Response to Teachers, Public Employes, Planned Parenthood Comment

I have seen the following statement circulated on social networking sites. It is usually posted by libbos seeking to vilify Republicans and conservatives. Like all leftist propaganda, it isn't very well thought out or thought through. So, when it finally appeared on my "wall" I chose to address it.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed
the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in
the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, plunged us into war and paid no
taxes? Yeah, me neither..


Yes...many of the Repubs that were elected last Nov. backed down on cutting these lib pet projects as well. Bunch of fiscal wimps.

1. The more Fed $$ we pour into the school system, the worse it gets. Defund and return the responsibility of school funding to state and civi...c authority. Why should my tax $$ go to support New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles schools when I would prefer my tax $$ stay here in Clark County? Defund.

2. We are not talking about crashing a stock market like the liberal George Soros did in Thailand by maliciously manipulating the Thai Baht a number years ago, rather we are talking about ridiculously huge gov't that is bankrupting the largest economy in the world. And it is being bankrupt by the accumulation of silly leftist pet projects that a large majority had no say in funding in the first place.

3. 60%+ Americans do not want their tax $$ going toward the unprecedented hacking to pieces of innocent children in the womb. Defund planned parenthood or make it a 'choice' for liberals to donate their own $$ to support PP I don't agree with what PP does and should be able to refuse my $$ from supporting something I despise.

4. India and China spew more filth into the sea and air than a thousand BP oil spills, but for some reason, socialist 2nd world and communist pseudo-1st world nations get a pass from the libs? Start drilling again everywhere and let's cut into the trillion dollar profits being made by the OPEC nations (who don't pay taxes by the way - and yet DO adversely affect the stock market).

5. NPR/PBS became a left-sided only presentation of a single world view that does not support the multi socio-political world views of the millions of Americans who are taxed to support them. Therefore, defund.

6. Obama, as I predicted has poured more troops weaponry and money into Afghanistan than his predecessor - the all evil George Bush. He's also fumbled around into a NEW war while refusing to end the war in Iraq. But somehow, he gets a pass from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. he is painted as a gallant defender of the Libyan rebels, or is it Ghadaffi?, or the rebels? I can't keep track of the sides because he won't come out say what we're there for. GWB gets us into Afghanistan and is condemned, Obama escalates Afghanistan and is praised. GWB gets us into Iraq and is condemned, Obama fumbles us in and out and into Libya and is praised.

7. Killing liberal pet projects will ultimately save this country from such a massive deficit that the interest alone will exceed the entire GDP of the nation, resulting in a bankrupt economy and the loss of more freedoms than can be listed here. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you make $1000 a month, the MOST you can spend is $1000 per month. I say keep the items that serve the whole or a large majority of Americans and ditch the things that serve a vocal few.

Here is a little joke as well:

The difference between Republicans & Democrats

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

The republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, He decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republicans pocket and gave him fifty dollars.

The point of this joke is this: liberals, Democrats, and leftists (all the same) are EXCELLENT at giving away OTHER people's money but horrible at giving away their own money.

Politique it up ya'll!

Bias in the News Media

The television news media has refused the role of observant reporter in order to become a machine of editorial persuasion. We are submitted daily to a constant barrage of subtleties aimed more at winning our minds than feeding them. Exposure of these techniques of persuasion, stopping the hemorrhaging of free thought, and establishing a "fairness and accuracy" guideline for the press will meet an unfulfilled need in our society.

We are said to be in the Age of Information. It necessarily follows that we desperately require a trustworthy authority to report world events. This knowledge is pertinent for sociological growth yet we cannot be everywhere at once. We therefore look to the television networks to provide us with coverage of what's happening in our surroundings. This need puts us at the mercy of the reporter. The problem is that the majority of the viewing public have chosen not to think while they watch and the news media is aware of it and has taken advantage.

We would be hard-pressed to find a social circle without some person repeating some chilling tale of a horrifying trauma, or a shamefully oppressive government in a far off land.If called upon to cite their sources, they tend to spew what has become the universally accepted endorsement for truth, "I saw it on the news." This is usually met with looks of satisfaction from those listening, and no further questions regarding the source are raised. This is blind acceptance and is the result of years of intentional and unintentional persuasive conditioning. Another name for this persuasive conditioning is happy consciousness, discussed by William Covino in his book The Elements of Persuasion. This is described, in part, as the tendency to accept what is offered from the larger society without considering alternatives.(Covino 104) the need for Europe to learn from the American economy when Galbraith actually condemned Germany's adopting of American deregulation and privatization because the policies were failures for America in the 1980's. These are only a few examples of slanted reporting in order to bring about a favorable change of mind in the public.

How do we protect ourselves from falling into this trap of subtle brainwashing? How do we stop the hemorrhaging of free thought within ourselves? We must first begin to see every broadcast as an opportunity to use our brain, not as an opportunity to give it a rest (i.e. entertainment). Secondly, it is imperative that each story be viewed with an objective eye. There is a saying in the Bible that reads, " You must first remove the plank from your own eye that you may see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye." This applies to the one seeking to improve the quality of the news media. Objective viewing within themselves absolutely must come first! Only then can they see clearly how to call for objective reporting. This isn't so easy to accomplish.

Covino writes that objectivity in human beings is rare if not impossible to achieve, since we all have bias due to personal beliefs, convictions, and opinions shaped in our youth by various influences. He goes on to say that what is needed to further objectivity and prevent or reduce uninvited persuasion is the application of critical consciousness. This is the ability to detect and evaluate the elements of persuasion that are at work in the larger society. Persuasive techniques are neutralized in the mind of a person who practices critical consciousness.

Arguing that the press is liberal or conservative simply mires the issue in a political debate which polarizes both sides and leaves it unresolved. Which side it is biased for is irrelevant. The point is, the media is biased, period, and not objective. When was the last time we saw an "editorial comment" or a "point/counterpoint" segment on a newscast? We will probably not see that for quite some time due to the fact that its redundant. The editorial position on an issue is now simply built in to the reporting. Editorial comments are beneficial and even conducive to a healthy exchange of ideas but when they are misrepresented as fact, they cease to be editorial commentary and become outright deception.

There is hope. We can change the way the media reports the news, after "removing our plank" of course, by taking an active role in communicating our dislike for biased reporting to those in charge of the newscast. One organization exists that does exactly that. They are called F.A.I.R. which is an acronym for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. They list mailing and email addresses as well as phone numbers for major networks and editor-in-chiefs. They also post regular "Action Alert" articles on the internet which draw attention to agenda-driven reporting. Another way of changing the news media's approach is by hitting them where it hurts, right in the sponsor! Refusing to support their sponsors and then notifying them and their sponsors of this decision will bring about an eventual change. This will lead them to reevaluate their practices and adopt a guideline of accuracy, free of persuasion, which will result in a more fair minded media.

The conservatives say the press is too liberal and the liberals claim it to be too conservative. This might cause us to mistake the news media for having achieved a centered position. This is not the case and more importantly, it is not even the issue. The issue is a reliable representation of events in our world. We need this now and it is within our grasp to acquire it.
When news broadcasts first began in America, in the 1920's, they were silent newsreel films of soft propaganda for the government yet were embraced with complete trust as representing fact. This evolved, in the 1930's, into newsreels with sound which included interviews and famous speeches of heads of state or "fireside chats" with the President during the depression years. The marriage between the visual media and politics was then firmly in place.

The invention of television in the 1950's brought this marriage into our homes. We even went so far as to vote one of the earliest television newsmen, Walter Cronkite, as "the most trusted man in America" . What we didn't realize was that we were becoming extremely susceptible to suggestion and subsequently vulnerable to persuasion. 15 years of overly conservative and censored broadcasts were the result. This changed violently however with the heightening of the Vietnam War. The American people were divided for the first time on the issue of news content. This accomplished a great deal for reporting. It allowed journalists to photograph and report events as they actually happened with little or no fear of censorship. Unfortunately, reporters flocked to the opposite extreme and began reporting events as they saw them and not as they actually happened.

Today, every major network's broadcast, both national and local, is filled with attempts to persuade its audience to a particular viewpoint. The methods they use, which are mentioned by Covino, include appeals to love and appeals to hate. In the Bilbray v. Ensign congressional race of 1994, KVBC channel 3 appealed to our love of comfort and success by demonstrating all of the great accomplishments of its candidate, Bilbray. They appealed to our hatred of "rocking the boat" by casting Ensign in the unfavorable light of inexperience and radicalism. They even went so far as to broadcast Bilbray's "victory" speech in which he crowed about his triumph and suggested the inexperienced Ensign run for a lesser office than congressman next time. KVBC and Bilbray were both horribly embarrassed to find that while they were gloating , the last district in Green Valley reported in and Ensign actually won the election!

Inaccuracies are not limited to local news but extend to national news as well. On September 19, ABC news aired a show entitled "Is America #1?" by ABC correspondent John Stoessel. Though their position on the topic is clearly stated at the end of the show, we didn't have to wait that long to recognize it. Whether intentional or unintentional, Stoessel misquoted economists, cited imaginary statistics, or contradicted fact in order to support his stance on the subject. He alluded to "an impoverished third world economy" of China which was contradictory to a speech given by Lawrence Summers of the Treasury Department the previous year in which Summers said "China has been the fastest growing economy in history since reform began in 1980. (F.A.I.R. article: ABC News Gives Up On Accuracy Sept. 1999). Stoessel also misquotes University of Texas economist James Galbraith as endorsing the need for Europe to learn from the American economy when Galbraith actually condemned Germany's adopting of American deregulation and privatization because the policies were failures for America in the 1980's. These are only a few examples of slanted reporting in order to bring about a favorable change of mind in the public.

How do we protect ourselves from falling into this trap of subtle brainwashing? How do we stop the hemorrhaging of free thought within ourselves? We must first begin to see every broadcast as an opportunity to use our brain, not as an opportunity to give it a rest (i.e. entertainment). Secondly, it is imperative that each story be viewed with an objective eye. There is a saying in the Bible that reads, " You must first remove the plank from your own eye that you may see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye." This applies to the one seeking to improve the quality of the news media. Objective viewing within themselves absolutely must come first! Only then can they see clearly how to call for objective reporting. This isn't so easy to accomplish.

Covino writes that objectivity in human beings is rare if not impossible to achieve, since we all have bias due to personal beliefs, convictions, and opinions shaped in our youth by various influences. He goes on to say that what is needed to further objectivity and prevent or reduce uninvited persuasion is the application of critical consciousness. This is the ability to detect and evaluate the elements of persuasion that are at work in the larger society. Persuasive techniques are neutralized in the mind of a person who practices critical consciousness.

Arguing that the press is liberal or conservative simply mires the issue in a political debate which polarizes both sides and leaves it unresolved. Which side it is biased for is irrelevant. The point is, the media is biased, period, and not objective. When was the last time we saw an "editorial comment" or a "point/counterpoint" segment on a newscast? We will probably not see that for quite some time due to the fact that its redundant. The editorial position on an issue is now simply built in to the reporting. Editorial comments are beneficial and even conducive to a healthy exchange of ideas but when they are misrepresented as fact, they cease to be editorial commentary and become outright deception.

There is hope. We can change the way the media reports the news, after "removing our plank" of course, by taking an active role in communicating our dislike for biased reporting to those in charge of the newscast. One organization exists that does exactly that. They are called F.A.I.R. which is an acronym for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. They list mailing and email addresses as well as phone numbers for major networks and editor-in-chiefs. They also post regular "Action Alert" articles on the internet which draw attention to agenda-driven reporting. Another way of changing the news media's approach is by hitting them where it hurts, right in the sponsor! Refusing to support their sponsors and then notifying them and their sponsors of this decision will bring about an eventual change. This will lead them to reevaluate their practices and adopt a guideline of accuracy, free of persuasion, which will result in a more fair minded media.

The conservatives say the press is too liberal and the liberals claim it to be too conservative. This might cause us to mistake the news media for having achieved a centered position. This is not the case and more importantly, it is not even the issue. The issue is a reliable representation of events in our world. We need this now and it is within our grasp to acquire it.

Why Matt Damon is a Ridiculous Idiot and a Complete Jackass

If Matt Damon would spend HALF as much time researching facts as he did kissing his liberal bosses' asses, he might have something worthwhile to hear. As it turns out, he spends the fair share of his day having makeup applied to his multi million dollar mug by a makeup artist making $35k a year (How is THAT for redistributing the wealth eh Matty?) and memorizing words that someone ELSE had to write for him. But this is a liberaltard for you, no knowledge of any facts, just the liberal  propoganda spewed by MTV, CBS, NBC, CNN, and our tax-payer funded PBS. Actors should stick to acting and thereafter just shutting the hell up as they roll in millions of dollars of the poor saps they think they are trying to 'help'. But then, thats just my thoughts, and who the hell am I!? except George "Clonewolf" Cloney, conservatard extraordinaire