The link: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly
" VIPR operations are now even targeting freight trucks on highways. In addition to the random checks on public transit systems, it makes you wonder: can private vehicles be far behind? Will there be any mode of transportation beyond the reach of the TSA? (VIPR stands for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response. Links are theirs and are left intact.)
" UPDATE: According to at least one news report out of Brownsville, Texas, TSA/VIPR has already conducted unannounced inspections of private passenger cars and trucks. Thanks for the tip, reader @jwindz. (Link is theirs and is left intact.) That link goes here: http://www.krgv.com/news/local/story/Authorities-Conduct-Random-Inspections-at-Port-of/7beCpszvaEmkasNenRgu3w.cspx
I've already said that I'm a truck driver now, and I've (with my mentor) driven through Laredo, Texas.
I've also said that I don't want some TSA jackboot touching my family jewels. That hasn't ... and won't change.
Does the TSA do good work? The law of averages says that at least some of them are competent and are doing good work.
But let me ask you this: Alex Jones (yes, that one) has been saying that this would be coming. So have others. My question - can they all be 'conspiracy theorists?' Or is it just barely possible that they might be right? Be very very careful with your answer.
Remember when the TSA was 'screening' those passengers who had just gotten off a train? That link is here: http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/28/why-did-tsa-pat-down-kids-adults-getting-off-train/
But wouldn't it have made much more sense to search them before they boarded? Now, I know I'm dense and stupid (because Barack Obama (MMM! MMM! MMM!) has said so) but it seems to me they got it backwards here.
MMM! MMM! MMM! ???? Honestly, an indoctrination song here in the US? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3TKMKbifgQ
BUt ... BUT ... that was a 'one-off!' Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM&feature=related
But it can't be!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onXd8iH3OVQ&feature=related
This one is more disturbing, at least to me. Combat BDU pants? The same T-shirt? (Well, I'll give you that one) Combat boots?!? Oh, and they're praising ObamaCare. Still not indoctrination?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM45kYAKyCU&feature=related
But you're right ... there's no indoctrination here.
Let me ask this exit question: Given what we've discussed ... the TSA groping and the indoctrination songs: Is that was a free democracy does, or is this something a dictator would do?
Just asking.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Article: TSA demands racial profiling stop
The link: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/house_homeland_security_commit.html
" "TSA should halt the SPOT program immediately until safeguards are put into place to address racial and ethnic profiling concerns," Thompson said in a statement. "I will write TSA and request to see this internal report." " (SPOT stands for 'Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques')
But there's a problem with this: And for that we need to go here: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/04/10/tsa-follies-see-spot-fail/
Yes, the link is to Michelle Malkin's site.
But you need to read the article.
" Air traffic controllers have been catching a lot of grief for sleeping on the job lately. But do you know what Transportation Security Administration officials have been doing — or rather, not doing — lately? A federal watchdog revealed this week that TSA’s counterterrorism specialists failed to detect 16 separate jihad operatives who moved through target airports “on at least 23 different occasions.” The name of the TSA monitoring program paying for all this flying-blind failure, I kid you not: (Link is Ms. Malkin's and is left intact.)
" SPOT.
" Under the “Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques” plan, TSA’s designated behavior detection officers are supposed to closely watch travelers who pose potential security risks and who exhibit any number of appearances or activities “indicative of stress, fear, or deception.” But long-entrenched, bipartisan American political correctness hampers the kind of effective, efficient national security profiling that Israeli airline security officials practice so well.
" The result? TSA’s snoozing SPOT-ters catch nobody — for fear of being accused by the grievance lobby of singling anybody out."
In other words, profiling.
" Remember? Asked by CBS reporter Steve Kroft whether “a 70-year-old white woman from Vero Beach, Fla., would receive the same level of scrutiny as a Muslim young man from Jersey City,” Mineta responded in 2001, “Basically, I would hope so.” " (Link is Ms. Malkin's and is left intact.)
But why, you ask? I ask that, too. Why do toddlers, 8 year olds, people in wheelchairs get stripsearched and Muslims don't? Remember my previous posting?
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-gives-pass-no-touch-muslims-junk.html
" " However, Muslim women will not have to face such worries. CNSNews.com has reported that Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which is frequently tied to domestic terror plots — has been guaranteed that TSA officials will only pat down Muslim women in the head and neck area. " (emphasis and colour added)
Don't you feel soooooooooooooo much safer?
The SPOT program, when properly used, works.
I can't, and won't deny that profiling is going on. I can't deny that. But if it helps catch the real criminals, I won't complain.
" "TSA should halt the SPOT program immediately until safeguards are put into place to address racial and ethnic profiling concerns," Thompson said in a statement. "I will write TSA and request to see this internal report." " (SPOT stands for 'Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques')
But there's a problem with this: And for that we need to go here: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/04/10/tsa-follies-see-spot-fail/
Yes, the link is to Michelle Malkin's site.
But you need to read the article.
" Air traffic controllers have been catching a lot of grief for sleeping on the job lately. But do you know what Transportation Security Administration officials have been doing — or rather, not doing — lately? A federal watchdog revealed this week that TSA’s counterterrorism specialists failed to detect 16 separate jihad operatives who moved through target airports “on at least 23 different occasions.” The name of the TSA monitoring program paying for all this flying-blind failure, I kid you not: (Link is Ms. Malkin's and is left intact.)
" SPOT.
" Under the “Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques” plan, TSA’s designated behavior detection officers are supposed to closely watch travelers who pose potential security risks and who exhibit any number of appearances or activities “indicative of stress, fear, or deception.” But long-entrenched, bipartisan American political correctness hampers the kind of effective, efficient national security profiling that Israeli airline security officials practice so well.
" The result? TSA’s snoozing SPOT-ters catch nobody — for fear of being accused by the grievance lobby of singling anybody out."
In other words, profiling.
" Remember? Asked by CBS reporter Steve Kroft whether “a 70-year-old white woman from Vero Beach, Fla., would receive the same level of scrutiny as a Muslim young man from Jersey City,” Mineta responded in 2001, “Basically, I would hope so.” " (Link is Ms. Malkin's and is left intact.)
But why, you ask? I ask that, too. Why do toddlers, 8 year olds, people in wheelchairs get stripsearched and Muslims don't? Remember my previous posting?
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-gives-pass-no-touch-muslims-junk.html
" " However, Muslim women will not have to face such worries. CNSNews.com has reported that Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which is frequently tied to domestic terror plots — has been guaranteed that TSA officials will only pat down Muslim women in the head and neck area. " (emphasis and colour added)
Don't you feel soooooooooooooo much safer?
The SPOT program, when properly used, works.
I can't, and won't deny that profiling is going on. I can't deny that. But if it helps catch the real criminals, I won't complain.
Article: "Pakistanis Tip off Militants (Terrorists) Again"
The link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/18/national/w115701D75.DTL&tsp=1
" In another blow to Washington's relationship with Pakistan, U.S. officials say Pakistan failed another test to prove it could be trusted to go after American enemies on its soil by intentionally or inadvertently tipping off militants at two more bomb-building factories in its tribal areas, giving the suspected terrorists time to flee. "
I'd call that a big 'oops.' And not even an 'oops,' since that word is usually used in the context of an accident. But this, apparently, wasn't an accident.
Apparently, somebody in Pakistan knowingly warned the terrorists. But it gets worse:
" In each case, within a day or so after sharing the information, they watched the militants depart, taking any weapons or bomb-making materials with them, just as militants had done the first two times. Only then, did they watch the Pakistani military visit each site, when the terror suspects and their wares were long gone, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence. "
So let's review: American officials warned the Pakistanis that an operation was going to begin in a certain area at a certain date and time.
A Pakistani warned the terrorists that the Americans were coming, giving them time to escape.
And we continue to give them money ... why, exactly?
" In another blow to Washington's relationship with Pakistan, U.S. officials say Pakistan failed another test to prove it could be trusted to go after American enemies on its soil by intentionally or inadvertently tipping off militants at two more bomb-building factories in its tribal areas, giving the suspected terrorists time to flee. "
I'd call that a big 'oops.' And not even an 'oops,' since that word is usually used in the context of an accident. But this, apparently, wasn't an accident.
Apparently, somebody in Pakistan knowingly warned the terrorists. But it gets worse:
" In each case, within a day or so after sharing the information, they watched the militants depart, taking any weapons or bomb-making materials with them, just as militants had done the first two times. Only then, did they watch the Pakistani military visit each site, when the terror suspects and their wares were long gone, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence. "
So let's review: American officials warned the Pakistanis that an operation was going to begin in a certain area at a certain date and time.
A Pakistani warned the terrorists that the Americans were coming, giving them time to escape.
And we continue to give them money ... why, exactly?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Those Damn Nuclear Reactors (Hopefully with the CORRECT spacing!)
Well ... let's stop and think about this for a second. What happened in Japan was horrible. I don't think there's any doubt about that.
But could it happen here in Ohio?
Possible. But not likely.
Think of it this way: We're not that near a fault in Ohio, so while we could have an earthquake, it almost certainly won't be a 9.0 as what happened in Japan. We actually did have an earthquake back when I was in high school. It was in 1984 or 1985, if I remember correctly. I was laying in bed listening to music and the bed moved. I thought my father had moved the bed, but he wasn't in the room. Granted, nothing fell over and the movement was very slight, but it happened. So an earthquake in Ohio?
It's already happened - but nowhere near a 9.0.
Second, the tsunami - which literally means "harbour wave." Is it possible to have a tsunami in Ohio? Possible, yes. Just not likely.
For one to happen an asteroid would have to crash into the ocean, something like what happened 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs got wiped out. What's the point? Well, many people are now getting worried about nuclear reactors. Granted, the worst hasn't happened yet in Japan, but it could very well get much much worse.
" The Japanese government's nuclear safety agency has decided to raise the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident from 5 to 7, the worst on the international scale. " (*1)
Still, the point is that here in Ohio, we're not likely to have a 9.0 earthquake or a monster tsunami, so our nuclear plants don't need to be built to withstand them.
But many people are now getting worried about nuclear reactors. And then there's the problem of nuclear waste. But let's also consider this article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42539862
" The global overreaction from this rare 9.0 magnitude earthquake and massive tsunami that followed may set back the safest and easiest way for this country to solve its energy crisis, investors said. “The Fukushima meltdown may mark a high point in anti-nuclear hysteria,”
" Anti-nuclear hysteria. You can say that again.
If you really really want to have something to worry about, let's consider something Dr. Michio Kaku said on Coast to Coast AM:
" Well, I think we should first of all admit that the Atoms for Peace Program (*2) let the cat out of the bag. I'm a physicist. There's no law of physics really separating commercial from weapons technology - it's the same technology. You just increase the enrichment level from 3 per cent to 90 per cent - that's it, that's the difference.
" The Indians (as in India, the country) discovered this, that's why they detonated their first bomb in the 1970's, using an experimental CANDU (*4) reactor. They took this Atoms for Peace Program, which was never designed to make bombs, but the physics is the same. The Indians were not stupid, they surreptitiously (*5) refined the nuclear waste and they detonated their first bomb in the 1970's.
" And now we have this technology proliferating all over the place. Take a look at North Korea. North Korea has uranium technology, which shocked us, we didn't think they had uranium technology, and where did they get it?
" The New York Times says they got it from Pakistan. Well, where did Pakistan get this uranium technology from? Essentially from Germany and the United States. We allowed that technology to flood into Pakistan during the Afghan War, when Ronald Reagan was opposing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And he wanted a billion dollars a day to go to the Afghan rebels, well, that's ok, but what happened was the Pakistanis wanted something in exchange.
" When you really get your hands around it, the United States winked at Pakistan, Pakistan winks at North Korea, and then we're shocked when North Korea comes up with uranium enrichment technology.
" A lot of countries are not stupid. They know there is almost no difference between weapons technology and commercial technology except the enrichment level, which of course affects the chemistry a bit. But it's basically the enrichment level (*3) that you want, and the Iranians, believe it or not, are absolutely correct in stating that all they want is commercially available technology from Russia.
" And President Clinton was the first American President to admit that commercial technology, which is legally available, can be used to make atomic bombs.
" And the Iranians were saying "Now, wait a minute. We obeyed the letter of the law. You set the rules. You made the rules. The West made the rules, we followed the rules, " and yeah, the Iranians apparently want to build an atomic bomb and they're using commercial technology to do it. "
(*1) - http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=1
(*2) - Atoms for Peace - http://www.iaea.org/About/history_speech.html
(*3) - http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/intro.html
A 'typical' nuclear reactor uses 3% enriched uranium.
A 'breeder' reactor uses 20% enriched uranium.
An atomic weapon uses 90% enriched uranium.
(*4) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
(*5) - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surreptitiously
But could it happen here in Ohio?
Possible. But not likely.
Think of it this way: We're not that near a fault in Ohio, so while we could have an earthquake, it almost certainly won't be a 9.0 as what happened in Japan. We actually did have an earthquake back when I was in high school. It was in 1984 or 1985, if I remember correctly. I was laying in bed listening to music and the bed moved. I thought my father had moved the bed, but he wasn't in the room. Granted, nothing fell over and the movement was very slight, but it happened. So an earthquake in Ohio?
It's already happened - but nowhere near a 9.0.
Second, the tsunami - which literally means "harbour wave." Is it possible to have a tsunami in Ohio? Possible, yes. Just not likely.
For one to happen an asteroid would have to crash into the ocean, something like what happened 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs got wiped out. What's the point? Well, many people are now getting worried about nuclear reactors. Granted, the worst hasn't happened yet in Japan, but it could very well get much much worse.
" The Japanese government's nuclear safety agency has decided to raise the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident from 5 to 7, the worst on the international scale. " (*1)
Still, the point is that here in Ohio, we're not likely to have a 9.0 earthquake or a monster tsunami, so our nuclear plants don't need to be built to withstand them.
But many people are now getting worried about nuclear reactors. And then there's the problem of nuclear waste. But let's also consider this article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42539862
" The global overreaction from this rare 9.0 magnitude earthquake and massive tsunami that followed may set back the safest and easiest way for this country to solve its energy crisis, investors said. “The Fukushima meltdown may mark a high point in anti-nuclear hysteria,”
" Anti-nuclear hysteria. You can say that again.
If you really really want to have something to worry about, let's consider something Dr. Michio Kaku said on Coast to Coast AM:
" Well, I think we should first of all admit that the Atoms for Peace Program (*2) let the cat out of the bag. I'm a physicist. There's no law of physics really separating commercial from weapons technology - it's the same technology. You just increase the enrichment level from 3 per cent to 90 per cent - that's it, that's the difference.
" The Indians (as in India, the country) discovered this, that's why they detonated their first bomb in the 1970's, using an experimental CANDU (*4) reactor. They took this Atoms for Peace Program, which was never designed to make bombs, but the physics is the same. The Indians were not stupid, they surreptitiously (*5) refined the nuclear waste and they detonated their first bomb in the 1970's.
" And now we have this technology proliferating all over the place. Take a look at North Korea. North Korea has uranium technology, which shocked us, we didn't think they had uranium technology, and where did they get it?
" The New York Times says they got it from Pakistan. Well, where did Pakistan get this uranium technology from? Essentially from Germany and the United States. We allowed that technology to flood into Pakistan during the Afghan War, when Ronald Reagan was opposing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And he wanted a billion dollars a day to go to the Afghan rebels, well, that's ok, but what happened was the Pakistanis wanted something in exchange.
" When you really get your hands around it, the United States winked at Pakistan, Pakistan winks at North Korea, and then we're shocked when North Korea comes up with uranium enrichment technology.
" A lot of countries are not stupid. They know there is almost no difference between weapons technology and commercial technology except the enrichment level, which of course affects the chemistry a bit. But it's basically the enrichment level (*3) that you want, and the Iranians, believe it or not, are absolutely correct in stating that all they want is commercially available technology from Russia.
" And President Clinton was the first American President to admit that commercial technology, which is legally available, can be used to make atomic bombs.
" And the Iranians were saying "Now, wait a minute. We obeyed the letter of the law. You set the rules. You made the rules. The West made the rules, we followed the rules, " and yeah, the Iranians apparently want to build an atomic bomb and they're using commercial technology to do it. "
(*1) - http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=1
(*2) - Atoms for Peace - http://www.iaea.org/About/history_speech.html
(*3) - http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/intro.html
A 'typical' nuclear reactor uses 3% enriched uranium.
A 'breeder' reactor uses 20% enriched uranium.
An atomic weapon uses 90% enriched uranium.
(*4) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
(*5) - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surreptitiously
Sunday, April 17, 2011
"Leavin..." but not on a jet plane
Some time ago I wrote that I had attended RoadMaster Truck Driving School in Columbus, Ohio. I did, and I graduated.
I just completed a refresher course, and begin training on Monday (18-APR.)
Yes, I am nervous. I won't mention yet whom I'll be driving for, but I'm excited, worried, anxious, and a few other things. I'm not worried about my driving, I'm worried about the other people on the road (and truth be told, about me as well.)
I'll say again (and for the record) those white lines on the road at intersections were designed that way by civil engineers so that tractor-trailers can also turn. You're supposed to stop BEHIND those white lines. :)
So if you see me in my rig reminding you about those white lines, there you go. :)
Wish me luck, and I'll update from time to time.
I just completed a refresher course, and begin training on Monday (18-APR.)
Yes, I am nervous. I won't mention yet whom I'll be driving for, but I'm excited, worried, anxious, and a few other things. I'm not worried about my driving, I'm worried about the other people on the road (and truth be told, about me as well.)
I'll say again (and for the record) those white lines on the road at intersections were designed that way by civil engineers so that tractor-trailers can also turn. You're supposed to stop BEHIND those white lines. :)
So if you see me in my rig reminding you about those white lines, there you go. :)
Wish me luck, and I'll update from time to time.
Article: "All those tweets, apps, updates may drain brain"
All together now ... "duh!"
This really shouldn't be a "duh," moment, sadly, it is. The link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/17/BUTO1J0S2P.DTL&ao=all
" There's growing concern among scientists that indulging in these ceaseless disruptions isn't good for our brains, in much the way that excessive sugar or fat - other things we evolved to crave when they were in shorter supply - isn't good for our bodies. " Again, this shouldn't be a 'duh' moment.
I've seen too damn many people with their noses seemingly glued to the stupid things. People unable to put down their phones, their whatever.
" Some psychiatrists worry that people are increasingly demonstrating addict-like behavior when it comes to technology, unable to ignore its pull, even when it negatively affects them. "
Again, this really shouldn't be a 'duh' moment. The article goes into more detail, but I'll leave it for you to view. But it really is a must-read.
And, for my money, people need to ask themselves: Is this gadget really helping me, or have I become a slave to it?
I've stated before, on and for the record that the only reason I still have my cell phone is that, by law and agreement, you must be able to reach 911, even on a phone without service.
In my opinion, too many people have become addicts to technology.
This really shouldn't be a "duh," moment, sadly, it is. The link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/17/BUTO1J0S2P.DTL&ao=all
" There's growing concern among scientists that indulging in these ceaseless disruptions isn't good for our brains, in much the way that excessive sugar or fat - other things we evolved to crave when they were in shorter supply - isn't good for our bodies. " Again, this shouldn't be a 'duh' moment.
I've seen too damn many people with their noses seemingly glued to the stupid things. People unable to put down their phones, their whatever.
" Some psychiatrists worry that people are increasingly demonstrating addict-like behavior when it comes to technology, unable to ignore its pull, even when it negatively affects them. "
Again, this really shouldn't be a 'duh' moment. The article goes into more detail, but I'll leave it for you to view. But it really is a must-read.
And, for my money, people need to ask themselves: Is this gadget really helping me, or have I become a slave to it?
I've stated before, on and for the record that the only reason I still have my cell phone is that, by law and agreement, you must be able to reach 911, even on a phone without service.
In my opinion, too many people have become addicts to technology.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Mr Greenman; Sir, I scarcely know where to begin in dissecting your article which appears here: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/02/04/2011-02-04_republicans_wrote_the_political_dictionary_its_proof_democrats_dont_control_the_.html?page=0
However, please allow me to level the playing field by removing several of the liberal's favourite cards from play.
You'll note, I hope, that I did not say your favourite cards, I said the liberal's favourite cards. I say this because during every discussion I've had with a self-described liberal I've been called "small-minded," a "racist," (because I continually speak out against President Obama), and "stupid" because I obviously don't understand what he is trying to accomplish. Please note this distinction as it will become most important at the end of this missive.
We'll begin with the race card and the gender card. These cards, Mr Greenman, are now off the table. You cannot call these cards into play. That link is here: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/08/article-let-them-eat-cake-democrats.html
Next, I will remove your anti healthcare reform card from play: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2010/06/dissecting-5-facts-about-anti-reform.html I'm also going to remove your "uninformed" and "name-calling" cards from play. The discussion of these can be found at the link immediately above.
For review, the following cards are off the table. Please note them, as, if you follow the pattern, you'll be tempted to reach for at least two of them. One of them I'm certain you'll reach for at least three times. These cards are: the race card, the gender card, the anti healthcare reform card, the "idiot" or "uninformed" card, and the name-calling card. You cannot call these cards into play.
But now Mr Greenman, it is now time for us to play our (as one Democratic Senator I wrote called it) "...most dangerous game." But Mr Greenman, even Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) had to admit that he admired the way I leveled the playing field (whilst at the same time assuring me he had no intention of calling those cards into play.) Believe it or not, but Senator Brown actually wrote me a reply. He did not send a form letter. I must admit to you (as I did to him) that I admire him for that.
Mr Greenman, I'm now going to call your attention to a UCLA media study which can be found here: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx Yes, Mr Greenman, I'm aware that the date of this study is 14-DEC-2005. But I also trust that you are aware that, to date, this studies' conclusions have yet to be found erroneous. I'll leave it to you to read the article, but I will quote part of it:
" While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. "
" "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co-author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. "
That, Mr Greenman, is part of that study. This, however, leads me right back to your article: " And in an increasingly fragmented Internet, the Drudge Report continues to drives more political traffic than any other website. In italics and bold, to boot. " (link is your sites' and is left intact.) And yet Mr Greenman, in the aforementioned survey, the Drudge Report scored 51. This is one point left-of-centre. (At this point, I would, however, point out the spelling. It is from your paper's site and is not mine.)
As for "ObamaCare," I would correct one of your statements. Republicans were not complaining that he played too passive a role in shaping it, many of them were complaining that he had done it behind closed doors. I'll remind you, Mr Greenman, of "the Louisiana Purchase" :
" Votes are being bought left and right to pass this health care reform bill that evolved into something that almost nobody in the left or right, not to mention the majority of the people, want but that Harry Reid is ramming down everybody’s throats for no reason other than to massage the ego of the arrogant Obama. " (*)
And : " As polls have consistently shown, the more Americans learn about Democratic plans for health care, the more the opposition grows. Mr. Reid appreciates this dynamic, which is why he wrote his bill behind closed doors, when only Santa could have any real idea of who's earning a place on the naughty list. " (emphasis added.)
This, I take it, is part of Mr Obama's commitment to "transparency." The truth, Mr Greenman? Come on. You and I both know how many votes were purchased so Mr Obama could have his reform bill. You and I both know that the list of waivers has grown to over 700. The truth? If Mr Obama's bill is so wonderful and will fix so many things, than why are there over 700 exemptions? The truth, Mr Greenman? This is part of that "...dangerous game." that I played with Senator Brown in that I demanded the truth from him.
Yes, you read that correctly, I demanded the truth. Mr Greenman, I believe the time is long past for our elected officials on both sides of the aisle to remember that they were sent to Washington to serve their constituents, and their constituents' interests. Many of them, sadly, appear to have forgotten this. This next, Mr Greenman, is a very serious question for you and is part of our "...dangerous game," as Senator Brown called it. (Senator Kris Jordan (R-OH) actually admired my "family jewels" or "cojones" with which I wrote my missive to him. But I digress.)
Here is our question, Mr Greenman, and you'll note the way in which I phrase it: Is it just barely possible that you might be part of the problem? Be very very careful with your answer; for if you answer "no," you'll immediately be saying that you are perfect. And here is our exit question, the "$64,000 Dollar Question" as it were: Is it just barely possible that your conclusions might be wrong? Is it just barely possible that you approach your stories with a preconceived idea of where they should lead? And: Is it just barely possible that you might tend to disregard certain facts that do not fit your stories?
Yes, I know; those are actually three exit questions. Yet my point remains. And, for reference, my IQ is 127 according to my fourth standardized IQ test in the last eleven months. Mr Greenman this score, 127, is on the high end of "above average" and is three points shy of "gifted."Good day to you Sir, and thank you for reading this missive.(*) - http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/local_story_355233643.html
However, please allow me to level the playing field by removing several of the liberal's favourite cards from play.
You'll note, I hope, that I did not say your favourite cards, I said the liberal's favourite cards. I say this because during every discussion I've had with a self-described liberal I've been called "small-minded," a "racist," (because I continually speak out against President Obama), and "stupid" because I obviously don't understand what he is trying to accomplish. Please note this distinction as it will become most important at the end of this missive.
We'll begin with the race card and the gender card. These cards, Mr Greenman, are now off the table. You cannot call these cards into play. That link is here: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/08/article-let-them-eat-cake-democrats.html
Next, I will remove your anti healthcare reform card from play: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2010/06/dissecting-5-facts-about-anti-reform.html I'm also going to remove your "uninformed" and "name-calling" cards from play. The discussion of these can be found at the link immediately above.
For review, the following cards are off the table. Please note them, as, if you follow the pattern, you'll be tempted to reach for at least two of them. One of them I'm certain you'll reach for at least three times. These cards are: the race card, the gender card, the anti healthcare reform card, the "idiot" or "uninformed" card, and the name-calling card. You cannot call these cards into play.
But now Mr Greenman, it is now time for us to play our (as one Democratic Senator I wrote called it) "...most dangerous game." But Mr Greenman, even Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) had to admit that he admired the way I leveled the playing field (whilst at the same time assuring me he had no intention of calling those cards into play.) Believe it or not, but Senator Brown actually wrote me a reply. He did not send a form letter. I must admit to you (as I did to him) that I admire him for that.
Mr Greenman, I'm now going to call your attention to a UCLA media study which can be found here: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx Yes, Mr Greenman, I'm aware that the date of this study is 14-DEC-2005. But I also trust that you are aware that, to date, this studies' conclusions have yet to be found erroneous. I'll leave it to you to read the article, but I will quote part of it:
" While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. "
" "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co-author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. "
That, Mr Greenman, is part of that study. This, however, leads me right back to your article: " And in an increasingly fragmented Internet, the Drudge Report continues to drives more political traffic than any other website. In italics and bold, to boot. " (link is your sites' and is left intact.) And yet Mr Greenman, in the aforementioned survey, the Drudge Report scored 51. This is one point left-of-centre. (At this point, I would, however, point out the spelling. It is from your paper's site and is not mine.)
As for "ObamaCare," I would correct one of your statements. Republicans were not complaining that he played too passive a role in shaping it, many of them were complaining that he had done it behind closed doors. I'll remind you, Mr Greenman, of "the Louisiana Purchase" :
" Votes are being bought left and right to pass this health care reform bill that evolved into something that almost nobody in the left or right, not to mention the majority of the people, want but that Harry Reid is ramming down everybody’s throats for no reason other than to massage the ego of the arrogant Obama. " (*)
And : " As polls have consistently shown, the more Americans learn about Democratic plans for health care, the more the opposition grows. Mr. Reid appreciates this dynamic, which is why he wrote his bill behind closed doors, when only Santa could have any real idea of who's earning a place on the naughty list. " (emphasis added.)
This, I take it, is part of Mr Obama's commitment to "transparency." The truth, Mr Greenman? Come on. You and I both know how many votes were purchased so Mr Obama could have his reform bill. You and I both know that the list of waivers has grown to over 700. The truth? If Mr Obama's bill is so wonderful and will fix so many things, than why are there over 700 exemptions? The truth, Mr Greenman? This is part of that "...dangerous game." that I played with Senator Brown in that I demanded the truth from him.
Yes, you read that correctly, I demanded the truth. Mr Greenman, I believe the time is long past for our elected officials on both sides of the aisle to remember that they were sent to Washington to serve their constituents, and their constituents' interests. Many of them, sadly, appear to have forgotten this. This next, Mr Greenman, is a very serious question for you and is part of our "...dangerous game," as Senator Brown called it. (Senator Kris Jordan (R-OH) actually admired my "family jewels" or "cojones" with which I wrote my missive to him. But I digress.)
Here is our question, Mr Greenman, and you'll note the way in which I phrase it: Is it just barely possible that you might be part of the problem? Be very very careful with your answer; for if you answer "no," you'll immediately be saying that you are perfect. And here is our exit question, the "$64,000 Dollar Question" as it were: Is it just barely possible that your conclusions might be wrong? Is it just barely possible that you approach your stories with a preconceived idea of where they should lead? And: Is it just barely possible that you might tend to disregard certain facts that do not fit your stories?
Yes, I know; those are actually three exit questions. Yet my point remains. And, for reference, my IQ is 127 according to my fourth standardized IQ test in the last eleven months. Mr Greenman this score, 127, is on the high end of "above average" and is three points shy of "gifted."Good day to you Sir, and thank you for reading this missive.(*) - http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/local_story_355233643.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
