My disdain for the mainstream info-tainment media is based on a very rational set of concerns.
One of them is that normal everyday people will never truly have the opportunity to consider or debate a relevant public issue, because they will never truly have all the information.
The healthcare debate in the US is a case in point. Following current pop culture trends, it seems that to oppose the Obama Administration's 1,000+ page healthcare reform package, means that you obviously oppose health care reform, want poor people to die, and are a scaremonger.
Oh, I almost forgot: And you're probably racist. Since November 2008, there seems to be a bit more of that going around.
In the real world, as opposed to that whacky alternate dimension to which the media are an effective portal, it doesn't mean any of that. For starters, and unlike the hordes of Democrats trying to sell it, it means you've actually read the healthcare package.
Is this plan to provide more care for more people, or to save money, or both? It can't be both. That's not possible. You can't simply say you're going to provide more people with more health care, and it's going to be cheaper.
While there is much back and forth between the parties on the details, none of which are particularly clear anyway, someone has thought outside the circle.
Someone has suggested that you cannot have health care reform without tort reform.
Medical Liability leads to more insurance. More insurance leads to more cost.
”The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs. .." says Dr. Stuart Weinstein, of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Quite simply, it is too easy to sue a doctor, particularly with pro-bono allowances which make for more ambulance-chasing lawyers. Then, practitioners will move to states where liability laws are less severe, but even then, will shy away from high-risk practices.
Apart from more costs and less services, less people then want to become doctors and surgeons. Logically, now they want to become attorneys. And as I've always said, attorneys are like Idol winners. We love them, really we do. We just don't need any more.
Care standards drop, and therefore the potential for malpractice increases. These costs are spun to the consumer as "high health care costs" when really, they are legal and insurance costs.
To cut a long and litigious story short, the current tort system is estimated to cost the US health system around $200 billion per year.
Talk about thinking outside the circle. Before you can genuinely reform health care, you must reform the tort system. Less pro-bono, more loser-pays. Less frivolous lawsuits. More caps on lawsuit payouts. More rule-of-law deciding genuine malpractice cases, less ankle-biters trying to profit off someone else, for their own lack of responsibility.
I don't doubt that many people have expressed this idea. But when Sarah Palin expresses it, it actually gets heard.
How does a housewife from Wasilla, Alaska, get the White House to remove a major section of the bill pertaining to end-of-life-care and rationing, merely by posting on Facebook? .
But of course, Palin is just parroting. She's just a pretty neo-con reading hate speech from someone else's script, right? Well, sure, if that rocks your prejudice boat. Except she was governor of a state which had caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers, pioneered the “loser pays” system to deter frivolous law suits, and inhibited "quack" court testimonies against real doctors. That's walking the walk.
Using facebook is a stroke of pure genius. It won't stop the delusional hatred of her by the Obamabots, but it will make sure her words arrive at the ears of her millions of listeners complete, pure, unfiltered and unaltered by a delusionally biased media.
.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
And again: It's a S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y F-E-N-C-E
You know it's a slow news week when SBS and ABC have to dig up some fringe, anecdotal claims of Israeli not-very-nice-ness and run it as though a press-stopping world event has just occurred.
Hamas are in the business of anti-Israel propaganda. Sometimes I wonder whether western news agencies actually give them ideas, instead of the other way around.
I recently watched an SBS "report" from the BBC (surprise) about Palestinian children being detained for throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers. Naturally, no mention was made of a string of injuries to which the IDF were responding. But even after wading through the usual excuses given (by the BBC, not the Palis), about occupation and oppression, I was still left aghast at how, exactly, this is supposed to be news.
I would love to test that theory by telling my son to go and throw bricks at council officers, call it a "legitimate expression of frustration against council rate rises", then see what happens.
Likewise, when it's a slow news week anywhere, attention invariably turns to Israel's security barrier in the West Bank, to placate the media's appetite for all things anti-Israel. The ecumenical social gospel choir of the World Council Of Churches once called it an "obscene concrete barrier" which "surrounds the West Bank".
This is despite the fact that the boundary is 90% wire fence, the concrete section of which barely covers the northern third of Bethlehem. This is the "wall" which activists, from substance-abusing recording artists, to known terrorists, to Bishops and green politicians, to Israel's own left-leaning university academics, refer to as the "apartheid wall". Yessir, you know a country is truly free when career-seeking individuals within it's public system use that very freedom to launch baseless attacks on that country's integrity.
The West Bank security fence facilitates border checkpoints and crossings to screen Palestinians crossing over into Israel for work, shopping, medical attention or other reasons (since they have so much trouble doing those kinds of things in their own territories). It's much the same practice as that in airports, when they assume the worst so they can achieve the best. Ever been through a checkpoint at an aiport? Did you cry "apartheid"? Why not? Those who aren't catching a plane don't have to go through such humiliation!
This crazy, draconian mentality on Israel's part might be something to do with the 1,000 plus Israelis killed since the "peace process" was put forward at Camp David in 2000, where Yasser Arafat bellowed his righteous refusal and stormed out like a petulant child. Yes, the ensuing "intifada" was a masterstatement of the Palestinian preparedness for peace. 1,000 Israelis dead, from violence emanating from the West Bank. Even when the intifada slowed down, sniping of Israeli children and passing motorists from valleys in the West Bank valleys continued.
Although I'm no military expert, I'm going to hypothesise on the possible options Israel had to deal with this:
1- Send in the IDF and shoot the place up until it stops, no doubt causing civilian deaths (despite their world-beating standards on preventing civilian casualties in the face of an enemy who enjoys death)
2- Bomb the armaments and weapons caches (same as above)
3- Carpet bomb the entire place (worse than both of the above)
4- Ask the PA to stop the violence. (Just kidding. I know it's ridiculous too. I just wanted to add an extra number)
5. Build a wall
Here's part of the barrier
Can you say "passive defence"? There are, indeed, more pragmatic reasons why the barrier is neccessary and in fact several reasons why the Arab bloc should welcome it if they truly seek stability in the region and a two state solution.
And here's why it's needed
The concrete portion of the fence is, indeed, obscene. It's obscene that it is needed to stop bullets entering Israeli towns. A cursory look at Google Earth will demonstrate how the proximity of the concrete sections achieve this, while the rest of the barrier is wire fence and trenches. It's like an enima. It ain't pretty. But it works.
Airport checkpoints aren't very nice either. Sure, this analogy hardly addresses all the salient issues surrounding the Israeli SECURITY FENCE, but I'm not trying to address those. I'm trying to understand why the World Council of Churches, SBS, ABC, and The Washington Post among so, so many others, make such shrill, focussed efforts to portray Israel's defence of it's people as anything but what it really is. And why, for all the hand wringing, emotional terms and lamentating the inconvenience of Palestinians, the brutality which lead to it's construction is totally omitted.
Oh, and I can't help but wonder why not the same impassioned, heavily spun stories on the following (courtesy of American Thinker):
-A 112-mile-long barrier, with concrete, barbed wire, watchtowers, minefields and ditches -- that has sliced through Cyprus since 1974 to separate Turkish Cypriots from Greek Cypriots.
-A security barrier built by India through disputed Kashmir that runs hundreds of miles to blunt intrusion by Pakistan-based terrorists.
-Saudi Arabia's barrier to prevent infiltration of terrorists from neighboring Yemen, itself built in areas under dispute.
-The barrier that separates Protestants and Catholics in Belfast, which somehow has escaped any pejorative description like "apartheid wall." It's commonly known as the "Peace Line" -- a label that equally fits Israel's security barrier along the West Bank.
-The "Wall of Shame" -- a sand and stone barrier, mined in some places -- that protects Moroccans from Polisario terrorists in the Western Sahara.
- The U.S. barrier along the border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants
I guess I'll never know.
.
Hamas are in the business of anti-Israel propaganda. Sometimes I wonder whether western news agencies actually give them ideas, instead of the other way around.
I recently watched an SBS "report" from the BBC (surprise) about Palestinian children being detained for throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers. Naturally, no mention was made of a string of injuries to which the IDF were responding. But even after wading through the usual excuses given (by the BBC, not the Palis), about occupation and oppression, I was still left aghast at how, exactly, this is supposed to be news.
I would love to test that theory by telling my son to go and throw bricks at council officers, call it a "legitimate expression of frustration against council rate rises", then see what happens.
Likewise, when it's a slow news week anywhere, attention invariably turns to Israel's security barrier in the West Bank, to placate the media's appetite for all things anti-Israel. The ecumenical social gospel choir of the World Council Of Churches once called it an "obscene concrete barrier" which "surrounds the West Bank".
This is despite the fact that the boundary is 90% wire fence, the concrete section of which barely covers the northern third of Bethlehem. This is the "wall" which activists, from substance-abusing recording artists, to known terrorists, to Bishops and green politicians, to Israel's own left-leaning university academics, refer to as the "apartheid wall". Yessir, you know a country is truly free when career-seeking individuals within it's public system use that very freedom to launch baseless attacks on that country's integrity.
The West Bank security fence facilitates border checkpoints and crossings to screen Palestinians crossing over into Israel for work, shopping, medical attention or other reasons (since they have so much trouble doing those kinds of things in their own territories). It's much the same practice as that in airports, when they assume the worst so they can achieve the best. Ever been through a checkpoint at an aiport? Did you cry "apartheid"? Why not? Those who aren't catching a plane don't have to go through such humiliation!
This crazy, draconian mentality on Israel's part might be something to do with the 1,000 plus Israelis killed since the "peace process" was put forward at Camp David in 2000, where Yasser Arafat bellowed his righteous refusal and stormed out like a petulant child. Yes, the ensuing "intifada" was a masterstatement of the Palestinian preparedness for peace. 1,000 Israelis dead, from violence emanating from the West Bank. Even when the intifada slowed down, sniping of Israeli children and passing motorists from valleys in the West Bank valleys continued.
Although I'm no military expert, I'm going to hypothesise on the possible options Israel had to deal with this:
1- Send in the IDF and shoot the place up until it stops, no doubt causing civilian deaths (despite their world-beating standards on preventing civilian casualties in the face of an enemy who enjoys death)
2- Bomb the armaments and weapons caches (same as above)
3- Carpet bomb the entire place (worse than both of the above)
4- Ask the PA to stop the violence. (Just kidding. I know it's ridiculous too. I just wanted to add an extra number)
5. Build a wall
Here's part of the barrierCan you say "passive defence"? There are, indeed, more pragmatic reasons why the barrier is neccessary and in fact several reasons why the Arab bloc should welcome it if they truly seek stability in the region and a two state solution.
And here's why it's neededThe concrete portion of the fence is, indeed, obscene. It's obscene that it is needed to stop bullets entering Israeli towns. A cursory look at Google Earth will demonstrate how the proximity of the concrete sections achieve this, while the rest of the barrier is wire fence and trenches. It's like an enima. It ain't pretty. But it works.
Airport checkpoints aren't very nice either. Sure, this analogy hardly addresses all the salient issues surrounding the Israeli SECURITY FENCE, but I'm not trying to address those. I'm trying to understand why the World Council of Churches, SBS, ABC, and The Washington Post among so, so many others, make such shrill, focussed efforts to portray Israel's defence of it's people as anything but what it really is. And why, for all the hand wringing, emotional terms and lamentating the inconvenience of Palestinians, the brutality which lead to it's construction is totally omitted.
Oh, and I can't help but wonder why not the same impassioned, heavily spun stories on the following (courtesy of American Thinker):
-A 112-mile-long barrier, with concrete, barbed wire, watchtowers, minefields and ditches -- that has sliced through Cyprus since 1974 to separate Turkish Cypriots from Greek Cypriots.
-A security barrier built by India through disputed Kashmir that runs hundreds of miles to blunt intrusion by Pakistan-based terrorists.
-Saudi Arabia's barrier to prevent infiltration of terrorists from neighboring Yemen, itself built in areas under dispute.
-The barrier that separates Protestants and Catholics in Belfast, which somehow has escaped any pejorative description like "apartheid wall." It's commonly known as the "Peace Line" -- a label that equally fits Israel's security barrier along the West Bank.
-The "Wall of Shame" -- a sand and stone barrier, mined in some places -- that protects Moroccans from Polisario terrorists in the Western Sahara.
- The U.S. barrier along the border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants
I guess I'll never know.
.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
When Baptists attack...
Not days after a terrorist plot was blown open in Australia , the apologising begins.
The article I linked to above goes out of its way to avoid using any reference to the religious affiliations of the alleged perpetrators. It's an ABC article (feign shock and surprise here).
You haven't guessed yet? They're Islamic. I guessed that all by myself, from picking out the words "fatwa", "Al-Shabaab", "links to Al-Qaeda", and "Broadmeadows".
An article in thepunch.com goes on to tell us that it’s clear terrorists don’t look like anything in particular and could be living in your street. It then ridicules what it calls "racial profiling", telling us that terrorists now hail from Indonesia, East Africa, Lebanon and other Eastern Mediterranean areas, Pakistan and Adelaide, and of varying ages.
Good, so you won't mind then if we put at the top of the profiling criteria "Men of Islamic Extraction". No race required.
Naturally, the ABC goes on to afford the suspects some kind of victim status by association:
Doctor Berhard Ahmed from the African Think Tank in Melbourne fears there will be a backlash against Somalis living in Australia following the raids.
Thanks Doctor, but the immediate threat seems to be from jihadis toward Aussies who actually love and serve their country. Let's stick to that for now, as it seems to be more important than your hand-wringing paranoia. Here's a little tonic for your fears: There was no "backlash" against Muslims after 9-11, no "backlash" against Indonesians after the Bali bombings, and no "backlash" against Pakistanis after the Mumbai massacres. We are, it seems, mostly decent people here in not-Muslim land.
"...some people are even commenting that these people have to go back," he said.
How awful of them. They used words, you say? Awful.
The report mentions that one of the suspects travelled to Somalia to seek the fatwa, and many Somalis are frequently travelling back to Somalia to "fight". Whatever unspeakable horror forced them to flee to good ol' Down Under, couldn't have been that bad, since they go back voluntarily.
But, since you don't want us to "send them back", then here's what we'll do. We will try them under our criminal law. Then, if they're found guilty, we won't behead them, rape their daughters, murder their family and massacre their tribe. Instead, we'll send them to jail where they will get three round meals a day, TV, exercise, and a chance to chat with other jihadis and compare notes.
Then, we'll ask them if they can provide us with information which might help us prevent any other jihadis from attacking more innocent Aussies. We promise to ask nicely.
But however nicely we ask, an army of university students and human rights lawyers will rise up to express outrage at our treatment of these poor victims of western oppression and eventually pressure a government who will, in desperation to be popular, release them.
We then repeat the whole process from the top of this post.
.
The article I linked to above goes out of its way to avoid using any reference to the religious affiliations of the alleged perpetrators. It's an ABC article (feign shock and surprise here).
You haven't guessed yet? They're Islamic. I guessed that all by myself, from picking out the words "fatwa", "Al-Shabaab", "links to Al-Qaeda", and "Broadmeadows".
An article in thepunch.com goes on to tell us that it’s clear terrorists don’t look like anything in particular and could be living in your street. It then ridicules what it calls "racial profiling", telling us that terrorists now hail from Indonesia, East Africa, Lebanon and other Eastern Mediterranean areas, Pakistan and Adelaide, and of varying ages.
Good, so you won't mind then if we put at the top of the profiling criteria "Men of Islamic Extraction". No race required.
Naturally, the ABC goes on to afford the suspects some kind of victim status by association:
Doctor Berhard Ahmed from the African Think Tank in Melbourne fears there will be a backlash against Somalis living in Australia following the raids.
Thanks Doctor, but the immediate threat seems to be from jihadis toward Aussies who actually love and serve their country. Let's stick to that for now, as it seems to be more important than your hand-wringing paranoia. Here's a little tonic for your fears: There was no "backlash" against Muslims after 9-11, no "backlash" against Indonesians after the Bali bombings, and no "backlash" against Pakistanis after the Mumbai massacres. We are, it seems, mostly decent people here in not-Muslim land.
"...some people are even commenting that these people have to go back," he said.
How awful of them. They used words, you say? Awful.
The report mentions that one of the suspects travelled to Somalia to seek the fatwa, and many Somalis are frequently travelling back to Somalia to "fight". Whatever unspeakable horror forced them to flee to good ol' Down Under, couldn't have been that bad, since they go back voluntarily.
But, since you don't want us to "send them back", then here's what we'll do. We will try them under our criminal law. Then, if they're found guilty, we won't behead them, rape their daughters, murder their family and massacre their tribe. Instead, we'll send them to jail where they will get three round meals a day, TV, exercise, and a chance to chat with other jihadis and compare notes.
Then, we'll ask them if they can provide us with information which might help us prevent any other jihadis from attacking more innocent Aussies. We promise to ask nicely.
But however nicely we ask, an army of university students and human rights lawyers will rise up to express outrage at our treatment of these poor victims of western oppression and eventually pressure a government who will, in desperation to be popular, release them.
We then repeat the whole process from the top of this post.
.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I stand by my (a)morals
A common problem among journos who fancy themselves as political commentators is that they confuse satire with personal mockery.
If you're smart (unlike me) you'll try and remain voluntarily ignorant about politics full stop. But try to avoid, at least, thinking that all political bents are the same. Take the 1970's socialist revolutionary Saul Alinsky for example. His book Rules For Radicals, a step-by-step handbook on how to rise to power, has been used frequently by various US Democrats.
This useful instructional tome reads like it's a workshop manual for VW Beetles, but with bigger words. It has some marvelous pointers on stuff like; how to discredit and personally destroy your opponents, how to deflect criticism, how to create job vacancies (i.e. "push" people out of your way) and such like. It even contained an "over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: Lucifer". Quite the magnanimous hat-tip coming from a militant atheist.
It has been long since proven that Obama was a student of Alinsky's method to the letter. It shone in his election campaign, and continues to be so in his governance.
Here's one of Alinsky's famous methods, paraphrased somewhat: Force your opponents to live up to their own standards. When they don't, attack them.
Matthew Littman was a Democrat strategist and a speech writer for now-VP Joe Biden (which may explain why Biden so often strays from his script. Tragically, he's even worse at ad-libbing). In an article in the factually-challenged news portal Huffington Post, Littman wrote of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 US presidential race...
I am offended by the attacks on Senator Clinton because there is no question that the slams against her are hypocritical and come because she’s a woman...
Such a nice thing to say albeit where his grammar is slightly awkward because also the lack of punctuation makes the sentence look a little strange and because he can't write quite right.
Yes, as speechwriter for one of Clinton's opponents, it's really quite sweet of him to be worried about Hillary mainly due to her scary woman-parts (that's a feminist term so don't get snarky). I totally agree with him.
But wait. The same Littman, in a recent interview, made comments about resigned Alaskan governor Sarah Palin which were, by his own logic, misogynistic and sexist. And, of all the media-driven twisted, sick and depraved mockery of Palin, Littman excused it, and joined in. The bi-partisan feminist website New Agenda has the story. He even talks down to a female co-interviewee in the most hideously patronising manner, clapping at her like a dog.
Okay, so the guy is a low-brow, bigoted hypocrite who enjoys being nasty. Check. But isn't he running contrary to the much-heralded, Democrat-practised Alinsky method?
Not at all. He's adhering to it fastidiously, actually. Because, like many of his political allies, he has no moral standards at all. So there's nothing to hold him to. In the US, Republicans lose when they have standards, but can't hang on to 'em.
In that light, I would almost have to disagree with the Sarah Palin response to "comedian" David Letterman's jibe about her daughter, were it not for the fact that the media generally incited Palin into responding. You see, Letterman had nothing to apologise for. He has no standards to adhere to. So, building a "joke" around statutory rape of a 14 year-old girl is just another day at the office for Dirty Old Dave.
Likewise, when the leftist gossip site wonkette.com made fun of republican nominee John McCain's daughter recently. Megan McCain was desperately trying to help an unknown person who sent her a twitter message saying that he wanted to kill himself. She contacted Twitter, and even the Seattle Police, such was her concern. Wonkette.com mocked her for it, calling her "hyper-emotional" and saying she was going "progressively nuts" for attempting to help some guy who was just "writing some sadsack stuff about wanting to die".
Nope. Wonkette.com, a gossip site who desperately want you to think that their brand of personal mockery is actually savvy politcal satire, have not done anything wrong. To call anything "wrong" is so yesterday.
That last example resonates somewhat more than usual. You see, down here in Victoria, a 14-year-old girl and former classmate of my daughter's best friend, committed suicide after repeatedly receiving demeaning comments on the internet.
Any suicide is a tragedy. That it was someone so young is exceedingly heartbreaking.
But then, my broken heart is my own fault. If only I didn't have standards....
If you're smart (unlike me) you'll try and remain voluntarily ignorant about politics full stop. But try to avoid, at least, thinking that all political bents are the same. Take the 1970's socialist revolutionary Saul Alinsky for example. His book Rules For Radicals, a step-by-step handbook on how to rise to power, has been used frequently by various US Democrats.
This useful instructional tome reads like it's a workshop manual for VW Beetles, but with bigger words. It has some marvelous pointers on stuff like; how to discredit and personally destroy your opponents, how to deflect criticism, how to create job vacancies (i.e. "push" people out of your way) and such like. It even contained an "over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: Lucifer". Quite the magnanimous hat-tip coming from a militant atheist.
It has been long since proven that Obama was a student of Alinsky's method to the letter. It shone in his election campaign, and continues to be so in his governance.
Here's one of Alinsky's famous methods, paraphrased somewhat: Force your opponents to live up to their own standards. When they don't, attack them.
Matthew Littman was a Democrat strategist and a speech writer for now-VP Joe Biden (which may explain why Biden so often strays from his script. Tragically, he's even worse at ad-libbing). In an article in the factually-challenged news portal Huffington Post, Littman wrote of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 US presidential race...
I am offended by the attacks on Senator Clinton because there is no question that the slams against her are hypocritical and come because she’s a woman...
Such a nice thing to say albeit where his grammar is slightly awkward because also the lack of punctuation makes the sentence look a little strange and because he can't write quite right.
Yes, as speechwriter for one of Clinton's opponents, it's really quite sweet of him to be worried about Hillary mainly due to her scary woman-parts (that's a feminist term so don't get snarky). I totally agree with him.
But wait. The same Littman, in a recent interview, made comments about resigned Alaskan governor Sarah Palin which were, by his own logic, misogynistic and sexist. And, of all the media-driven twisted, sick and depraved mockery of Palin, Littman excused it, and joined in. The bi-partisan feminist website New Agenda has the story. He even talks down to a female co-interviewee in the most hideously patronising manner, clapping at her like a dog.
Okay, so the guy is a low-brow, bigoted hypocrite who enjoys being nasty. Check. But isn't he running contrary to the much-heralded, Democrat-practised Alinsky method?
Not at all. He's adhering to it fastidiously, actually. Because, like many of his political allies, he has no moral standards at all. So there's nothing to hold him to. In the US, Republicans lose when they have standards, but can't hang on to 'em.
In that light, I would almost have to disagree with the Sarah Palin response to "comedian" David Letterman's jibe about her daughter, were it not for the fact that the media generally incited Palin into responding. You see, Letterman had nothing to apologise for. He has no standards to adhere to. So, building a "joke" around statutory rape of a 14 year-old girl is just another day at the office for Dirty Old Dave.
Likewise, when the leftist gossip site wonkette.com made fun of republican nominee John McCain's daughter recently. Megan McCain was desperately trying to help an unknown person who sent her a twitter message saying that he wanted to kill himself. She contacted Twitter, and even the Seattle Police, such was her concern. Wonkette.com mocked her for it, calling her "hyper-emotional" and saying she was going "progressively nuts" for attempting to help some guy who was just "writing some sadsack stuff about wanting to die".
Nope. Wonkette.com, a gossip site who desperately want you to think that their brand of personal mockery is actually savvy politcal satire, have not done anything wrong. To call anything "wrong" is so yesterday.
That last example resonates somewhat more than usual. You see, down here in Victoria, a 14-year-old girl and former classmate of my daughter's best friend, committed suicide after repeatedly receiving demeaning comments on the internet.
Any suicide is a tragedy. That it was someone so young is exceedingly heartbreaking.
But then, my broken heart is my own fault. If only I didn't have standards....
Chanelle Rae.
.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Warning: this message brought to you by beauracrats...
I've always struggled with the ever-increasing epidemic of government-sponsored advertising telling us what to be afraid of. The latest climate change alarmist message telling us to "think of the children" is a case in point, along with, don't get me started, most road safety commercials.
It's not enough when then government introduce some new legislation to charge us more money, scare us into doing something/ not doing something or generally burden our lives with more cumbersome nannying. Not only do we have to put up with it, we have to agree with it.
The Centre for Independent Studies have produced some very relevant and pragmatic research on a whole range of topics. A recent CIS article has caught my attention. It deals mainly with the stimulus package and how the government have spruiked it's glorious effect on public infrastructure. However, it also contains some good points on government advertising in general, a subject which alone would warrant pages of (boring) research to make a very salient point. A point which is most probably lost on the majority of TV punters, and that's just how the government likes it.
These (infrastructure) ads do not convey information of direct and immediate relevance to ordinary people’s everyday lives. It is ‘feel good’ advertising and a subtle way of making voters feel more favourably disposed to the party in power.
In which case, why are we paying for these ads?
And so it goes with any fear-mongering advertisement to convince us that they are right to force us into something we don't want, whether it be staring at our speedometers, or turning off our airconditioners when it's 40 degrees.
The only thing we should fear is an even bigger government to do more of this. Article here. It's short and sweet.
.
It's not enough when then government introduce some new legislation to charge us more money, scare us into doing something/ not doing something or generally burden our lives with more cumbersome nannying. Not only do we have to put up with it, we have to agree with it.
The Centre for Independent Studies have produced some very relevant and pragmatic research on a whole range of topics. A recent CIS article has caught my attention. It deals mainly with the stimulus package and how the government have spruiked it's glorious effect on public infrastructure. However, it also contains some good points on government advertising in general, a subject which alone would warrant pages of (boring) research to make a very salient point. A point which is most probably lost on the majority of TV punters, and that's just how the government likes it.
These (infrastructure) ads do not convey information of direct and immediate relevance to ordinary people’s everyday lives. It is ‘feel good’ advertising and a subtle way of making voters feel more favourably disposed to the party in power.
In which case, why are we paying for these ads?
And so it goes with any fear-mongering advertisement to convince us that they are right to force us into something we don't want, whether it be staring at our speedometers, or turning off our airconditioners when it's 40 degrees.
The only thing we should fear is an even bigger government to do more of this. Article here. It's short and sweet.
.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Ground control to The New York Times
Mel Gibson once described it as a "beacon of journalistic integrity". No-one does sarcasm like Mel.
The New York Times, otherwise known as the Treason Times for reasons beyond the scope of this post, ran yet another in a long line of baseless drive-by assults on Sarah Palin. This latest piece of hilarity claims the Alaskan Governor is a stressed, underweight basket case with thinning hair. We know this folks, because her hairdresser told us.
They link this, and this alone, to her decision to resign as Alaskan Governor. Hear us, dear readers...clearly she is unhinged by all the criticism...obviously couldn't handle public life...the poor dear... she's sinking slowly...I mean, imagine if this woman was POTUS...geddit? You've uncritically accepted this as fact? Good little sycophants...
It even managed to fire up MSNBC, a network whose integrity I doubt even Mel Gibson could adequately describe. They echoed the piece on TV. Their anchor, the delightful Keith Olbermann who thinks making misogynistic boob jokes for five minutes counts as journalism, was so concerned about poor Sarah's health and wellbeing it was almost touching.
It was yet another in a long line of fashionable hit-and-runs, from those elitists scrambling to gorge themselves on this sadomasochistic anti-Palin orgy before she quits as a public official and is, basically, untouchable.
Never mind that the NYT has, yet again, told an outright lie. You might even ignore the fact that this latest piece of sanctimonious whining is not even worthy to be news even if it was remotely true. If it was, Joe Biden's hair plugs would be on every prime time slot. And have you seen the headline "Concerns for President Obama's mental well-being after disparaging remarks about the Special Olympics..." ?
No, what is gloriously ironic is that they've done it around the 40th anniversary of the first Lunar Landing.
You see, in 1920, the NYT scoffed at the idea that a rocket launched from earth could reach the moon, and lampooned respected physicist Richard Goddard who believed it could, by claiming he lacked "the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools" and that no rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
Aussie columnist Alan Howe looks back with nostalgia at this rather telling indicator as to the credibility of the NYT.
When it comes to Palin and her conservatism they, and their fellow ideologues, are getting more desperate, shrill, infantile and irrational by the minute. One can only wonder why this is so. After all, she's a moron, a lightweight, a joke. She wouldn't even be a blip on the political radar, right? What possible reason could there be?
While you ponder that, I'll close with this totally unrelated and up-to-date Rasmussen Poll on preferred candidacy:
Obama 45% Romney 45%
Obama 48% Palin 42%...
...and climbing...
Hat tip: Red Planet Cartoons
.
The New York Times, otherwise known as the Treason Times for reasons beyond the scope of this post, ran yet another in a long line of baseless drive-by assults on Sarah Palin. This latest piece of hilarity claims the Alaskan Governor is a stressed, underweight basket case with thinning hair. We know this folks, because her hairdresser told us.
They link this, and this alone, to her decision to resign as Alaskan Governor. Hear us, dear readers...clearly she is unhinged by all the criticism...obviously couldn't handle public life...the poor dear... she's sinking slowly...I mean, imagine if this woman was POTUS...geddit? You've uncritically accepted this as fact? Good little sycophants...
It even managed to fire up MSNBC, a network whose integrity I doubt even Mel Gibson could adequately describe. They echoed the piece on TV. Their anchor, the delightful Keith Olbermann who thinks making misogynistic boob jokes for five minutes counts as journalism, was so concerned about poor Sarah's health and wellbeing it was almost touching.
It was yet another in a long line of fashionable hit-and-runs, from those elitists scrambling to gorge themselves on this sadomasochistic anti-Palin orgy before she quits as a public official and is, basically, untouchable.
Never mind that the NYT has, yet again, told an outright lie. You might even ignore the fact that this latest piece of sanctimonious whining is not even worthy to be news even if it was remotely true. If it was, Joe Biden's hair plugs would be on every prime time slot. And have you seen the headline "Concerns for President Obama's mental well-being after disparaging remarks about the Special Olympics..." ?
No, what is gloriously ironic is that they've done it around the 40th anniversary of the first Lunar Landing.
You see, in 1920, the NYT scoffed at the idea that a rocket launched from earth could reach the moon, and lampooned respected physicist Richard Goddard who believed it could, by claiming he lacked "the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools" and that no rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
Aussie columnist Alan Howe looks back with nostalgia at this rather telling indicator as to the credibility of the NYT.
When it comes to Palin and her conservatism they, and their fellow ideologues, are getting more desperate, shrill, infantile and irrational by the minute. One can only wonder why this is so. After all, she's a moron, a lightweight, a joke. She wouldn't even be a blip on the political radar, right? What possible reason could there be?
While you ponder that, I'll close with this totally unrelated and up-to-date Rasmussen Poll on preferred candidacy:
Obama 45% Romney 45%
Obama 48% Palin 42%...
...and climbing...
Hat tip: Red Planet Cartoons
.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Killing for the common good
Most civilised people, those who consider humanity, for all it's flaws, to be basically a good thing, would and should find horrifying the notion of any public figure calling for
- Women to be forced to abort their pregnancies
- The world population at large to be involuntarily sterilized by infertility drugs
- Mothers to have their babies seized from them and given away to other couples to raise;
- "Undesirables" to be required by law to exercise "reproductive responsibility", i.e. be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
- A unilateral "Planetary Regime" to arbitrarily control the global population through the above means using an armed international police force to enforce it.
The doomsday industry is alive and well at present, in many forms. The particularly insidious doomsday cult of population control has been festering below the surface for some time. All of these ideals, and many more, are a feature of the 1977 book Ecoscience. These particular words and ideas are the personal work of co-author Dr. John Holdren. Here's some snippets:
compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained …
It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child...might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The law regulates other highly personal matters.... Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region...
All for the environment, of course. After all, it seems every generation is caught up in some man-made environmental catastrophe which will surely cause Armageddon if left unchecked.
Seen enough? Perhaps I'm quoting out of context. Well, perhaps not. The context is worse (available here). Or, perhaps I'm spinning my own yarn by quoting some crackpot fringe fanatic from the 1970's.
How I wish. This chap, who to date has not renounced nor even attempted to deny this ideology, has just been appointed Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, by the Obama administration.
He is in the news for his support on alarmist climate change policies. As if you expected otherwise.
On it's own, this appointment would be alarming enough. But it's not alone. Those of us who truly value human life in all it's forms recognise BHO's Senate voting record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 and 2002. For the uninitiated, go here for more information. If you want to see BHO's reaction to the legislation, read the Senate transcripts for 2001 (go to page 84) and 2002 (go to page 28).
Ideologically speaking, I've always given BHO the benefit of the doubt, and will continue to try. Problem is, the doubt seems to be getting smaller every day...
.
- Women to be forced to abort their pregnancies
- The world population at large to be involuntarily sterilized by infertility drugs
- Mothers to have their babies seized from them and given away to other couples to raise;
- "Undesirables" to be required by law to exercise "reproductive responsibility", i.e. be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
- A unilateral "Planetary Regime" to arbitrarily control the global population through the above means using an armed international police force to enforce it.
The doomsday industry is alive and well at present, in many forms. The particularly insidious doomsday cult of population control has been festering below the surface for some time. All of these ideals, and many more, are a feature of the 1977 book Ecoscience. These particular words and ideas are the personal work of co-author Dr. John Holdren. Here's some snippets:
compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained …
It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child...might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The law regulates other highly personal matters.... Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region...
All for the environment, of course. After all, it seems every generation is caught up in some man-made environmental catastrophe which will surely cause Armageddon if left unchecked.
Seen enough? Perhaps I'm quoting out of context. Well, perhaps not. The context is worse (available here). Or, perhaps I'm spinning my own yarn by quoting some crackpot fringe fanatic from the 1970's.
How I wish. This chap, who to date has not renounced nor even attempted to deny this ideology, has just been appointed Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, by the Obama administration.
He is in the news for his support on alarmist climate change policies. As if you expected otherwise.
On it's own, this appointment would be alarming enough. But it's not alone. Those of us who truly value human life in all it's forms recognise BHO's Senate voting record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 and 2002. For the uninitiated, go here for more information. If you want to see BHO's reaction to the legislation, read the Senate transcripts for 2001 (go to page 84) and 2002 (go to page 28).
Ideologically speaking, I've always given BHO the benefit of the doubt, and will continue to try. Problem is, the doubt seems to be getting smaller every day...
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
