cited are conservative ones and there are liberal ones too, but a biased media of any slant can slowly lead us into the Orwellian world of the novel "1984." Orwell published it in 1949. You need to read it. I remember reading it in high school and thinking how ridiculous it was with "right-think" and "newspeak." They even had government workers going into news archives and books changing the text in the documents. Most people don't realize that congress can "amend the record" and actually change the historical transcripts of the congressional proceedings. "Big Brother" in Orwell's novel controlled everything and no one was there to stop them. The media is our "Big Brother" and needs to watch over us all and hold people accountable for damaging words and actions of a national importance. Let's hope they come to their senses soon.
Global Warming Tax Grab
As we stupid Americans sit watching "Dancing With the Stars" and "American Idol," the Senate was debating a bill to grab your money all in the guise of global warming. The bill is called "Cap and Trade." Instead, they should've called it "Tax and Spend." Sponsored by Joe Lieberman (DEMOCRAT turned Independent) and John Warner (LIBERAL Republican), the bill would put a cap on carbon emissions that gets lowered every year. What they are planning on doing, is setting a limit on total carbon emissions and then selling rights to the emissions to industry. Yes, let's make those greedy corporations pay up for using up the Earth!!
As I will say over and over until I turn into fertilizer, CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES. What this will do is make, let's say an automobile manufacturer, have to bid on the rights to make carbon emissions in the process of making cars. They'll be competing with other industries for the right (and there are only so many out there...so bid well!) to emissions. Let's say for example that the bidding gets up to $1 Billion for the carbon necessary to make one million cars. Now for simple math...$1,000 per car is what that comes to. Will Mr. Greedy Corporation just pay it out of his checkbook? No. He'll add it to the price of the car.
So, now they've grabbed $1,000 of YOUR money and sent it to the government. What is the nice little U.S. Government going to do with all that money now? Senator Barbara Boxer (DEMOCRAT) expects to take in at least $3.32 TRILLION of YOUR money by 2050. Now Congress gets to fight over where the money will go. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on "crustaceans" and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot. In the Boxer plan, revenues are allocated down to the last dime over the next half-century. Thus $802 billion would go for "relief" for "low-income taxpayers" (this means cough, cough...redistribution of wealth, commonly called SOCIALISM) to offset the higher cost of lighting homes or driving cars. What about the middle class worker who's stuck paying the higher bills?
There's also $190 billion to fund training for "green-collar jobs," which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Hmmmm...I wonder if any of the greedy corporations creating these "green collar jobs" will be donating to her and other supporters campaigns? Nahhh. Another $288 billion would go to "wildlife adaptation" and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research. Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; the rest will be handed out to, guess who? The "greedy corporations" who donate the most to their campaigns. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!), or states rewarded for "taking the lead" on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer's own state of California. Those lucky winners would be able to SELL those allowances for cash! Wow...what a scam! Maybe I should borrow about a million dollars, donate it to Boxer's campaign, and get some emission credits that I could sell for TWO million dollars! Would that ever happen? Nahhhh.
Boxer estimates that the value of the handouts total $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that's more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far. The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion "to help them adjust," while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in "transition assistance." No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. And, remember how they got all of this money. They didn't just print it. They got it from you and me. Our money, taken by the government, and given to their buddies. Aint that grand?
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the bill would reduce Gross Domestic Product between $1 trillion and $2.8 trillion by 2050. Like the country needs that right now in the economic condition it's currently in. The best part? Both McCain and Obama said they would vote for it. For this reason, I'm voting for Bob Barr!
I'm telling you folks. If we don't get smart and recognize the global warming hype as a worldwide political machine, we're going to pay and pay and pay. EDUCATE YOURSELF.
Here's a web site that you may want to review http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/cost_and_futility_of_trading_hot_air.html As always, even if you agree with what ANYONE says. Crosscheck their sources. Good luck America.
As I will say over and over until I turn into fertilizer, CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES. What this will do is make, let's say an automobile manufacturer, have to bid on the rights to make carbon emissions in the process of making cars. They'll be competing with other industries for the right (and there are only so many out there...so bid well!) to emissions. Let's say for example that the bidding gets up to $1 Billion for the carbon necessary to make one million cars. Now for simple math...$1,000 per car is what that comes to. Will Mr. Greedy Corporation just pay it out of his checkbook? No. He'll add it to the price of the car.
So, now they've grabbed $1,000 of YOUR money and sent it to the government. What is the nice little U.S. Government going to do with all that money now? Senator Barbara Boxer (DEMOCRAT) expects to take in at least $3.32 TRILLION of YOUR money by 2050. Now Congress gets to fight over where the money will go. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on "crustaceans" and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot. In the Boxer plan, revenues are allocated down to the last dime over the next half-century. Thus $802 billion would go for "relief" for "low-income taxpayers" (this means cough, cough...redistribution of wealth, commonly called SOCIALISM) to offset the higher cost of lighting homes or driving cars. What about the middle class worker who's stuck paying the higher bills?
There's also $190 billion to fund training for "green-collar jobs," which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Hmmmm...I wonder if any of the greedy corporations creating these "green collar jobs" will be donating to her and other supporters campaigns? Nahhh. Another $288 billion would go to "wildlife adaptation" and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research. Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; the rest will be handed out to, guess who? The "greedy corporations" who donate the most to their campaigns. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!), or states rewarded for "taking the lead" on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer's own state of California. Those lucky winners would be able to SELL those allowances for cash! Wow...what a scam! Maybe I should borrow about a million dollars, donate it to Boxer's campaign, and get some emission credits that I could sell for TWO million dollars! Would that ever happen? Nahhhh.
Boxer estimates that the value of the handouts total $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that's more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far. The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion "to help them adjust," while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in "transition assistance." No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. And, remember how they got all of this money. They didn't just print it. They got it from you and me. Our money, taken by the government, and given to their buddies. Aint that grand?
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the bill would reduce Gross Domestic Product between $1 trillion and $2.8 trillion by 2050. Like the country needs that right now in the economic condition it's currently in. The best part? Both McCain and Obama said they would vote for it. For this reason, I'm voting for Bob Barr!
I'm telling you folks. If we don't get smart and recognize the global warming hype as a worldwide political machine, we're going to pay and pay and pay. EDUCATE YOURSELF.
Here's a web site that you may want to review http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/cost_and_futility_of_trading_hot_air.html As always, even if you agree with what ANYONE says. Crosscheck their sources. Good luck America.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Change?
It looks like a lot of the country is looking for change and hope. Hope is good, if you're hoping for the right thing, but we should all have hope. This country was founded on hope and the quest for the fulfillment of the American dream. Practically anyone can take their piece of the American pie without asking for it to be handed to you. When you rely on the government to take care of you, you're asking for substandard living arrangements. Take a look at any socialist society. I'm not saying that everyone in America has everything they desire, but the poor have food, shelter, heat, televisions, microwaves, computers, at least basic medical care, educational resources, and some form of transportation. With the exception of criminally negligent parents, when was the last time you saw a skinny, starving American child? Compare our poor to practically any nation in the world and you'll find a middle class or better financial situation. It's folly to rely on government for anything beyond national security and transportation infrastucture. Do you want personal protection? You had better buy a handgun. The government will not protect you. If you think so, talk to someone who has been threatened by someone else. Better yet, find someone who has attempted or who has filed a restraining order. Were they protected? Did they actually station a police officer or marine guard escort with them? They were still in danger of physical harm or worse should the offender decide they were going to ignore the order. The police are there to capture criminals. There's a criminal to capture as soon as you're assaulted or killed. Not before. There's also a outcry for change in this country. It would be a change for government to provide healthcare. Personally, I don't want the same people running the IRS and the MVA to be in charge of my healthcare. It would also be a change if the government raised taxes on corporations. Wouldn't it be grand if they didn't make us pay any taxes at all and instead made Big Oil, Big Pharmacutical, Big Computer, Big Bread, or any other Big Corporation pay them all? Big Bread could pay an extra dollar on any loaf sold, Big Oil could pay an extra dollar on each gallon they sell, and Big Pharmacutical could be forced to give away one free pill for each pill sold. Then, Big Bread could raise the price of a loaf of bread by a dollar, same for Big Oil, and Big Pharmacutical could double the cost of one pill to make up for the loss of the "free" one they had to provide for the poor. Think it won't happen? Just ask any smoker. Who is paying the cigarette taxes and the fine on Big Tobacco? Corporations must make a profit or they will go bankrupt. You'll pay over and above any taxes and fines until the corporation makes a profit. The government can't cover the loss. After all, they're getting their money from the same company you're expecting them to give it to. So, before you start asking for change, think about what that change will do to your society, not just what it will do for you. Change can affect us in ways we've never imagined. If we're not careful, all we'll have left is the change in our pockets!
The Global Warming Hoax
If you don't believe in global warming you're not thinking? To the contrary, to believe that it is, means that you aren’t thinking at all. Instead, you’ve made a conclusion. In science, until you have proof backed by factual evidence, you have a theory. Without such proof, you have to consider all possibilities and “think” before you speak. There are many questions you must ask yourself. Why, (according to NASA’s lightly reported update) was 1934 the hottest year in the U.S. in the last century? Why, according to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was the climate warmer during the middle ages than it is today, especially since there was less human population and no industrialization at all? Why, during the last 18,000 years, have the sea levels risen 400 feet? Why were we worried about an oncoming ice age back in 1978?
Carbon dioxide levels definitely appear to be on the rise. But is this rise enough to plunge the entire earth into total obliteration? And, is the rise due to human intervention? The idea to plant trees to offset one’s personal “carbon footprint” has now been shown to be a useless idea. After 10 years of study, Duke University has concluded that for trees to process more carbon dioxide, they must use a lot more water and nutrients. What an inconvenient truth that is.
Keep in mind that the earth is a highly political organism. Governments and media all have their agenda. Governments thrive on the fact that you need them to solve problems. The more problems there are, whether real or illusionary, the more they grow. Media need big stories. Individuals (on both sides) are making millions on the global warming hysteria. If you’re old enough, remember how nukes were going to kill us all? Or how acid rain would destroy the earth by the year 2000?
If we are serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, political considerations should be off the table. Fossil fuel electricity generation is slated to account for 40% of global greenhouse emissions by 2020. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently stated that nuclear power would be a viable alternative. It would also be a perfect alternative for oil and coal-fired power generation. But wait, that’s probably not on the table for most global warming deputies is it? Why not? Also, since China and India are industrializing and turning into the biggest polluters of the earth, how come we continue to purchase goods and services from them while ignoring their impact? Why don’t we have a massive boycott until they implement U.S. pollution standards? Should their needs outweigh the needs of the earth?
Just one more thing. If you’re pushing the use of compact fluorescent bulbs, you can’t be thinking. They have mercury in them. That’ll kill us all.
Carbon dioxide levels definitely appear to be on the rise. But is this rise enough to plunge the entire earth into total obliteration? And, is the rise due to human intervention? The idea to plant trees to offset one’s personal “carbon footprint” has now been shown to be a useless idea. After 10 years of study, Duke University has concluded that for trees to process more carbon dioxide, they must use a lot more water and nutrients. What an inconvenient truth that is.
Keep in mind that the earth is a highly political organism. Governments and media all have their agenda. Governments thrive on the fact that you need them to solve problems. The more problems there are, whether real or illusionary, the more they grow. Media need big stories. Individuals (on both sides) are making millions on the global warming hysteria. If you’re old enough, remember how nukes were going to kill us all? Or how acid rain would destroy the earth by the year 2000?
If we are serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, political considerations should be off the table. Fossil fuel electricity generation is slated to account for 40% of global greenhouse emissions by 2020. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently stated that nuclear power would be a viable alternative. It would also be a perfect alternative for oil and coal-fired power generation. But wait, that’s probably not on the table for most global warming deputies is it? Why not? Also, since China and India are industrializing and turning into the biggest polluters of the earth, how come we continue to purchase goods and services from them while ignoring their impact? Why don’t we have a massive boycott until they implement U.S. pollution standards? Should their needs outweigh the needs of the earth?
Just one more thing. If you’re pushing the use of compact fluorescent bulbs, you can’t be thinking. They have mercury in them. That’ll kill us all.
Socialist Government Healthcare
To each his means" sounds a bit socialistic doesn’t it? But that’s where we are today in the battle over healthcare coverage. Some feel it should be a right, and perhaps it should, but where’s the line drawn? What if someone needs a full cranial implant with a total neuron replacement at the cost of $3.5 billion? I just made that procedure up, but it highlights some serious ethical issues which are in direct opposition with our country’s fundamental concepts of liberty and a free-market system.
Along comes SCHIP and the emotional hand-wringing which goes with it. Advocates bring out (yet another) gut-wrenching story of a child who would be dead today if not for this vital program. The national poster child happened to be right in Baltimore. The father owns his own business, along with a commercial building, they own a home worth $350,000 or more, drive a $20,000+ SUV, and their children are attending a private school. Where’s their own healthcare insurance in this equation?
Here’s a thought: if we each had an armed marine stationed inside our homes, there would be a lot less murders, rapes, robberies, but especially child and spousal abuse! Why don’t we do that? It’s too expensive and we are ultimately responsible for our own protection. I know most police mottos include "To Serve and Protect." But ask any victim of spousal abuse how well they were protected or ask the police themselves if their job is to protect. The truth is they solve crimes and apprehend criminals. The protection is up to you.
In the healthcare arena, the protection should also be left to you. I know you say "what if it were your child?" Well, I chose health insurance at all costs throughout my life. If I had needed a second job, I would’ve done it. Cast aside your emotional baggage and think like a non-socialist for a moment. Remember, before HMO’s, when the country was made to hate "those mean, rich doctors?" These are the same people by the way, who easily spend about 10 years or more of their lives working 60-80 hour weeks for little or no money while they attend school and go through their internships. So the democrats pushed for the HMO’s while pushing the class envy war and finally got their wish. Now, just as disputed by opponents, those mean HMO’s are telling doctors and patients the procedures they can and can’t have performed. Now we need HMO police…and off we go into a massive government program.
Rather than increase what I like to call Senator Clinton’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP), why don’t we, in the name of compassion, provide some sort of tiered insurance voucher system which could cover basic healthcare costs. This would still allow the free-market to function as it should. If you want a higher level of coverage, make more money. If you don’t like this system, move to Canada. I have friends in Canada and Australia who hate their socialized medicine. Talk to people about healthcare there before you go. When’s the last time you heard someone say they were going to Canada for their operation? The AFP news agency in the United Kingdom just released a story this month regarding England's dental system. It appears the number of public healthcare dentists are declining. Six percent of people treated themselves, including tooth extractions, because they couldn't get an appointment. Several sought dentists through private practice. What? A two tiered healthcare system is in England? Yes.
I don’t know if vouchers are the answer, but I know that any government program only grows and grows. Not to offend any workers personally, but just to make a statement regarding government run systems, consider this. Would you like the people at the IRS, the MVA, or the Social Security Administration managing your healthcare, telling you which procedures you were qualified to receive, and scheduling your appointments through them? I didn't think so. Since you're reading a blog, I had a feeling you were a thinking, sane individual.
Along comes SCHIP and the emotional hand-wringing which goes with it. Advocates bring out (yet another) gut-wrenching story of a child who would be dead today if not for this vital program. The national poster child happened to be right in Baltimore. The father owns his own business, along with a commercial building, they own a home worth $350,000 or more, drive a $20,000+ SUV, and their children are attending a private school. Where’s their own healthcare insurance in this equation?
Here’s a thought: if we each had an armed marine stationed inside our homes, there would be a lot less murders, rapes, robberies, but especially child and spousal abuse! Why don’t we do that? It’s too expensive and we are ultimately responsible for our own protection. I know most police mottos include "To Serve and Protect." But ask any victim of spousal abuse how well they were protected or ask the police themselves if their job is to protect. The truth is they solve crimes and apprehend criminals. The protection is up to you.
In the healthcare arena, the protection should also be left to you. I know you say "what if it were your child?" Well, I chose health insurance at all costs throughout my life. If I had needed a second job, I would’ve done it. Cast aside your emotional baggage and think like a non-socialist for a moment. Remember, before HMO’s, when the country was made to hate "those mean, rich doctors?" These are the same people by the way, who easily spend about 10 years or more of their lives working 60-80 hour weeks for little or no money while they attend school and go through their internships. So the democrats pushed for the HMO’s while pushing the class envy war and finally got their wish. Now, just as disputed by opponents, those mean HMO’s are telling doctors and patients the procedures they can and can’t have performed. Now we need HMO police…and off we go into a massive government program.
Rather than increase what I like to call Senator Clinton’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP), why don’t we, in the name of compassion, provide some sort of tiered insurance voucher system which could cover basic healthcare costs. This would still allow the free-market to function as it should. If you want a higher level of coverage, make more money. If you don’t like this system, move to Canada. I have friends in Canada and Australia who hate their socialized medicine. Talk to people about healthcare there before you go. When’s the last time you heard someone say they were going to Canada for their operation? The AFP news agency in the United Kingdom just released a story this month regarding England's dental system. It appears the number of public healthcare dentists are declining. Six percent of people treated themselves, including tooth extractions, because they couldn't get an appointment. Several sought dentists through private practice. What? A two tiered healthcare system is in England? Yes.
I don’t know if vouchers are the answer, but I know that any government program only grows and grows. Not to offend any workers personally, but just to make a statement regarding government run systems, consider this. Would you like the people at the IRS, the MVA, or the Social Security Administration managing your healthcare, telling you which procedures you were qualified to receive, and scheduling your appointments through them? I didn't think so. Since you're reading a blog, I had a feeling you were a thinking, sane individual.
American Race Wars
Another election, another battle about race. Remember how black churches would burn and black men would be dragged behind cars if George Bush became president? Talk about negative propaganda. I think most Americans are tired of hearing hyped-up, racially charged news. Not only does it take the focus away from other issues, it's becoming the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Let's review some news history. Tawana Brawley. This was a troubled teenage girl who created a story that she had been raped by three white men. Enter Al Sharpton with his bullhorn. Suddenly, news story after news story appears. The country polarizes, polls are taken. Poll results show that the country believes that whites are inherently evil and blacks are inherently liars. The investigation discovers the evidence has been manufactured and witnesses come forward discrediting her story. Sharpton creeps back into the woodwork and everyone pretends it didn't happen. Duke University. A black stripper accuses three whites of rape. Enter Sharpton with his bullhorn and his mentor, Jesse Jackson. Polls are taken and the country polarizes. The lacrosse coach is fired and the season is cancelled. The country is led to believe that rich white boys are demons, even though at least one of the defendants was from humble roots. Hard evidence finds the defendants innocent. Away goes Sharpton, away goes Jackson, and in the manner of Saturday Night Live's Emily Litella, the media gives us a "never mind." This is almost criminal. Who is to blame? I lay most on the national press. If we let these stories play out without media influence and the accused are found guilty, then you have a story...locally. But playing it day after day, poll after poll, endlessly analyzing it, hypothesizing, conjecturing, until the event is totally rewritten in the eyes of the press turns it into a national tragedy. This tears at the fabric of our society and perpetuates racial tensions. It also gives the race baiters a platform to spew their hatred. The charges get even more insane. Take, for instance, Al Sharpton's and New York congressman Charlie Rangel's stance on the Iraq war. According to them, it's even a racist plot. Their claim is that since more of the poor are black and blacks go into the military, not getting the opportunity to go to college like whites, that more blacks die in the war. No wonder whites like starting wars, right? Rangel, who is a democrat by the way, introduced a bill to bring back the draft. It was defeated 402-2. Even Rangel voted against it. This couldn't be political could it? Here are the facts as of March 1, 2008. Total fatalities 3965, white 2964, black 374, hispanic 424. That computes to 74.8% white, 9.5% black, 10.7% hispanic. According to the 2000 census, our country is 75.1% white, 12.3% black, and 12.5% hispanic. It would seem they were wrong. Are they called upon to explain themselves and is the error pointed out? No. Do they apologize? No. Do we ignore them the next time? No. Any race story is big business for the media. It's a shame they're willing to sell the country's soul for increased viewership. I guess in the words of Walter Cronkite, "that's the way it is."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
