Media bias - in action

You hear Fox News accusing the "media" of liberal bias and you might think, geesh, of all people, Fox News should not complain??!!!!....

Well, not so fast.

Unlike most other outlets (save for Wall Street Journal and a few newspapers), Fox News doesn't really make it a secret that their opinion writers and contributors are right-wing oriented individuals. Indeed, one only needs to hear the names Krauthammer and Hannity to realize whose side they are on.
In the mean time, most other media brands advertise themselves as "politically center", "unbiased" sources of information. There is NBC, of course, but even it is more insistent on its "unbiased" nature than Fox.

The network shouting "unbiased" louder than all, however, is CNN; Americans have been led to believe that it's safe to ignore NBC and FoxNews - CNN has got 'em.

Today is November 5th, 2012 - one day before the elections - one would expect CNN to be crystal clear about it's "center" status, and make no overt gestures towards any of the candidates? Let's see..  below is a screenshot of their home page:



Click on the "Poor's fate ..." headline and we get to an article featuring side-by-side comparison of Obama and Romney. Sounds good so far... until you go into details where you find the devil. Here is the excerpt about Obama:

Obama: The president points to his record of helping the poor weather the economic downturn. His $787 billion stimulus program included several expansions to existing anti-poverty programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps and the Child Tax Credit.

These provisions, along with expanded unemployment benefits and the Making Work Pay tax credit, kept 6.9 million people above the poverty line in 2010 and lessened poverty for 32 million more, according to a post on Obama's campaign website, citing data compiled by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Also, his Affordable Care Act increases Medicaid coverage to all adults with incomes up to 133% of the poverty line, which could add nearly 16 million more people to the rolls by 2019 than otherwise would have been eligible. The federal government would pay 100% of the cost of the expanded coverage initially, eventually phasing down to 90%. A Supreme Court ruling allowed states to decide whether to opt into the expansion.

Obama also says he expanded the Head Start initiative so it would reach an additional 64,000 children. And he doubled funding for Pell Grants for low-income college students and raised the maximum award.

The president has been repeatedly attacked by conservatives for hiking government spending on the poor, with onetime GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich labeling him "the food stamp president."

You guessed it.... green text - positive, red text - negative; Obama get's 4-1. Now let's go to Romney:

Romney: Republicans, on the other hand, say that throwing money at the safety net fosters government dependency. Instead, Romney and Ryan believe that economic growth fosters upward mobility.

"...You should have the opportunity in America to rise, to escape from poverty, and to achieve whatever your God-given talents and hard work enable you to achieve," Ryan said in a recent speech in Ohio.

One of the key components of the Romney-Ryan plan is turning Medicaid and food stamps into block grants that the states would administer. This would limit the federal government's liability while giving states more freedom to tailor the program to their residents' needs. Romney also believes Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by inflation plus 1%.

Turning Medicaid, as well as worker retraining programs, into block grants could save more than $100 billion, according to Romney. His plan to cap total federal spending at 20% of gross domestic product would also cut funding for safety net programs.

Critics, however, say millions will see their lifelines disappear under Romney's budget proposal. And if Medicaid is turned into a block grant as outlined in the Ryan budget, 34% of its funding would be slashed by 2022, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Food stamps, meanwhile, would be cut by more than 17%.

Romney has run into trouble on the campaign trail when discussing the poor. In September, a videotape showed the candidate making derisive remarks about the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes and feel entitled to health care, food and housing. He said he can never convince them to take personal responsibility.

And in February, Romney told CNN that he's "not concerned about the very poor" because they have a "very ample safety net." He did say that if the safety net needs repairs, he'll fix it.

The first two paragraphs are in black text; that's because CNN merely cited GOP claims, without any specifics. Then, two paragraphs of positive coverage follows, with numbers that would appeal to the fiscally responsible among the voters. And then, three paragraphs of negative information, for a final score of 2-3.

No more comments needed really....

Gay marriage vs gay parenting

I received some hateful personal comments in response to my post title "Freedom of speech", hence I feel the need to clarify my position.

I'm not against any individual engaging in any activities that don't harm other individuals.

Basically, if one smokes pot, and smoking pot is their only deed, the government shouldn't be after you, neither would I feel compelled to take any actions against it.
Similarly, if one chooses to engage in a romantic relationship with a partner of the same sex, that is entirely their business and none of my or the government's business. Two (or more) adults can form any kind of unions they want - I couldn't care less.

Gay parenting, on the other hand, introduces another party to the equation - the child. The child is subjected to living in a gay family without his/her approval and consent. One can't hide behind the "what we do is our business" line when children are involved - it's not your business only anymore, it's the child's business too.

If you are inclined to believe that for millions of years, mother nature erred in choosing to pro-create by forming heterosexual couples, sure - that's an opinion which you are entitled to have. What you are not entitled to is the ability to force that upon children who have no voice in the matter. Just like we as a society force certain things upon parents: car seats, school education, etc. - we need to ensure that every child is allowed to have a mother and a father, because every child deserves them. We should promote "traditional" family values not because some senators or Bible says so, but because it's only natural.

This includes out-of-wedlock and teen-age births, by the way, as well as divorces in child-bearing families. We should make it as difficult as possible legally and culturally for those things to happen. Divorce laws, public assistance regulations, etc. all need to be re-visited with this in mind. We as a society need to educate young people about the importance of traditional families (one could refer to that as "propaganda").

To summarize, my belief in children's right to a mother and a father is consistent and is not aimed against any particular minority group. As a father and as a child in a family where my father wasn't always there for us two boys, I care deeply about this issue.

Big government really an anti-dote to evil of big business?

Big businesses use big government to rig the game.


Without big government, big business will have to compete fairly against small business and small business will probably win because it's more efficient than big business. (or it may lose if big business is better)

Yes, big business has more financial resources to win in the competition. But, if their lawyers and lobbyists don't have a big corrupt government to buy officials/judges/etc., then the lawyers and the lobbyists are useless. If the government is small and consists of honest hardworking officials, then there's no one to bribe with all that cash that big business has.

Sure lots of cash in the bank helps to market the product more, create a better brand strategy, do more R&D, etc. (which is good for everyone, as that expenditure goes to other people's pockets). But then, big business suffers from the same kind of inefficiency and corruption like big governments. So the advantages of being big is offset by the shortcomings of being big.

Who said people don't like me?!!....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/06/emails-suggest-axelrod-leaned-on-gallup-after-unfavorable-poll/

Emails suggest Axelrod leaned on Gallup after unfavorable poll

Employees at the venerable Gallup polling firm suggested they felt threatened by Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod when he questioned the methodology of a mid-April poll showing Mitt Romney leading the president ......
.....
when Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, the Obama administration’s Justice Department revived a 2009 whistle-blower lawsuit against the firm by joining the suit ......
.......

This is yet more evidence that Obama and his crew think and talk like Putin, Chavez and company. A poll firm shows them trailing - attack the poll firm. Rating becomes an objective of its own. Who cares if the economy is fine, or if the debt is huge? As long as Gallup reports "good" results, Obama is happy.




I think they should think as appropriate for the 21st century. Instead of going after Gallup, send FBI agents to the homes of those who voted for Romney and threaten them with environmental charges/litigation if they don't change their minds. Their identities are easily obtainable using the PATRIOT Act, after all (thanks, Bush!)

Drug war

The government's job is to protect people from each other. It's not in the business of protecting a person from him- or herself.

Using drugs, or growing and/or possessing them with the intent of using them, hurt the user only and should not be punished, period.

However, selling/giving certain drugs (heroin, meth, LSD) to someone else hurts that person and hence should be a punishable crime. Furthermore, if one is found in possession but refuses to give away the dealer they bought it from (if they bought from a dealer), then they're obstructing justice and should be charged with that. Excuses like "I found it on the street" should not work.




Obviously, appropriate border and coast protection will go a long way towards reducing the flow of illicit drugs from foreign countries.

"Freedom" of speech

Adult children of gay couples were two to four times as likely to be on public assistance, more than twice as likely to be unemployed and more than twice as likely to have contemplated suicide.
.....
The inquiry was conducted by a four-member advisory panel composed of senior university faculty members, who seized Regnerus’ computers and 42,000 emails.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/03/u-texas-backs-professor-in-battle-with-gay-blogger/#ixzz25Q6D4mjQ

The study indicates that children raised by gay parents experienced worse childhoods on average than children of married couples of the opposite sex, who were also their biological parents.

http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/09/02/university-of-texas-exonerates-gay-parenting-bad-study-author/


A professor publishing a research not in line with the mainstream bullshit is accused of all possible and impossible sins, his university computers and communication seized, etc. Why stop there - he should be jailed! executed!
Funny choice of verb by LGBTweekly, too - "exonerated" - as if he was previously found guilty of a crime. How dare he say something they don't like! Surely he's a criminal.

The willingness of so many people to ignore the basic tenets of nature - that 99% of species, particularly mammals, need a couple of the opposite sex for pro-creation - shows how hypocritical have we as a society become. The same people will scream "science" when it suits their views (or they think it does, or they think they can convince others it does), yet science would be the first thing to forget when it doesn't.

Come on, people! If you disagree, go conduct your own study – which should prove him wrong, right? Why all this character assassination, accusations of dishonesty, etc.? Could it be your understanding of him being correct and you being wrong? and consequently, your inability to argue the actual point?
Should LGBT movement’s reaction to Regnerus’ study then be construed as acknowledgement of his correctness?

Bus service

http://news.yahoo.com/dems-cobble-convention-crowd-together-bit-bit-080509590--election.html

College students from across North Carolina will arrive in Charlotte by the busload. Same with members of predominantly black churches in neighboring South Carolina.
.....


Elena Botella, a student at Duke University and president of the College Democrats of North Carolina, said her school was busing 100 students to the speech.

Lonnie Randolph, the president of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, said several large black churches in his state are planning to send busloads of members on Thursday to watch the president's speech.

Busing people in - typical tactics of authoritarian regimes: Putin, Chavez, Morales, etc. All are in desperate need of "public support and people's will" after illegitimate election "victories".

The democrats have chosen the right examples to follow, that's for sure. The party of corrupt big government will do what other leaders of corrupt big governments do.