The constant warnings of persistent attention-seeking doomsayers among, college professors, environmental extremists, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post and other Newspapers, are becoming like the story of the boy who cried wolf. In their efforts to bring attention to themselves, gain celebrity, and sell themselves and their products to the public, these so called pundits have exaggerated possible dangers out of all proportion to reality. These scare tactics sway a lot of people who are ignorant of the facts. They are so seldom correct in either action or scale that most reasonable people pay them scant attention anymore. The worrisome thing about this is that should a real dangerous menace come along (a real wolf) the predictions will be viewed as just another exaggeration and ignored by the public and those who could counter the menace.
EXAMPLE: When the very first primitive steam powered locomotives appeared at least one newspaper predicted people would die riding in theses conveyances that could go as fast as forty miles per hour because they would be unable to breath moving that fast. You may laugh, but how many erroneous and equally dire predictions have been foisted off on a gullible public in the same way since then?
As PBS releases a special about the oil delivery system, the Business & Media Institute goes back in time to recall environmentalists pipe dream: stopping it.
* By R. Warren Anderson * Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:00 AM EDT Alaska Pipeline Doomsayings Revisited
After the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, it didn't take long for environmentalists to cry gloom and doom and for the media to hype those claims. From caribou dying to earthquakes to all hell breaking loose, there was no shortage of catastrophic predictions though the Alaska pipeline now boasts great success roughly 30 years later.
Construction on the pipeline began in 1975, and oil first moved through it on June 20, 1977. Former Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton summed up its success in 2003 that Today the pipeline produces 17 percent of our domestic petroleum. It has pumped nearly 14 billion barrels of oil and $400 billion into our economy. We need the pipeline even more now than when it was built.
Just in time for the PBS special, The Alaska Pipeline, set to air April 24 on PBS, the Business & Media Institute compared predictions from the pipelines inception to the realities of the past three decades.
Propaganda, Not Policy: Approval of the pipeline was not based on facts but on oil industry propaganda, according to some of the Department of Interiors top ecologists, reported The Washington Post on Feb. 11, 1971. The New York Times ran an editorial that began, passage of the Alaska pipeline bill is the triumph of scare propaganda and economic pressure over reasoned public policy on Nov. 14, 1973.
Reality: Despite those claims, the pipeline has had tremendous policy implications. It created tens of thousands of jobs, from the construction of the pipeline in Alaska to the manufacturing of the pipe in Pennsylvania, to the building of the tankers to transport the oil in Louisiana.
And as gas prices rise going into another summer driving season, the pipelines effect on the oil market bears mentioning. Alaska produces about 800,000 barrels a day or about 1 percent of the world market of 73.5 million barrels a day, said Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute.
A loss of that production would increase prices by at least 10 to 16 percent. In the 1980s, when production was 1.8 million barrels a day and the world market was smaller (54 mbd), the loss of Alaskan oil would have increased world oil prices by 30 to 50 percent.
Bye-bye Caribou?: Many people suddenly developed a passionate concern for the mating habits of Alaska caribou and campaign noisily against intrusion of Arctic pipelines into this essential activity, reported The Christian Science Monitor on Oct. 10, 1972. The New York Times on Oct. 14, 1973, said the question is whether the caribou will go the way of the buffalo. Reality: Thirty years later we can see the effects of the pipeline on the caribou. Walter Hickel, a former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and governor of Alaska, said that the caribou herd has not only survived, but flourished. In 1977, as the Prudhoe region started delivering oil to America's southern 48 states, the Central Arctic caribou herd numbered 6,000; it has since grown to 27,128. Alaska's Department of Fish and Game Web site reports that in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska. Pipelines and other manmade objects have been built to accommodate caribou movements, and the animals have adapted to people and machines.
INSERTED NOTE: There have been many reports of caribou huddling near and even against the pipeline to stay warm in extremely cold weather and storms. It is quite possible that this could explain at least part of the herd’s growth. So much for the doomsayer’s predictions.
Earthquake Risk: Larry Moss of the Sierra Club stated in the Los Angeles Times on June 14, 1973, that the oil industry has continued, single-mindedly, its attempt to turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Support for this claim was that the pipeline had basic design flaws which cannot really be overcome by engineering ingenuity. This was supposedly because the pipe would cross one of the most active earthquake zones in the world, would scar and despoil vast tracts of magnificent, undisturbed country and would threaten extensive oil spills in the numerous rivers which the pipeline would cross.
A report from top ecologists at the Department of the Interior claimed that dangers of severance in earthquake prone areas were inadequately dealt with, read The Washington Post on Feb. 11, 1971. The Alaskan area involved is renowned for its extreme seismic activity, the Post reiterated on May 7, 1972. In the 70 years before 1972, 23 major earthquakes had clobbered the terrain where the Alaskan pipeline would be built, any one of which could have caused a catastrophic break in the pipe, the Post article continued.
Reality: The time passed since the construction of the pipeline allows for testing of this claim. On Nov. 3, 2002, a 7.9-magnitude earthquake struck Alaska. It was the worst earthquake recorded on Alaska's Denali fault, and considered a once-in-600-years event. The New York Times on Nov. 5, 2002, called it one of the largest earthquakes in American history, which, had it struck a major city, would have destroyed hundreds of buildings and killed many people. Tremors caused movements around Yellowstone National Park and even rocked boats in Louisiana. In comparison, the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was weaker at 7.8. Yet the pipeline withstood the powerful quake just as designed damaged but not ruptured, according to the Nov. 10, 2002, Los Angeles Times. If anything, last week's powerful earthquake shows that the pipeline could have withstood more, the pipelines seismic design coordinator said. The New York Times article said that After an aerial survey today, pipeline officials said they found no leaks in the structure.
Gale Norton summarized the effects: The Alaska pipeline was just 60 miles from the quake's epicenter. It shook back and forth, some supporting struts broke. But the pipeline held. It did not crack. Not a drop of oil was spilled. No one was injured. The safety systems put in place worked to perfection. The predicted design flaws that supposedly couldn't be overcome by engineering ingenuity werent mentioned after the earthquake occurred.
Misplaced Effort: Less than five months after the announcement of the oil discovery and proposed pipeline, members of the Sierra Club complained that they were invited to only two superficial meetings where they were told nothing significant, according to The New York Times on July 5, 1969. The Sierra Club and their fellow environmentalists from the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, and Environmental Defense Fund Inc. delayed pipeline progress with lawsuits. The Feb. 13, 1973, New York Times said the delay in construction is the best the oil companies can expect, while the possibility grows ever livelier that after years of misplaced effort the Alaska pipeline will join such forgotten and costly fantasies as the South Sea Bubble.
Reality: That misplaced effort has pumped 15 billion barrels of oil into the U.S. economy. Adrian Herrera of Arctic Power, an Alaska-based group that advocates oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, said the effects of the pipeline have been huge. The benefit is both economic and social. Infrastructure that was built in conjunction with the pipeline has a trickle-down effect that has helped all businesses. Nationwide the effect has been quite profound, he continued. Not just a direct benefit there's indirect benefits too. Jobs supporting the pipeline have been spread across the nation, as have the advantages from having more oil available.
Pipeline Breaking: On May 6, 1970, The New York Times said that the head of the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory warned that the proposed trans-Alaska oil pipeline might break and wreak great damage to the environment.
Reality: Despite leaks in the past, the pipeline has improved and is leaking less. The United States has the most stringent environmental controls on oil. Any spill of more than a teaspoon is reported. The whole pipeline is scanned every day from the ground or helicopters for leaks. Despite being three decades old, the pipeline is more modern than many others around the world.
All Hell to Break Loose:The New York Times on Nov 10, 1974, quoted an internationally known professor on Arctic soils from Rutgers University. He predicted all hell will break loose on Alaska's north slope within five years after hot oil starts flowing through the trans-Alaska pipeline. He then compared the spread of damage to the permafrost to a cancer that takes five years.
Reality: Of the 800-mile pipeline, 420 miles are above ground to avoid the permafrost. When above ground, it has a 2-inch heat pipe containing pure ammonia. When the air is cooler than the ground, the ammonia vaporizes and draws the heat from the earth. The ammonia then condenses on the pipe, starting the process again.
Major Oil Incidents Not Caused by Pipeline
The pipeline has not been without accidents but the biggest ones did not involve pipeline malfunctions. On Feb. 15, 1978, there was a leak of 16,000 barrels. There are some indications that it is sabotage. You have to suspect foul play, said Morris Turner of the Alaska Pipeline Office, according to The Washington Post on Feb. 16, 1978. No one was ever charged in that incident. On Oct. 4, 2001, Daniel Carson Lewis, who had been drinking, shot the pipeline and caused a leak of more than 6,000 barrels of oil. The Los Angeles Times on Oct. 21, 2001, quoted a state policeman as saying, Alcohol and a guy with a gun nothing deeper than that.
The largest oil-related incident in Alaska since the pipeline was built was the Exxon Valdez incident not a pipeline failure, but a ship crashing because of human error. On March 24, 1989, a ship hit a reef and spilled more than more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. The ships captain, Joe Hazelwood, had been drinking before the ship left, which was illegal. But the time of the ships departure changed, and had it not, then he wouldn't have broken the law. Hazelwood also left the deck to do other work, leaving the ship with an under-qualified sailor a breech of company policy.
While many animals were killed and the environment was damaged, it has since bounced back. The 2005 salmon run was so large that millions of fish were left to die and rot in hatchery areas. Exxon has paid out $3.5 billion in relation to the oil spill. Alyeska, a consortium of oil companies of which Exxon is a part, spends around $60 million a year on oil spill prevention in Prince William Sound.
Showdown in November: Political Elites, Ruling Class vs We, The People July 20, 2010 - By Mondoreb
BRAVE TALES of the politically-elite RULING CLASS
A few brave Tales of the Political Elite. After reading them, voters may decide it’s time for the Ruling Class to relearn who the boss is in America.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Where the “public servants” are the masters over everyone paying the bills.
The ruling elite are different than us: Mostly, they are more arrogantly incompetent.
Time’s almost up for many in the Ruling Class that is made up of the Political Elite and their porker hangers-on. November 2 will be here before they know it. It’s truly time for the “public servants” who populate the DC petty nobility to find out who the real bosses in American politics are. With all of the country’s challenges, it’s hard to figure just exactly how the elites stay in power when their performance has been absolutely horrible.
Examples abound almost daily.
Maybe the partying-while-the-USA-burns mentality of the President is merely a disguise for his angst at diminished power come November?
Even though Washington Elites are pampered and spoiled–with pay and perks almost double those in the private, money-making sector––they justify it to themselves in the time-honored way of Ruling Classes throughout history: they feel they deserve it, of course.
Just how do the few continue to rule the many?
One way is to fan the flames of class envy, usually a British affliction. It’s all detailed in Janet Dailey’s fine piece, American Politics has caught the British disease. See it later in this blog
There was a warning of what was to come during the election campaign with Joe the Plumber, to whom Mr Obama unwisely confided his intention to “spread the wealth around”. Americans who have risen from poverty to become qualified tradesmen or entrepreneurs generally believe that they have a right to put what wealth they produce back into their own businesses, rather than trusting governments to spread it around among those judged to be deserving.
But Joe’s warning was not heeded. Most of the constituency whose instincts were the same as his voted for Obama, and have now lived to regret it. This in itself is not especially surprising: it could simply be seen as the self-interested politics of personal survival. What is more startling is the growth in America of precisely the sort of political alignment which we have known for many years in Britain: an electoral alliance of the educated, self-consciously (or self-deceivingly, depending on your point of view) “enlightened” class with the poor, ignorant, and deprived.
America, in other words, has discovered bourgeois guilt. A country without a hereditary nobility [but with an unreasoning emotional attachment to celebrities of all kinds, even criminals.] has embraced noblesse oblige. Now, there is nothing inherently strange or perverse about people who lead successful, secure lives feeling a sense of responsibility toward those who are disadvantaged. What is peculiar in American terms is that this sentiment is taking on precisely the pseudo-aristocratic tone of disdain for the aspiring, struggling middle class that is such a familiar part of the British scene.
The American Spectator’s July/August print edition offers the following cover story, now featured at AmSpec’s website, America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution. The author, Angelo M. Codevilla, relates exactly when it was that the misadventures of the piggish political elites first became apparent to most common folk.
As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one. [The unwashed proved far wiser than the elites, as usual.]
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.
Make no mistake: they feel they are better than the people they supposedly serve–as do their advisers and staff, elite-educated that most are. One of the few times the One-Party Media* casts a favorable light on Republicans is when one graduates into the Ruling Class. John McCain is one of the Ruling Press’ favorites–outside of a presidential election season, that is.
* – “One-Party Media” from University of San Diego School of Law Professor Maimon Schwarzschild writing at The Right Coast (via PowerLine, The One Party Media).
The folks in Arizona have been laboring to remind McCain that he represents them–not his chroniclers at the Washington Post or New York Times.
There are Ruling Class wannabees. Former Senator Trent Lott comes to mind [Lott confirms he's a paid tool of the Washington Establishment]. Though out of power, apparently Lott hasn’t forgotten how to employ the royal sneer. (Like all ruling class elitists, his words ring of the famous verbal sneer of another ruling class elitist, "Let them eat cake," Marie Antoinette.)
Any possible shred of doubt remaining in anybody’s mind about former Senate GOP leader Trent Lott’s true allegiance have now been definitively removed: Lott is a paid tool of the Washington Establishment who hates the Tea Party and all other insurgents who have had it with politics-as-usual.
“We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them,” Lott told The Washington Post in an incredibly revealing story.
Sen. Jim DeMint, of course, is the South Carolina conservative Republican who last year formed the Senate Conservatives Fund to back precisely the kind of insurgent conservative Senate candidates most feared by the Lotts of the world.
One can almost hear Lott’s disdain for the “little people” coming through the pixelated page. So it’s not like the Ruling Class excludes Republicans. It doesn’t. But as anyone who has had many associations with the snobby can attest, they prefer “their kind of people.”
And their kind of people are most often Progressive Democrats. But there are no shortage of Establishment Republicans hungering for power on the taxpayers’ dime. The Establishment GOP joins the Democrats in thinking that they know best how to mandate for other lesser-blessed lives; that’s why some in the GOP are dumping on the Tea Party and Right-Blogs.
Erick Erickson blogged this Washington Post item last night. His post contains an anecdote about a Tea Party favorite GOP politician mocking Tea Partiers after attending a TP rally. That happened later, while sitting in the Capitol Club. I’ve had off the record conversations on the topic with Hill Republicans. It’s not surprising to hear one say something akin to, well, you know those bloggers, they’re not very bright people, a bit crazy, with too much time on their hands. Then they’ll catch themselves and say, present company excluded, of course.
This is but one reason why the clock is ticking on the GOP. The party has the 2010 and 2012 election cycle to “get it.”
What to do if they don’t?
After all, The Ancient Regime Isn’t Going Out Without a Fight. Already, there are elites trying to bypass the Electoral College. The Dems in Massachusetts are the latest to run this trick up the flag pole.
Some have speculated that the elite won’t wait until 2012–they’ll uncork an “October Surprise” in order to keep their hands on the levers of power.
Again, what to do?
For one, voters can demand of the GOP–and the Democrats, though the remaining Dems will be those mostly representing “safe” districts (a rough American equivalent to the English “rotten boroughs”)–that there is no more time to kick the can down the road for the next generation.
The next generation is now.
* No compromises while the country is burning in debt. * Repeal the mad monster that is ObamaCare. Those who make their peace with the abomination in the interests of “governing” can and will be shown the door like the representatives they replaced. * Campaign relentlessly against all those of the Politically-elite Ruling Class. Defeat them wherever they are found–though VDH says that the Postmodern Cultural Elite (not exactly the same thing; the Ruling Class is more of a subset) are to be pitied. Pity them better when they no longer hold power over the ones they profess to serve. * If Republicans don’t stop the Federal Leviathan–while it still can be stopped–dead in its tracks over the next four years, their cries of “But the Democrats will win and they are worse than us” will have no meaning or truth. Better to create a political party that truly represents the millions not represented now by the Ruling Class outside of both Republican and Democrat’s reach. Because when you get down to it: the Ruling Class is neither Republican or Democrat. It’s about scratching the backs of their fellow Classmates–while the rest of the country continues to pay for them for doing it.
These have been a few of the TALES OF THE POLITICAL ELITES. We provide them for informational and agitprop purposes.
The Ruling Class has revealed itself for the country to see.
The only antidote is an active, engaged citizenry intent on stamping it out wherever it raises its greedy, arrogant hooves.
Come November 2, it will be well past time for voters to employ the same language that the Ruling Class has been using.
Voters don’t have much time to learn the lingo.
By Janet Daley in the UK Telegraph - Published: 9:00PM BST 17 Jul 2010
American politics has caught the British disease
Under Barack Obama, the phenomenon of class resentment is a live political issue, says Janet Daley in the UK Telegraph.
When David Cameron visits the United States this week, he will find a country whose national political argument has become more like our own in Britain than probably he – and certainly I – would ever have imagined. For America has learned, thanks to Barack Obama's crash course in European-style government, about the titanic force of class differences. The president's determination to transform the US into a social democracy, complete with a centrally run healthcare programme and a redistributive tax system, has collided rather magnificently with America's history as a nation of displaced people who were prepared to risk their futures on a bid to be free from the power of the state.
They are talking a lot about this in the US now. Suddenly the phenomenon of class resentment is a live political issue. Some commentators describe it as the Democrats' "middle-class problem", which means that there has been a spectacular collapse of support for the administration among the core blue-collar voters who should constitute its base. (This terminology may be confusing: the "middle class" in the US means the skilled working, or lower middle, class. University-educated professionals are described as the "upper middle class" which, in this country, tends to mean a notch or two below titled aristocracy.)
Related Articles * Barack Obama needs to find his voice
There was a warning of what was to come during the election campaign with Joe the Plumber, to whom Mr Obama unwisely confided his intention to "spread the wealth around". Americans who have risen from poverty to become qualified tradesmen or entrepreneurs generally believe that they have a right to put what wealth they produce back into their own businesses, rather than trusting governments to spread it around among those judged to be deserving.
But Joe's warning was not heeded. Most of the constituency whose instincts were the same as his voted for Obama, and have now lived to regret it. This in itself is not especially surprising: it could simply be seen as the self-interested politics of personal survival. What is more startling is the growth in America of precisely the sort of political alignment which we have known for many years in Britain: an electoral alliance of the educated, self-consciously (or self-deceivingly, depending on your point of view) "enlightened" class with the poor and deprived.
America, in other words, has discovered bourgeois guilt. A country without a hereditary nobility has embraced noblesse oblige. Now, there is nothing inherently strange or perverse about people who lead successful, secure lives feeling a sense of responsibility toward those who are disadvantaged. What is peculiar in American terms is that this sentiment is taking on precisely the pseudo-aristocratic tone of disdain for the aspiring, struggling middle class that is such a familiar part of the British scene.
Liberal politics is now – over there as much as here – a form of social snobbery. To express concern about mass immigration, or reservations about the Obama healthcare plan, is unacceptable in bien-pensant circles because this is simply not the way educated people are supposed to think. It follows that those who do think (and talk) this way are small-minded bigots, rednecks, oiks, or whatever your local code word is for "not the right sort".
The petit bourgeois virtues of thrift, ambition and self-reliance – which are essential for anyone attempting to escape from poverty under his own steam – have long been derided in Britain as tokens of a downmarket upbringing. But not long ago in America they were considered, even among the highly educated, to be the quintessential national virtues, because even well-off professionals had probably had parents or grandparents who were once penniless immigrants. Nobody dismissed "ambition" as a form of gaucherie: the opposite of having ambition was being a bum, a good-for-nothing who would waste the opportunities that the new country offered for self-improvement.
But now the British Lefties who – like so many Jane Austen heroines looking down on those "in trade" – used to dismiss Margaret Thatcher as "a grocer's daughter", have their counterparts in the US, where virtually everybody's family started poor. Our "white van man" is their Tea Party activist, and the insult war is getting very vicious. It is becoming commonplace now for liberals in the US to label the Tea Party movement as racist, the most damaging insult of all in respectable American life.
[NOTE: Liberals use "racist" and other demeaning labels wily-nily against all opposition in usually personal attacks. Their actions prove that they are the true racists and never hesitate to play the race card against any and all opposition. That is their only argument because they are devoid of rational, constructive ideas or proposals and must resort to tactics more commonly used in childish schoolyard verbal "Nyah! Nyah!" battles. It is a sad testimonial to the efficacy of American voters that this, class and ethnic hatred, and other destructive tactics used by the left actually motivates them.]
So the Democrats, who once represented the interests of ferociously self-respecting blue-collar America, are now seen – under their highly educated president, who wholeheartedly embraces the orthodoxy of the liberal salon – as having abandoned their traditional following. Which is precisely what Labour did here when it turned its back on what used to be called "the respectable working class" because of its embarrassing resentments and "prejudices" against welfare claimants, immigrants, and anti-social youths. Bizarrely, among people who see themselves as profoundly empathetic, there was an utter failure to understand why the spirit of benevolent understanding and tolerance did not flourish among those whose daily lives were directly affected by a mass influx of foreign workers, or local delinquency, or a welfare system that rewarded inertia.
So who will speak – both here and over there – for the aspiring, the enterprising, the law-abiding, and, perhaps most important of all in these economic times, the productive classes? Mr Cameron seems unsure whether he wishes to recapture the Thatcher constituency of C1s and C2s, or to cultivate the liberal drawing rooms with a green/overseas aid/gay marriage portfolio. He speaks warmly of the virtuous and hard-working, but his tax policies will make them pay off most of the national deficit out of their own pockets.
In the US, there is probably no going back for the Obama administration. It has definitively lost faith with the "little guy" voters who once thought of a Democratic presidency as a form of divine protection, and this president does not seem to have the ingenious flexibility of a Bill Clinton, who swung Right after his first disastrous years in office, partly under pressure from a Republican Congress.
What is most depressing about this – apart from the injustice of it – is that the people who have been disenfranchised and disowned are the very ones on whom both countries' economic recovery depends.
The One-Party Media
July 19, 2010 Posted by Scott at 9:22 PM in Powerline
University of San Diego School of Law Professor Maimon Schwarzschild was my classmate in Mrs. Mullenbein's Temple Beth El pre-k class in Fargo back in 1955 or so. Even then his smarts made him stand out. Over at The Right Coast, Maimon draws the big picture that emerges out of the fabricated tale of the congressmen and the phantom n-word:
The usual disillusioned phrase is "mainstream media" or MSM. The problem, of course, is not mainstream-hood. Angrily talking about the "state-run media" is even more misguided: the media were anything but state-run, or state-sympathetic, when Bush was president; and Republican or conservative officials or judges can expect relentless hostility now as much as ever.
What we have is One-Party Media: newspapers, broadcast networks, news magazines which represent the views and preoccupations of the Democratic Party and the political left, and consistently denigrate or ignore the views and preoccupations of the political right or centre-right; and which very often systematically ignore any news or information which might reflect badly on the one party, or reflect well on the policies, proposals, or values of the other. (Fox is the exception - and how it is reviled for it! - although in its actual news stories, Fox often, although not always, follows the "narrative" of the other media.) (The Wall Street Journal is the other partial exception, but with the same proviso for many of its actual news stories, and at any rate the Journal is still largely a specialized business paper with a specialized readership. There are essentially no other major exceptions in either print or broadcast news.)
This really cuts deep: It is extraordinary, and I think unprecedented, that a free press has voluntarily transformed itself into something not very different from the controlled press in an undemocratic country. But that is what has happened. There are, to be sure, alternative sources of information and commentary in the US for anyone who seeks them out. (There are often such sources in undemocratic countries as well: foreign broadcasts, "underground" or samizdat circulation, and so on.) But the mainline, and still collectively very powerful, media are overwhelmingly a One-Party media. It needs to be said plainly.
The story of the congressmen and the phantom n-word presents a case study in the phenomenon of the one-party media. But, as Maimon says: "There are innumerable examples, every day."
The left just does not tolerate any view or person who does not ape their mantra as spelled out dutifully by the New York Times and moveon.org. It’s as if no liberal has a mind of his or her own. It’s not enough that they ridicule and vilify in the nastiest way possible, any one who opposes or disagrees with their “holy” pronouncements. Now, NPR, one of their propaganda organs, has shut down one of the very few really fair voices to be heard on NPR, Juan Williams.
To read their side of the controversy, goto http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130713285 for an article supporting their position. It’s a pretty weak argument when you look at those, like Nina Tottenberg, who made far more egregious personal comments, but are still welcome at NPR. Apparently, even more flagrantly negative comments made by Tottenberg and others about Republicans, conservatives, capitalists, and Christians are perfectly acceptable to NPR. That is because Tottenberg and those others support the liberal party mantras. Juan makes the mistake of being honest and expressing his feelings. Free speech has long been a casualty of the ruling class at NPR. Stray from saying purely positive things about liberalism, socialism, communism and now Islam and you’re apt to be fired. Say all the negative or nasty things you want against capitalism, business, Republicans, conservatives, Christianity, or even America, and you’ll get no negative comments and maybe even a pat on the back.
To read an unbiased view of the firing read, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102101474.html
A quote from that piece, “NPR officials say they have repeatedly told Williams that some of his statements on Fox violate NPR's ground rules for its news analysts. The rules ban NPR analysts from making speculative statements or rendering opinions on TV that would be deemed unacceptable if uttered on an NPR program. The policy has some gray areas, they acknowledged, but it generally prohibits personal attacks or statements that negatively characterize broad groups of people, such as Muslims.”
Liberalism is an almost religious belief system with little basis in reason or reality. Those blind sheep who follow the “holy” rules, mantras, and ideology of the left will do so religiously even to their own obvious detriment. I recently sent an email message and request for comments to a broad spectrum of family and friends, a number of whom are far left politically from yours truly. I received a few very interesting responses, mostly predictable.
Here is that email about taxes:
Here’s something that puzzles me and I would like to hear from anyone, especially liberals, who would explain it to me.
U. S. Government figures show conclusively that an increase in marginal income tax rates always results in a decrease in income tax revenue, and conversely a decrease in income tax rates always results in an increase in income tax revenue. Since this is true, at least for the last sixty years, what are the real motives of those currently in power who constantly promote an increase in income tax rates? Do they actually want a decrease in federal tax revenue? Why are they so avidly pursuing a policy that will result in lowered tax revenue for the federal government?
HoJoII _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hi Daddy-doo,
I suppose most people, like me, think that naturally more money in taxes = more money in the coffers. Most folks would not consider that building in other factors that occur when taxes increase offsets or reduces the increase. It is a matter of people, myself included, not doing their homework because I don’t know where to look for that information. Where is it that one could locate the statistics? It is probably not simple math or even simple economics but a complex interplay of factors that provides the end results.
Love, Deb _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
October 18, 2010
Deb:
There are many sources for information on the subject available on the Internet. Just search tax rates and tax revenue, and you will find more information than you really want to know. I just researched some new information on the Cato Institute web site and found the axiom I described actually applies clear back to when the income tax was first levied in 1913. Here's a quote based on what happened in the early 1920s.
"Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants in order to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared"
That held true in more recent years with the Kennedy tax cuts, the Carter tax increases, the Reagan tax cuts, the first Bush "no new taxes" increase, the G.W. Bush tax cuts, and the Obama tax increases and threat of tax increases. In fact, business and individuals react to the threat or promise of tax rate changes even before they happen. The record of this consistent human behavior is about as consistent as anything political has ever been.
Love, Dad _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hi All:
Just a little commentary on continuing Democrat false accusations and lies. This one is about Social Security, you know, that program Democrats are constantly accusing Republicans of planning to reduce or change to the detriment of seniors. Seniors please note this fact. The only major reduction of SS benefits for seniors was put in place by Democrats under Bill Clinton, not Republicans. Bill Clinton and the Democrats changed how the COLA, cost of living adjustment, is calculated so that today, SS checks are about 20% less than they would have been had the Democrats not reduced SS benefits.
What did they do? They removed food and fuel from the mix used to determine the COLA. I guess Democrats figured senior didn't need food or fuel. This was a direct blow to seniors dependent on SS, as food and fuel are a larger portion of senior's expenses than any other age group. This change made for an extremely false indication of the real cost of living. It resulted in most SS checks today being from $200 to $250 less than they would have been. So to use a typical Democrat strategy on them, Democrats took between $200 and $250 per month away from most seniors. And they have the gall to say Republicans will reduce SS? Get real!
Ho
Response 2 - what else would you expect from a liberal?
FACT! 85% of all debt our country has incurred in 230+ years of our existence has come not from "tax and spend liberals," but from the three presidencies of Ronald Reagan, Bush the elder, and Bush the idiot. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire (2.5Trillion to debt) would put us back to the tax rates of the Clinton era, which was the most prosperous decade in American history regards ???? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Reply to Response 2 comment.
Question: What constitution are you living under? Our President is the executive branch of government and does not control our nation’s purse strings.
FACT #1: The US Constitution places all responsibility for legislating federal expenditures in the house of representatives. All any President can do is propose, Congress legislates what we spend.
FACT #2: Except for 1947-1948, Democrats controlled the house and the federal purse strings from 1945 to 1994 when the Republicans took control. Reagan‘s proposed tax cuts were approved by the House, but none of his proposed reductions in expenditures were. Federal revenue soared, but the Democrat “tax and spend” Congress spent even more of it. That’s why the national; debt soared. Reagan couldn’t do a thing about it but complains and everyone knows how the one-party press spun his reactions to that.
FACT #3: Through six of the 8 years our infamous philanderer-in-chief was in power, Republicans controlled the House and the purse strings. If indeed it was the most prosperous era for Americans, they can thank the Republican House and Senate for that.
FACT #4: Democrats took control of the house in 2007 and look at what has happened since then. Have you been smokin’ some of that Democrat weed. The records would tend to indicate that when Republicans control the House, the economy booms, and when Democrats do, well, look at us now. Obama and liberal Democrats own this financial debacle and the high unemployment. They could cause a boost to the economy, lower unemployment and probably increase federal revenue by lowering taxes, but they are far too intent on punishing those who create wealth for everyone to do anything as positive and helpful for America as that.
Oh, and about that typically liberal hate comment, “Bush the idiot.” It merely demonstrates the total inability of liberals to mount a rational argument about anything. Instead, they call names, curse, and personally denigrate others like school children on a playground. You’d think that occasionally they would be able to mount a reasonable defense of their positions, but apparently not.
Regards, Ho _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sent: Oct 18, 2010 9:31 PM
Subject: More on taxes and revenue
Hi All:
I have received a number of responses to my email about taxes and revenue. Most asked where I found the information. No one answered my why question. So here’s a little additional information.
There are many sources for information on the subject available on the Internet. Just search tax rates and tax revenue, and you will find more information than you really want to know. I just researched some new information on the Cato Institute web site and found the axiom I described actually applies clear back to when the income tax was first levied in 1913. Here's a quote based on what happened in the early 1920s.
"Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants in order to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared"
That held true in more recent years with the Kennedy tax cuts, the Carter tax increases, the Reagan tax cuts, the first Bush "no new taxes" increase, the G.W. Bush tax cuts, and the Obama tax increases and threat of tax increases. In fact, business and individuals react to the threat or promise of tax rate changes even before they happen. The record of this human behavior is about as consistent as anything political has ever been.
I still wonder what the real motives of those who increase taxes are. Those politicians certainly cannot be so stupid as to not know this reality, so what is their real goal? Use of class envy and resentment of those who have more than less successful individuals is an emotional reward that the stupid and ignorant see as gain even if, as is actually true, they suffer more than those they seek to punish. Once more it is the old, "cut off nose to spite face" attitude of so many people.
In an example of this close to home, I was involved in two law suits over computers I sold that one of my bitter associates, Dennis Schaaf, convinced customers to file against me and Hoosier 500 computers. Both were absolutely false accusations pretty much proven by my attorney with the information I gave him. Both suits were settled by arbitration where no one admitted or proved any guilt on my part. Because I had product liability insurance with a $500.00 deductible, all of my legal fees and settlement amounts were paid by my insurance. In the end, the sum total it cost me for each suit was that $500.00.
One guy, a trucker, paid his attorneys $4,400.00 to "get" me. The other, A local business owner, paid the same attorneys at least $3,000.00. Incidently, these particular attorneys from Syracuse make a pretty good living filing cases like these against all kinds of merchants. That's about all they do, file lots of small cases, use the same boilerplate for each one and rake in the cash whether their clients win. lose or draw. In both cases against me, all of the computer equipment I sold them was returned to me as part of the settlement. I cleaned both systems up and sold them as used for a total of almost $1600.00. So I ended up about $600.00 ahead.
Of course, I had to go through all the hassle of depositions and the other legal crap, but it sure cost me a whole lot less than it did those two jerks who were talked into suing me. About a year after this happened I had the great joy of telling this to the local business owner and suggesting that he thank Dennis for getting him to waste all that money. Sometimes, what goes around, comes around.
