Dear Reader and Friend,

What has just been announced that is going to take place this evening June 16, 2009 is simply amazing. It shows the death of independent journalism. At least ABC is being honest about their beliefs and politics. They have dropped their facade of being unbiased in reporting.

Don’t believe me?

Could this be the start of some form of Journalistic Totalitarianism and Fascism?

Read on dear reader…

The following has been excerpted from Taken from the newsletter dated May 1938 by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis the issue entitled

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES OF GERMAN FASCISM

Their newsletter starts…

“ ‘What is truly vicious,’ observed The New York Times in an editorial, September 1, 1937, ‘is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.’ This monopoly is seen most clearly in totalitarian states where all channels of communication are controlled by the government. The extent to which the propaganda machinery of a country has been brought under the control of one organization or a group of related organizations is a useful measure of the degree to which absolutism dominates it, of the extent to which democracy has been eliminated.

In democratic countries this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations. Political, economic, educational, and religious spokesmen are able to and actually do disseminate rival propaganda. This gives those at whom the rival propagandas are directed some freedom of choice among the alternatives offered them.”

Think about that for a minute…

“What is truly vicious,is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.”

In democratic countries this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations.

Let’s change the word democratic to free thinking… or better yet, populations who think critically

So let’s make that read…

In democratic countries this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations.

A few paragraphs later in the newsletter they state the fact “The power of propaganda increases as its control becomes more centralized, as the trend to monopoly increases.”

Remember this point… it is very important to understand what is going on today.

The power of propaganda increases as its control becomes more centralized.

The article continues…

“This process is stimulated by the centralization of the control of the economic structure of a country. A tendency toward a monopoly of wealth is accompanied by a corresponding tendency toward a monopoly of propaganda.

Contrasted with the relative freedom for the dissemination of propaganda in democracies is the complete or nearly complete elimination of this freedom in totalitarian countries. Fascist Germany illustrates how propaganda is used both to bring a dictator into power and to aid him in maintaining that power. In Germany the propaganda which helped convince the people of the efficiency of the National Socialist solution for the country’s political and economic problems was reinforced by an army of storm troops that weakened opposition through terrorism. Such methods made difficult and dangerous the promulgation of competing propagandas. The power of the Nazi propaganda was increased further by the financial support of certain business men and by the political intrigues of Colonel Franz von Papen and other officials of the Weimar Republic.

With the establishment of the National Socialist regime its monopoly of propaganda was rapidly achieved. Suppression of opposition was thorough. Every source of public information and nearly every instrument capable of affecting public opinion came under its control. Although some of the church groups were difficult to dominate, in general the National Socialist propaganda drive went forward with a thoroughness which exceeded at of World War propaganda.”

Basic Totalitarian Propaganda Control

Let’s have a quick look at what this teaches us about how a dictator, or group can gain complete control… the first basic steps.

1. Shut down the ability of opposing voices to be heard.
2. Once the ability of opposing voices can easily be heard, there is no major dissention. The party controlling the message gets their way.
3. In totalitarian states all channels of communication are controlled by the government… or at least the major ones are in sympathy with the government and have lost their objectivity in their reporting
4. The extent to which the propaganda machinery of a country has been brought under the control of one organization or a group of related organizations is a useful measure of the degree to which absolutism dominates it, of the extent to which democracy has been eliminated.
5. This process is stimulated by the centralization of the control of the economic structure of a country. A tendency toward a monopoly of wealth is accompanied by a corresponding tendency toward a monopoly of propaganda.

Chicken Little?

So am I a Chicken Little?

I invite you to consider this… In pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany, the government forcefully took over the message. The broadcasters and news reporters had little choice. Get arrested, or beaten up by Storm Troopers, or Killed… or go with the government.

The government here in the USA is not threatening the big media/mainstream media. Not with violence. Not with beatings. Not with organized protests. Not with taking away their businesses should they not toe the government line, or question government authority or proposals. None of that is going on.

While the majority of the news organizations in pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany had to be forcefully brought into compliance with the government leaders demands they (the independent and free news organizations) toe the government line. They did not willfully abdicate their independence. No my friends it was forced on them.

So What Is Going On Today?

News flash of today…

http://drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a prime time special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

ABCNEWS’ Unfair Use of Propaganda Devices

Can you see the propaganda tactics ABCNEWS is using?

Very Blatant for people who understand how to see propaganda being used.

Let’s enumerate them…

1. Transfer — Remember the Propaganda Device of Transfer carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something or someone respected and revered over to something or someone else in order to make the later acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction, and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.
   Good ol Charlie Gibson is broadcasting from the Blue Room of the White House. According to Wikipedia the Blue Room is one of three state parlors on the first floor in the White House, the residence of the President of the United States. It is distinct for its oval shape. The room is used for receptions, receiving lines, and is occasionally set for small dinners.
   And the ABCNEWS Prime time special ‘Prescription for America’ originating from the East Room of the White House. The East Room is also where a lot of Presidents of the USA give press conferences, and speeches.
2. Card Stacking — this is taking place in the prime time special. Remember the Propaganda Device of Card Stacking involves the selection and use of facts and half truths and even lies, illustrations, distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product. Just keep piling on “evidence” in his/her favor.
   In the case of the ABCNEWS Prime time special, they are not allowing dissenting voices to be heard to refute their “journalists, and unbiased reporters” claims in their piece.
3. Testimonial, and Plain Folks — are being used in the title of their Prime time Special… “Prescription for America”. Remember the Propaganda Device of Testimonial this can either be telling a story of how someone or something got to this point, or it can be having a respected or hated person say a given idea, action, or person, or group is good or bad. And the Propaganda Device of Plain Folks is the method to make people feel the speaker or group the speaker represents is just like them “one of us” or the speaker attempts to convince his/her audience that he/she and his/her ideas are good because they are “of the people” the ”plain folks“

Now, bear in mind… President Obama did not force ABC to do this. He did not force any news organization to do or report anything, or eliminate reporting on dissenting voices. Not at all, though I’m sure he appreciates the brown nosing of the news organizations. They are doing it of their own volition. Their own free will.

Something Stinks!

Quite Frankly…

It’s Disgusting!

In protest I am boycotting ABC… Every show on ABC… Until they have a change in management that is willing to present balanced viewpoints. Not engaging in propaganda techniques, and not shutting out those who believe differently than they do.

I invite you to join me. There are better things to do than to watch ABC TV.

Rather than masquerading as a News Show… Charlie Gibson should just admit it is a political speech he is giving. He could run an editorial and state it IS and editorial BEFORE giving it. If he and ABCNEWS producers and staff believe their side is right. Give the editorial from wherever they choose. But clearly state it is an editorial.

For anyone… of any belief… If you believe your side is right, then you welcome debate. Because then you can show how right your side is and how wrong the other side is. That is the worst case. The best case is both sides eyes get opened, and an even better solution comes about.

So ABCNEWS… What are you afraid of?

But with the big media (newspapers, magazines, tv) behaving the way they are now…

No wonder people turn to Fox News, the Internet, blogs, etc. to get their unbiased and clearly stated biased information that does not toe the party line.

And before you attack me over “Fox News is a right wing conservative bias network.” Have you heard the news how their main Prime time news anchor Shepard Smith had a melt down calling people who are demanding to see President Obama’s birth certificate “crazies” and are “way out there on a limb … out there in a scary place.” Have you watched the programs where they have smart thinking people who vociferously defend their side in debates on the shows. Yes they have republican AND democrat politicians, campaign managers, and party leaders.

Unfortunately they do not include the Libertarian party spokespeople as well. It would be nice to get a full well rounded debate… but that’s for another time and post.

Personally, being a critical thinker, I like to get all sides of an argument and un-skewered facts and figures BEFORE making up my mind. How ‘bout you?

As Porky Pig says Da, da, da, da, da, dat’s All Folks!

See you next time.

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

There Is A Document…

Dear Friend and Reader,

What set me off on this calling out the perpetrator of this High Handed attack on the Freedoms of citizens of the USA?

It’s an attack on one of the most precious, most dearly held concepts that has been put into a document ever.

The Constitution of The United States of America

If I remember correctly… It starts off with…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh yeah… it does. You can verify this at US Government Archives

Let’s Move To Article III of the US Constitution

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Now I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Constitutional Lawyer, or expert on the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am just a lowly citizen. I was always taught that those in elected office (and they refer to themselves as) are Public Servants. I did not think the USA was a Banana Republic until recently.

As I understand what I just copied from the Constitution of the United States of America, is even lowly citizens like me can bring a lawsuit against a “Public Servant” if I do it in the right venue (right place… right court) the one that has jurisdiction.

So What Am I Talking About?

As you may know… recently a gentleman named Phillip Berg brought suit against Barak Obama claiming he is not a Natural Born Citizen as required in the United States Constitution to be President of the United States of America.

Now I’m not going to say whether or not I agree with Mr. Berg’s premise.

That is for the Court to decide… as outlined above in Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama has made declarations stating he is Natural born, but will not release copies of his actual birth certificate, which is why Mr. Berg brought the law suit as far as I can see.

According to my reading of the Constitution of the United States of America, Mr. Berg has ever right to bring such a law suit as long as he does it in the proper venue.

A Philadelphia Judge Apparently Thinks the Rights of a Citizen Do Not Count

Here’s the story… As Associated Press reported it…

Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship
Oct 25, 3:37 PM (ET)

PHILADELPHIA (AP) – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

After expressing my Outrage at U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick’s inane reason for dismissing the lawsuit, We will also have a dissection of the propaganda in the AP report.

Stick around… this will get interesting.

First let’s get some definitions… shall we…

I’m a simple person. I don’t understand $1,000,000 words that such a well educated man like U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick uses. Words like “attenuated” so I had to look it up.

Webster’s defines attenuated as…

1. to make thin or slender
2. to make thin in consistency : rarefy
3. to lessen the amount, force, magnitude, or value of : weaken
4. to reduce the severity, virulence, or vitality of an attenuated virus
5. to become thin, fine, or less

Now that we have these definitions… Let’s look use these simple everyday 10 ¢ words… in place of the $1,000,000 word at the last part of U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick’s reason for dismissing the lawsuit.

“any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was ‘too vague and its effects too (attenuated) — to make thin or slender — to confer standing on any and all voters.’ ”

So U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick says Any Harm From an Ineligible Candidate is too vague, and too thin an argument to have any “standing on any and all voters”????

Yes We Read That Right!

How about we use another definition…

“any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was ‘too vague and its effects too (attenuated) — to make thin in consistency : rarefy — to confer standing on any and all voters.’ ”

So U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick says Any Harm From an Ineligible Candidateto make thin in consistency : rarefy an argument to have any “standing on any and all voters”????

How about we use another definition…

“any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was ‘too vague and its effects too (attenuated) — to lessen the amount, force, magnitude, or value of : weaken — to confer standing on any and all voters.’ ”

So U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick says Any Harm From an Ineligible Candidate is so weak as to not even have a point to argue or have any “standing on any and all voters”????

Now if such a great Constitutional Scholar… or even a Judge who is obviously well read in the Constitution of the United States of America is going to dismiss the suit. It should be because it was brought in the wrong venue. It should be brought in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Not Because The Argument That A Presidential Candidate is Not Legally Qualified To Run For the Office And If The In-Eligible Candidate Is Elected… Contrary To What The Constitution of the United States Says…

To paraphrase that leading Constitutional genius (sarcasm intended) U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick… “Having Someone Not Legally Eligible To Be President Does Not Harm Any Citizen”

What’s next U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick… Will you allow known and proven illegal aliens and proven enemies of the USA to run for President of the United States of America because Any Harm resulting from having an ineligible person serving as President of the United States of America is “too vague”??? Yeah, I guess that’s s why the Founding Fathers of the United States of America Specifically Detailed Who and who was not eligible to become President of the United States of America. Hey I bet if Hugo Chavez of Venezuela wanted to run for President of the United States of America U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick would find no problem with that either! Look at his reasoning.

And do not get this wrong… I am not saying Mr. Obama is doing anything wrong. I Am and Do have a problem with the high handedness of U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick. He should immediately be impeached, and returned to being a lowly citizen not important enough to have standing to bring a lawsuit against wanna be elected officials.

To paraphrase further “You are ONLY a private citizen… ONLY one vote… so you have no standing to vote for your leader. And You as a private citizen have no right to challenge those ‘Public Servants’ either holding or running for office. They are insulated from scum like you. I’m a high authority and I deem it so… Now go climb back to the hole from whence you came and let those brilliant minds… much more brilliant than you decide what’s best for you. Obey… Do Not Question!”

Talk About a Fascist Dictatorship

Thank you U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick for insulating those high up’s from us lowly citizens.

Propaganda Tactics in The AP Story

Let’s analyze the propaganda tactics in the AP Story Covering this Over-reaching Ruling

Second Paragraph…

(Color Maroon: Testimonial combined with Color Pink: Card Stacking “Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father.(card stacking ends) His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Color Pink: Card Stacking — They are alleging something in question to be a fact.

The Third Paragraph… starts with Color Red: Name Calling

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

Considering the Source AP this propaganda is really mild.

In the Word‘s of Porky Pig “Ehh… BahDa BahDa BahDat’s All Folks!

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Dear Reader and Friend,

In case you did not hear… On October 8, 2008 Associated Press had a news story about Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart. The man is doing his best to appeal to his constituency… the masses… rather than uphold the law he has sworn to obey.

The title kind of says it all…

Chicago’s Cook County won’t evict in foreclosures

The Cook County Illinois Sheriff is refusing to send his deputies out to evict people who have for whatever reason refused to pay their mortgages, and have been forclosed on in the court.

Now why would he refuse to uphold the law? Hmmmm?

He is grasping at straws here to justify his behavior.

Example One:

The article says The sheriff here said Wednesday that he’s ordering his deputies to stop evicting people from foreclosed properties because many people his office has helped throw out on the street are renters who did nothing wrong.

He neglects to mention that the renters are advised the property is going into foreclosure and they better find a new place to live.

Further, he is trying to justify his behavior by pretending he is doing this for the people… the poor downtrodden renter. Though the article does not say he is ignoring only renters… He ordered his deputies to stop evicting people from foreclosed properties.

Obviously he does not understand economics (Fiscal economics). You come to someone to lend you money. You agree to pay back the money being lent to you, and pay interest on that money. Then you refuse to pay back the money and tell the lender Fuck You! And the sheriff… the one they are counting on to enforce the legal agreement tells the lender Fuck Off! Shows he obviously does not understand the consequences of his actions long term.

If lenders are not assured they will be re-paid, will they lend money?

No!

If lenders do not lend money, can they pay depositors interest?

No

Sheriff Stupidity

Sheriff Dart is quoted in the article with a “Populist” message… he is quoted as saying”

We will no longer be a party to something that’s so unjust…

And He Goes On…

We have to be sure that when we are doing this – and we are destroying some people’ lives – we better be darned sure we’re talking about the right people

And on

My job as sheriff is to follow court orders, absolutely, But I’m also in charge of making sure justice is being done here and it is clear that justice is not being done here.

Regarding his last sentence… WELL DUHHHHH!

If his job as Sheriff is to follow the law, then follow it.

Why Would A Sheriff Not Follow The Law?

It’s not up to the Sheriff to arbitrarily decide which law to follow and which law to ignore… Unless that Sheriff is appealing to his constituency so he can get re-elected and maintain his power.

Could that be the reason?

After all… the press, the politicians, and people being foreclosed on are all vilifying the bankers. They are turning them into scapegoats. And there are fewer bankers and mortgage company executives than there are people who have mortgages.

Remember in my post above…

The Law Is NOT Designed To Deliver Justice… It’s There To Keep Those In Power… In Power. Nothing more, nothing less.

And what better way to be a greedy, selfish pig after power, than doing the popular thing… NOT the right thing.

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I was talking with someone today and it brought up some thoughts so I thought I would share them with you.

Go get a history book and look back to when the USA was in the gloomiest times of World War II

We, the United States did what we needed to do. I was watching a show on Nazism in the USA. Did you know that in addition to the Japanese put in internment camps, there were 1000’s of Germans put into the same camps, and 1000’s of Italians too?

Well, it’s true.

The government of the USA did what it was supposed to do… what ANY responsible government will do… the utmost thing of importance of ANY government to it’s promise to it’s people…

No… not be politically correct. No… not hope our enemies will love us if we only would be more like them. No… not worry about if people around the world like us

The government took on the responsibility to uphold the country. To look out for the welfare of the people. To do what is best for the country Fuck the rest.

And the people respected and understood that. They trusted their government.

You will see, most of the people willingly made sacrifices. We were all in it together.

Rationing of gas. Steel pennies rather than copper because copper was needed for the war effort. Congress behind the president, not sniping and whining, praising the enemy and attacking those brave and thoughtful enough to put on a uniform of the US military and fight for us on our behalf. The press was not out taking potshots… actually calling the shots. We had real leaders then.

Captain America

Cartoonists created comic book heroes. Captain America… Superman… They took on the bad guys. They uplifted the spirits of the people of the USA.

So what has the wonderful elites in publishing — newspapers, magazines, TV news, radio news, and yes… comic books done?

They killed Captain America… They killed Superman!

Why? To discourage the people?… You decide.

All I know

All I know is I see a bunch of weak no backbone politicians on all sides. Spineless worms who if they saw a shadow would run from it. But still talk tough.

You know… the classic bully

They have no principles… except to get elected, and re-elected. Why? So they can get more and more ever expanding power. They think they can dictate to the world.

And Who is Controlling the Politicians?

Not you and me! Not the voters.

If it’s not the voters, who could it be?

Easy answer really… if you look carefully.

It’s the Mainstream Press

The NY Times with their “All the news that’s fit to print” theme. Of course they will print an editorial by Obama… their candidate of choice, and refuse to print one by McCain (frankly I don’t understand how either one could be the standard bearer for their respective parties. They are both inept, corrupt dirty and impressed by their own press clippings)

Obama goes overseas and the big three ABC, NBC, CBS send their nightly anchors to cover him, all swooning like little girls did when the Beatles first came to the USA. No coverage of McCain, or Bob Barr (Libertarian Party ), or Ralph Nader, or any of the other candidates. As if they didn’t exist.

Then the mainstream press self justifies their bias claiming it is not bias on their part.

It Amazes Me

It amazes me that the people elected to congress are so weak kneed, so spineless (there are a couple of exceptions to this rule, but not many) that seeing the overt bias and… dare I say it… prejudice of the mainstream press they still coddle up to them, doing the bidding of some jerk who just graduated journalism school or some over priced puff who talks tough (Dan Rather comes to mind), but falls over easily when pushed. And worst yet, these dolts, don’t live in the real world.

We’re the Press

“We’re the press” they say. As if that justifies anything. “We are supposed to be unbiased” they say. But they obviously are not. “We… the press… we know what’s best for the people… because we are the press.”

And these incompetents are leading the other incompetents who write and pass laws, and hope they will get some nice write up in the paper

I don’t know about you. But I am thoroughly disgusted.

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Dear Reader and Friend,

Here in my opinion is a blatant propaganda piece masquerading as unbiased journalism. Frankly it disgusts me how so called journalists, get away with this crap all the time. It’s time we Critical Thinkers start to challenge these crap slingers, and their opinion pieces (editorials) masquerading as solid un-biased journalistic reporting. It’s time to call the propaganda what it is, an underhanded attempt to cause the masses to be brainwashed into the propagandists (reporters) beliefs.

Let’s start with the title of the alleged un-biased piece…

With science undisputed, climate bill opponents turn to cost

Biased? or un-biased?

So I will analyze the article for it’s propaganda, and make some editorial comments as well.

But First, let’s review the SEVEN Propaganda devices…

1. Color Red: Name Calling — generally used to giving an idea a bad label which is used to make us reject and condemn the idea without examining the evidence.
2. Color Gold: Glittering Generality — associating something with a “Virtue Word” (a word that has several meanings or can mean something good, or bad to the people who hear it but is not quantifiable e.g. freedom it sounds good, makes us feel good, but it means different things to different people.) A Glittering Generality is generally used to make us accept and approve an idea or thing without examining the evidence. Or reject and not approve an idea, or thing without examining the evidence.
3. Color Blue: Transfer — carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something or someone respected and revered over to something or someone else in order to make the later acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction, and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.
4. Color Maroon: Testimonial — this can either be telling a story of how someone or something got to this point, or it can be having a respected or hated person say a given idea, action, or person, or group is good or bad.
5. Color Tan: Plain Folks — is the method to make people feel the speaker or group the speaker represents is just like them “one of us” or the speaker attempts to convince his/her audience that he/she and his/her ideas are good because they are “of the people” the “plain folks”
6. Color Pink: Card Stacking — involves the selection and use of facts and half truths and even lies, illustrations, distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product. Just keep piling on “evidence” in his/her favor.
7. Color Green: Band Wagon — “Everybody is doing it.” Or at least all of us are doing it. And with this thought and “proofs” the propagandist tries to convince us that all the members of the group we belong to or want to belong to accept his/her program and therefore we must follow the crowd and “jump on the bandwagon”

The article can be found at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/39908.html

It was dated: Posted on Wednesday, June 4, 2008

The byline is By Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers

[Card Stacking combined with Out and out lying]With science undisputed, [Card Stacking alone] climate bill opponents turn to cost

WASHINGTON — Opponents of [Glittering Generality]landmark legislation that would cut greenhouse gas emissions have taken a new approach this week as the Senate began debate on what could eventually be a huge reordering of how the nation gets and uses energy.

[Editors Note: The writer/propagandist of this piece is trying to imply that any “landmark” legislation must be good]

[Name Calling] Instead of challenging [transfer]scientific evidence of a warming world[transfer ends], they’ve focused on costs.[name calling ends] In the end, these opponents say, consumers would be hurt.

[Editors Note: there is a group of 31,000 + scientists right here in the USA broken down in the following professions: as of 6/6/08 there are 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. see Global Warming Petition Project

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

All signed a petition that states:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

All 31,072 scientists signed this very statement.]

[Card Stacking] ”One huge change from previous debates is that only one person has raised a question that (global warming) is a problem,“[end card stacking] [transfer]said Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, which works with large businesses.[end of transfer] ”The No. 1 thing to me is that it’s talk about how to solve it rather than whether to solve the problem.“

Under the global warming bill, or [glittering generality] Climate Security Act,[end of glittering generality] it would no longer be free for factories or power plants to emit carbon dioxide and other global warming gases into the atmosphere. Fees would be levied to curb such [name calling]pollution.[end name calling]

It’s not expected the bill will become law this year. President Bush has said he’d veto it if it passes. But with the presidential candidates supporting some version of the bill’s main ideas, it’s widely thought that emissions controls will be put in place in a year or so. For that reason, the debate now offers a hint of opposition to come.

Senators opposing the bill this week warned that the legislation could make the cost of gas go up. They’ve cited an EPA study that said that the bill could raise prices 53 cents a gallon over 22 years, or 2 cents a year, from 2008 to 2030.

[Editor's Note: What just 2 cents a year. Why we could afford that (said sarcastically)]

[Band Wagon] Several senators —Republicans Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire — said they agreed with the concept of limiting emissions and charging a fee for polluting, but wanted different ways to use the proceeds or a program on a smaller scale. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has said he wants more money for nuclear power.

Republican John Warner of Virginia is a sponsor of the bill, and Republicans Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Olympia Snowe of Maine also spoke in support of it. [end of Bandwagon]

But most Republican senators echoed the remarks of the president on Monday. Bush said the bill would impose “roughly $6 trillion of new costs on the American economy” and called it a tax increase. The president rejects mandatory regulation of emissions.

[Editor's note: why is it "Bush" why not President Bush... he is the president of the USA after all. They referred to Clinton as “President Clinton”]

Bush’s $6 trillion remark referred to the estimated amount of money the bill would generate by 2050 from sales of permits to emit pollution. The overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year.

[Editor’s Note: Notice how conveniently the writer neglected to mention the money SIX TRILLION DOLLARS in additional costs, while pooh poohing that objection with the lame excuse “overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year” That is NOT an answer to dispute the SIX TRILLION DOLLARS this un-necessary law would cost. If you want to dispute something, then actually dispute it. She may as well have said, in answer to the SIX TRILLIONS DOLLARS... the train stopped running past my house each day. Because that has as much bearing as “ overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered each year” neither address the cost, or attempt to dispute it. This is good journalism?]

The legislation spells out how money from the permits would be used, including $802 billion in a [glittering generality] tax cut for those who need help with higher energy costs and $955 billion for deficit reduction. Billions also would go to help develop cleaner fuels, improve energy efficiency and help wildlife. [glittering generality ends]

The legislation would “raise taxes, raise substantially gas prices, cause worker layoffs and hurt the economy, and leave us less competitive in the world marketplace,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Wednesday. He called it a “sneaky tax” that would drive up energy costs.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a sponsor of the legislation, said better fuel economy standards and alternatives to gasoline would drive down demand, end dependence on foreign oil and lower the cost of driving. She and other supporters argued that redirecting part of the proceeds from the sale of the pollution permits to renewable energy would create jobs and replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives.

[Editor’s Note: If Senator Boxer was truly concerned about lowering the cost of gas, AND reducing USA dependence on foreign oil... she would support drilling in Anwar — an area that was specifically set aside for drilling under Jimmy Carter’ presidency. She would also support drilling off the coast of Florida, in the mid-west, and Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. If this is really what Senator Boxer said. We don't know if she said the above claimed quote, as it is not quoted in quote marks by the writer.]

“The arguments they’re throwing at us are very shallow. In essence, not one of our opponents has ever even addressed the issue of global warming. They’ve just tried to get us off track on the fictitious attack on gas prices, which falls totally flat,” Boxer said at a news conference.

[Editor’s Note: notice Senator Boxer was quoted in the sentence above... with quote marks even!]

[Band Wagon] Boxer noted that The National Academies, the government’s top advisers on science, engineering and medicine, have reported that the Earth is warming and that most scientists agree [Band Wagon ends] that human actions that have increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are to blame.

[Editor’s Note: except for the 31,000+ USA scientists whose backgrounds include (detailed analysis of the signers' educations follows):

1. Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmospheric Science (114)
2. Climatology (40)
3. Meteorology (341)
4. Astronomy (58)
5. Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

1. Earth Science (107)
2. Geochemistry (62)
3. Geology (1,601)
4. Geophysics (334)
5. Geoscience (23)
6. Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

1. Environmental Engineering (473)
2. Environmental Science (256)
3. Forestry (156)
4. Oceanography (86)

4. Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)
2. Math (686)
1. Mathematics (575)
2. Statistics (111)

5. Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)
1. Physics (2,310)
2. Nuclear Engineering (215)
3. Mechanical Engineering (2,581)
2. Aerospace (585)
1. Aerospace Engineering (585)

7. Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry (3,156)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

8. Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (703)
2. Biophysics (65)

9. Biology (1,365)

1. Biology (985)
2. Ecology (72)
3. Entomology (57)
4. Zoology (145)
5. Animal Science (106)

10. Agriculture (791)

1. Agricultural Science (314)
2. Agricultural Engineering (111)
3. Plant Science (292)
4. Food Science (74)

11. Medicine (3,069)

1. Medical Science (726)
2. Medicine (2,343)

12. General Engineering & General Science (9,992)

1. General Engineering (9,751)
1. Engineering (7,289)
2. Electrical Engineering (2,075)
3. Metallurgy (387)
2. General Science (241)

But GEE... I guess those 31,000+ scientists don’t count. It’s like they don’t even exist.

“That's really why our opponents aren’t debating us on this anymore, because they've lost all traction,” Boxer said.

[Editor‘s Note: Maybe they lost all traction because the press refuses to report on a side or report information that does not agree with their individual point of view and do their best to hide facts that point out the fallacy of their beliefs? Could that be it?

[Name Calling] Shortly afterward, the debate stopped altogether Wednesday afternoon. Republicans refused to accept the usual practice of debating a bill without hearing a full reading of it, saying the reason was to pressure Democrats to get more circuit judges approved. [end of Name Calling]

[Editor‘s Note: Oh, those dastardly Republicans.]

The result was that clerks took turns reading the 500-page bill for hours.

[Editor‘s Note: Well, at least we know someone read it. After all why have a piece of “Landmark Legislation” read? “Landmark Legislation” should be a simple one or two page bill... right???

It‘s irresponsible reporters and editors in the press like the one in this example that can help you understand why we are in the shape we are. How stupidity is triumphing over clear thought and critical thinking.

###

Dear Reader, think things through. Think critically. Just because an article is in a newspaper and not on an editorial page, does that mean it‘s not an editorial? Does that mean the article is not biased?

Try and find the writer‘s motives for writing the story, and what belief they are trying to persuade you of, if any.

Then verify for yourself what you read or heard. Don‘t let opinion masquerade as fact.

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Here is a brilliant piece of propaganda masquerading as an apology by Wayne Ezell “Reader Advocate” for the Jacksonville Times-Union.

I will dissect this for it’s propaganda content. Which if you read the piece I did on Obama’s speech the propaganda devices will leap out at you.

Remember, there are SEVEN propaganda devices:

To get the most out of this post, I suggest you print off the first page and use it as a guide, so you remember what each color stands for.

I will use the colors of the devices above to show where the propaganda, and which device is being used.

1. Color Red: — Name Calling
2. Color Gold: — Glittering Generality
3. Color Blue: — Transfer
4. Color Maroon: — Testimonial
5. Color Tan: — Plain Folks
6. Color Pink: — Card Stacking
7. Color Green: — Band Wagon

The SEVEN propaganda devices used were defined by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis as:

1. Color Red: Name Calling
   — generally used to giving an idea a bad label which is used to make us reject and condemn the idea without examining the evidence.
2. Color Gold: Glittering Generality — associating something with a “Virtue Word” (a word that has several meanings or can mean something good, or bad to the people who hear it but is not quantifiable e.g. freedom it sounds good, makes us feel good, but it means different things to different people.) A Glittering Generality is generally used to make us accept and approve an idea or thing without examining the evidence. Or reject and not approve an idea, or thing without examining the evidence.
3. Color Blue: Transfer — carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something or someone respected and revered over to something or someone else in order to make the later acceptable; or it carries authority, sanction, and disapproval to cause us to reject and disapprove something the propagandist would have us reject and disapprove.
4. Color Maroon: Testimonial — this can either be telling a story of how someone or something got to this point, or it can be having a respected or hated person say a given idea, action, or person, or group is good or bad.
5. Color Tan: Plain Folks — is the method to make people feel the speaker or group the speaker represents is just like them “one of us” or the speaker attempts to convince his/her audience that he/she and his/her ideas are good because they are “of the people” the “plain folks”
6. Color Pink: Card Stacking — involves the selection and use of facts and half truths and even lies, illustrations, distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product. Just keep piling on “evidence” in his/her favor.
7. Color Green: Band Wagon
   — “Everybody is doing it.” Or at least all of us are doing it. And with this thought and “proofs” the propagandist tries to convince us that all the members of the group we belong to or want to belong to accept his/her program and therefore we must follow the crowd and “jump on the bandwagon”

Bear in mind, several propaganda devices can be combined to make it even more hard hitting.

Now whether or not Wayne Ezell was purposefully utilizing propaganda, or not is only something he knows himself. So I am not making a judgement on his reasons, I AM however… pointing out his biased propagandised piece masquerading as an apology.

The Headline of the Propaganda Piece is…

How letters botched the facts in sensitive Palestinian issue

(name calling) Misinformation, acrimony and a personal attack that could inspire fear for one’s safety, marked a recent exchange of letters to the editor. It was (name calling) typical of fodder for the internet, but a disappointing lapse in the Times-Union’s editing process.

Editor’s note: please notice here that Wayne Ezell rephrased a complaint from Zogby stated in the paragraph below, and another one later on. Why repeat it here?. Why try to inflame passions? Could there be some motivation on Wayne Ezell’s part he is not admitting to? Has he chosen sides?

(glittering generality, name calling, transfer, and card stacking) The exchange began with a narrowly focused op-ed piece by James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington D.C., in which he called on the U.S. to demand that Israel stop (name calling) harassing Palestinian-Americans as they try to enter Israel with U.S. passports.

(card stacking) Palestinian-Americans are (name calling) routinely forced to surrender passports and required to obtain a Palestinian travel document, Zogby wrote. Some are denied entry or (name calling) subjected to humiliating interrogations, he said, adding that (transfer) he has the support of the State Department, which has issued a travel advisory about the matter.

Editor’s note: Card Stacking ends

There followed a response letter, which Zogby claims was inaccurate, (name calling) a personal attack on him and perhaps even dangerous in that it could incite those prone to hate crimes to seek him out.

Written by Ron Pollard, the letter criticized Zogby for ignoring the fact that terrorists have used American passports to infiltrate Israel. He accused Zogby of “writing denigrating and inflammatory comments about Israel,” and much more.

Editor’s note: Why has Wayne Ezell decided to quote Ron Polland’s accusations but not quote Zogby’s? It appears to be attempting to make Zogby’s claims a matter of fact and cast doubt on Polland’s? Come on Wayne Ezell let’s be fair here. OK? Unless you really want to appear biased.

Editors Note: Card stacking starts here

“Before founding the Arab American Institute, Zogby created the Palestine Human Rights Commission as the propaganda arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist group responsible for murdering thousands, including 11 Israeli athletes, at the 1972 Munich Olympics.”

(name calling) Get the picture?

Editor’s note: Is it really necessary for Wayne Ezell to start name calling, and attacking Ron Polland?

(name calling) “Shame on him,” Zogby said of Polland, a researcher at the University of North Florida (card stacking) who has written several letters critical of Muslims and Palestinians.

(name calling) “This is the kind of bizarre ranting that occurs on a blog,” Zogby said, asking for an apology.

(glittering generality)“When it is in print, it has more merit and it should be viewed differently,” he said. (glittering generality) “I know you have standards. (name calling) Someone didn’t review it carefully.”

Mike Clark, editorial page editor, said he regretted the failure to more carefully screen the letter.

Editor’s Note: Screen a letter in response to an editorial for what? What failure? This is still implying ALL the content of Ron Polland’s letter was wrong, and his opinion is worth nothing. Card Stacking sequence continues…

In fact, what Polland described as the Palestine Human Rights Commission was actually known a the Palestine Human Rights Campaign.

Editor’s note While the words here are not in themselves name calling (trying to get you to reject anything Ron Polland says), the intent at name calling is obvious… “Look! Look! he made a mistake by calling it a commission instead of a campaign! He obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about so anything he says should be discounted.” Note to Wayne Ezell: Do a better job of hiding your personal bias.
Here is a question… is the word Committee the thing Mike Clark was regretful from his “failure to more carefully screen the letter”?

(transfer, testimonial) Co-founded by Zogby in 1976, its initial meeting was in a Methodist church near the United Nations headquarters. Zogby said he left the organization in 1980 and was succeeded by a Presbyterian minister.

(Card Stacking added to transfer) If the Zogby name is familiar, he is the brother of John Zogby, who heads the polling firm, Zogby International, for which James Zogby serves as an analyst. In addition to his advocacy work at the Arab American Institute, Zogby writes columns and appears frequently before Congress and on news programs.

Editor’s note So an organization is set up near the United Nations. Big deal. Does that mean it is legitimate? Does that mean it deserves more respect? There are a lot of deli’s near the United Nations headquarters that were set up there too. Does the location give them more credibility? Is that what Wayne Ezell is saying? If so, it makes no sense. And after Zogby claims to have left he claims according to Ezell… Zogby was succeeded by a Presbyterian minister. So? What’s the point? A religious leader took over his position? Barack Obama’s former minister is a religious person. Does that make everything he says and does good (Rev Wright)? Because Rev Wright is a recognized religious person, does that make everything he does good? During WWII there was a famous Catholic Priest who wrote a lot of articles, columns, was in the news, had a radio show. His name was Father Coughlin. Perhaps you have herd of him. If not, your parents surely have. He was a very famous Nazi sympathizer, and Nazi propagandist who was living right here in the USA. Up in Michigan I believe. So by the standards implied in the sentances above, his speechs and remarks whould not have been questioned either.

Further… “If the Zogby name us familiar, he is the brother of John Zogby, who heads the polling firm, Zogby International” So? Is Ezell implying by being related to someone who has fame suddenly makes everything you say and do beyond reproach, and you should have more credibility?

Regarding the implied assertion that Zogby somehow has more credibility because “Zogby writes columns and appears frequently before Congress and on news programs” Well… zip a dee do dah! John Gotti (the famed former New York mob boss, Sam Giancana, former Chicago Mob Boss) both repeatedly appeared before congress and denied there is such a thing as the Mafia. Cindy Sheehan writes columns and frequently appears on the news. So do a lot of crazy people. So writing a column, appearing on the news, and appearing before congress do not add credibility to what one says.

We are still in Card Stacking mode by Wayne Ezell

(card stacking) Polland insisted on the(name calling) veracity of the things he wrote. Asked to provide references for his assertions, Polland sent links to seven (name calling) partisan Web sites, including ones for the columnist Michelle Malkin. Those sites can be found by entering Zogby’s name on a search engine.

Editor’s note End of Card Stacking sequence

“The blogosphere is the source of truth where people can really find out what is going on,” Polland said.

Editor’s note: And after reading what Wayne Ezell wrote in attacking Ron Polland’s character and his phrasing I can completely understand why he (Polland) feels that way. Do you not?

(band wagon) In a letter supporting Zogby’s view, Jim Baglia said, “A recent letter writer suggested the Zogby and Americans of Palestinian heritage are (name calling added to bandwagon) sympathetic to terrorists.” Polland countered that he said nothing about “American of Palestinian heritage,” nor did he suggest they are sympathetic to terrorists.

(name calling) Indeed he didn’t, not in those words.

Dear Reader, I hope this helps you see and pick out propaganda that is all over the news… whether the “unbiased advocate” realized he/she is being biased and propagandizing or not. Remember… Think Critically find out the facts for yourself. Just because words come from somone of fame, or related to someone of fame, does not mean they are true, unbiased, or should not be questioned. Now days in particular… Question Everything! Take nothing for granted! Verify sources.

In the words of President Reagan “Trust but Verify”

I hope I was able to help you with this posting.

Some notes and insights.

A visit to the Highly Partisian website of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign (the group Zogby co-founded) http://phrconline.org/ uncovered these quotes on their site

Under the “CAMPAIGNS:” section

Boycott Israeli Goods

“We call for mass consumer action, along the lines of the boycott of South African produce during the anti-apartheid campaign. By joining this boycott individuals and organisations can take concrete steps to stand up against the gross human rights violations by the Israeli State.”

“We therefore support:
A boycott of Israeli products
A boycott of Israeli leisure tourism
An end to Australian firms’ investment in Israel
Suspension of Australian government trade agreements with Israel”

Under their section “Human Rights News Feed”

Report: Ethnic cleansing continues in Jaffa 11 May 2008
Israeli forces kill Gaza mother in front of her children 8 May 2008
Gaza improvises under siege 7 May 2008< br />
Gaza death toll, humanitarian crisis escalates 6 May 2008
West Bank village faces slow death 4 May 2008

These along with some “Unbiased” stories like…

Israel shocked by image of soldiers forcing violinist to play at roadblock

Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year-old child

Israeli soldiers accused of tampering with corpses

But I guess stories like these are not partisan… or if they are I guess coming from an organization co-founded by a person who “is the brother of John Zogby, who heads the polling firm, Zogby International… writes columns and appears frequently before Congress and on news programs” they are unqestionably un-biased.

A side note… Ezell has through the voice of Zogby in Zogby’s accusation about how the internet is unreliable Zogby was quoted as saying “This is the kind of bizarre ranting that occurs on a blog,”, Ezell himself said “typical of fodder for the internet,” Now what I do not understand is why after Ezell goes out of his way to question what is posted on teh internet, he ends his column as the Reader Advocate stating “You are invited to comment on my blog at…”

Makes me wonder if his blog is filled with “the kind of bizarre ranting that occurs on a blog,”, or “typical of fodder for the internet,”?

Thank You for Reading!

###

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Do you like getting the best prices you can when you shop on the net?

Do you like to pay extra so an out of state merchant can hire extra people and waste more time figuring out tax codes for states they do not have a presence in?

And what do these big spenders — big spenders with YOUR MONEY — spend it on?

Feel good “Projects” inane laws, more intrusion into your privacy, and whatever hand-outs they can come up with THEY (the politicians) think will get most of the people to vote for them to keep themselves in office… so they can waste public money on all sorts of things… like say in the case of Elliot Spitzer former Governor of NY… Hookers. High priced hookers.

Let me ask you a question…

Is paying for hookers… high priced call girls… for politicians where you want your tax dollars to go?

Now don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against job perks for jobs well done… but this is a bit overboard… don’t you agree?

Especially in this time of supposed fiscal belt tightening, where the politicians are crying

“there isn’t enough money in State funds to pay for education” (Spitzer got his… I’ll be he was educated on some new positions ),

or they cry whaa whaa whaaa “there’s not enough money to keep proven criminals in prison”, or care for the sick, or keep the libraries open every day, or…

You get the picture.

But they have enough money to go on expensive “fact finding missions” aka Junkets at tax payer expense. They can find enough money to pay $10,000 a month cell phone bills. They can find enough money to pay for private cars and chauffeurs to take them wherever they want to go… and this goes for local city level politicians too.

Why Your Internet Purchases May Cost You More, Due To Politicians Greed And Lust For YOUR Money

Do you like to pay extra so an out of state merchant can hire extra people and waste more time figuring out tax codes for states they do not have a presence in?

How would you like to see prices on everything you buy on the internet go up by at least 10% + the sales tax you should be paying… all because some greedy politicians want to get their grubby huge hands deeper into your pocket?

Well, if you like that idea, you will love New York.

As just reported…

New York Rules Out-of-State Web Merchants Must Collect State Taxes

Apr 16, 2008 1:44 PM , By Jim Tierney

The complete story can be read at…

target=”_new”>Illegal Taxation: New York Rules Out-of-State Web Merchants Must Collect State Taxes

The funny… actually stupid thing is… this law was already declared illegal… make that ILLEGAL… back in 1992 in the 1992 Supreme Court Decision, Quill Corp. vs. North Dakota cry and cry as the politicians will, and their cronies complaining that the ONLY reason they are not selling as much is because of “unfair” competition from out of state stores because the out of state stores don’t have to collect sales tax.

Did these stores ever think of the ADVANTAGES THE LOCAL STORES HAVE OVER OUT OF STATE RETAILERS?

Of course not. Everyone ONLY buys based on price.

We are all like lemmings. (this is sarcasm)

Specialization in an interest has nothing to do with it.

Customer service has nothing to do with it.

A pleasantry when we come in like maybe a simple “Thank You” has nothing to do with it./p>

Receiving notifications from out of state retailers on items they are carrying we may have an interest in has nothing to do with falling sales at local retailers.

Oh no… why it has to be that 3, or 4, or 8&151; sales tax.

Of course when we buy from an out of state retailer, we typically end up paying shipping which is about the same as the sales tax would be.

Maybe these Cry babies should look for a less costly location, and then reduce their prices… IF they think it is strictly a price issue.

Better yet… why not stat selling on the internet themselves and get even.

They Make Me Sick… The Whole Lot Of Them

And any store or company who believes I should have to pay higher prices so they can make more profit for themselves, I will boycott. I will refuse to buy a single thing from them. Even if they were the last water store and I was in the desert.

They are beneath contempt. Blaming others for their deficiencies in their business.

Hey Fast food places are hiring, maybe these cry baby store owners should go get a job there. They won’t have to face “unfair competition”

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

]]>

Think it can’t happen? Well, it’s happening every day more and more. Especially if you live in the USA. Comcast is being sued for limiting peoples use of the internet. Other companies will soon be sued too.

When I heard about the Comcast case, I was happy. Rather than fighting spam which clogs up pipelines, they choose to limit the freedoms of their users. They restrict the bandwidth, and sites their users can go to.

I ask you… Is this right?

You pay for access to the internet. You are not paying an internet service provider for the right to have them dictate to you where and where not you can go on the net. You are not paying them to restrict your ability to create blogs, create pod casts, create videos and to post them.

But they are trying to do just that…

Do You Want Your Freedom To Post And Express Yourself On The Internet Limited By Your ISP?

I didn’t really believe this was possible, until after I read a post on a blog of a genius marketer Dean Hunt. Actually Dean has two blogs I read, http://deanhunt.com with his great Killer Bunnies, and fantastic insights. I only wish he lived around here so we could hang out together. And if you are not reading his blog… you should. It’s really funny, interesting, and insightful. A great break from all the drivel that’s out there… this blog included.

But I found out about ISP’s doing their best to limit our use of the internet on another of Dean’s blogs… called http://streetlessons.com a blog on marketing, by Dean Hunt and Barry Dunlop

They had a post there called…

Net Neutrality | Must Watch Video

It has a video from youtube. This video is a Must Watch

So Here it is

Enjoy and get really pissed off. Angry enough to write to your Senator, your Representative in congress. And badger them until… finally… they see the light. And they take action and stop the telephone companies from dictating how you can use the net, preventing competition on the net, dictating what you can see on the net, and destroying your voice to create your own content and enjoy and learn about others content.

Thanks For Reading!

Now go out and take some positive action.

Here is a list of Senators in the Congress of the United States

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

You can find your senators contact information. After you find it… use it. Keep your ability to find and create information free.

Here is a list of the members of the USA House of Representatives

Find your member and badger them about this until they take some action. We elect them. This is an election year. They need your vote to stay in office.

http://www.house.gov/

You can find them using the upper left hand side and look up your representatives office and contact information by entering your zip code.

Good Luck. Together let’s make some noise!

Purveyor of Free Thought and Critical Thinking,

Help us advance this story. Provide relevant links or share your insights using our comment box.

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

As the saying goes, the only thing that remains constant is change. If it is not moving it is dead.

Well, the earth is NOT dead. Right now here in Florida tomorrow is projected to be one of the coldest days almost at the record cold day for that date (Feb. 28) in history or recorded temperature records.

Global Warming? What A Bunch of…. Hooey!

While the alarmists in our midst are screaming and yelling about man made global warming ” or as Al Gore embarrassed at the record cols, ice and snow around the world this winter have taken to calling it “Man made climate change”… Whatever you call it, I call it Bull Shit! And every time I see another story about global warming, and how people are causing huge temperature increases (in the 1970’s it was man made global cooling, in the 1920’s it was man made global warming… why can’t these genius pseudo-scientists make up their minds) I pull on an ever higher pair of boots.

Want Proof About the Alarmist Global Warming?

Here is proof its a bunch of alarmist Bull Shit…

Check out Blog: Science Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling And by the way, it is a pretty cool (no pun intended) site/blog with some pretty cool articles on it.

Also here is an interesting commentary Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age This article is complete with research not just opinion.

One last link to a commentary you ought to read. It does give some motive behind the reasons of the scare mongers… why they are doing it. The piece is entitled The eclipse that saves Al Gore It’s worth the read. Remember the saying if you want to get to the bottom of something…

Follow The Money

And as reported by Reuters Global 2008 carbon market expected up 56 percent the first paragraph starts out with “NEW YORK, Feb 26 (Reuters) – Global trade in credits representing reductions of planet-warming gas emissions should rise 56 percent this year as Europe tightens its flagship program to tackle greenhouse gases, a carbon analysis group said on Tuesday.” But you really should read the whole article.

And from Associated Press (I’m surprised they would actually report something negative about Al Gore and global warming)… A piece entitled Gore warns on ‘subprime carbon’ industry And they report “ ‘You need to really scrub your investment portfolios, because I guarantee you – as my longtime good redneck friends in Tennessee say, I guarandamntee you – that if you really take a fine-tooth comb and go through your portfolios, many of you are going to find them chock-full of subprime carbon assets,’ the former vice president said.

Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the leading component of ‘greenhouse gases,’ which scientists say are playing a key role in warming the globe.

Gore’s remarks before a high-profile business crowd that collectively controls some $20 trillion in capital were intended to unleash a financial ripple effect that could force the world to start putting a price on carbon emissions.”

Let’s get to the key… Gore has a company that buys and sells Carbon Credits Gore goes in front of a a high-profile business crowd that collectively controls some $20 trillion in capital were intended to unleash a financial ripple effect that could force the world to start putting a price on carbon emissions. Who benefits? Could it be Al Gore’s carbon trading company? I know that is a rhetorical question.

Do you really think those evil, vile, corporations will lose money buying carbon credits? Of course not. It will be just like corporate taxes. The additional costs will be passed on to us.. the consumers. And then the politicians will decide that the minimum wage is not enough to live on, so they will pass a law increasing it, and everything will remain as it is just a hell of a lot more expensive.

Anyway, that’s all for now. Welcome to the new Ice Age.

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™

This was said by the self professed non-partisan “journalist” Chris Matthews… after Obama’s victory speech Feb 12, 2008.

The exact quote I saw was…

“I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.”

That quote comes from News Busters

An objective assessment????

I think Chris got it wrong… two ways.

Actually Chris, I Think It Was Something Dripping Down Your Leg

What a sap he is.

But he has the same arrogant outlook as most of the “Newscasters” do. Which appears to be “We are royal, and the public is stupid. So we can mold them into whatever we want.”

This May Have Been True

This may have been true… no make that… this was true B.I. (Before the internet). Because newscasters, and newspapers could write and publish anything they wanted, slant it any way they wanted, and there was no real public record of what they said.

It was really easy to obfuscate what they said, and let’s face it, the public’s attention is that of an AD (Attention Deficit) mosquito in a nudist colony.

But with the public record the internet now gives us… anyone can go back. Everyone has their own public record of anything they write because it will get posted. It will get referred back to.

Blown Trust

So now there are a lot of people running around with blown trust. They can say anything they want. Say anything they think you want to hear. But they also create a track record, they may not fully realize is now a public record.

And the best way to judge someone is not by what they say, but by their actions. And if their actions are always taking one side over the other, if their actions are always slanting things in one direction over another, you better believe they lean very heavily to that side… in spite of what they say.

Help us advance this story. Provide relevant links or share your insights using our comment box.

If you like this post then please subscribe to the full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.

Bookmark and Share This Post

                  

Copy this HTML to your website to create a link to this post:

Powered by Bookmarkify™