Slanted news

This is a general issue. Blame Tam for mentioning the problem. I just emailed Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor for the evening MSNBC news program, and the Daily Nightly blog.

Sirs,

Tam, blogging at ViewFromThePorch, seems pretty level-headed. She does own and shoots, for recreation, several firearms. In some matters, including history of shooting and firearms, she is fairly well respected.

So, I have to wonder how you respond to her comment on the blatant bias of the Today show, and NBC in general?

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/11/monday-morning-potpourri.html

"What is up with the Democrat Party [..] at NBC? The peacock is green all week to celebrate Al Gore's guest spot on 30 Rock, and half the Today Show this morning was dedicated to reminding us that [..] Sarah Palin eats her young and is known to sacrifice kittens to Cthulhu. It's getting to the point that I wouldn't believe these %&*$ers if they told me Palin woke up in the morning."

[Editing marks are my own.]

There are several issues that seriously divide communities today. Guns is one - where blind "get rid of guns" gun control says if there weren't any guns, no one would get shot. Didn't happen in England, Canda. On the other side is the observation that mass shootings only take place in gun free, excuse me, *disarmed victim*, zones. And then there is the embarrassing statistic that communities that have mandated every head of household own and possess a firearm - violent crime has gone down.

Sarah Palin might be as naive and inept as she appears. That holds nothing to the background Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger brought to politics. Need I mention Al Franken, or that guy that played Gopher on the Love Boat TV show - and governed very successfully in Iowa [Fred Grandy].

Whatever Palin's views and capability, she has stirred a lot of attention in some circles. Al Gore, for all his winning ways with the Nobel Peace Prize, garners less respect for the *content* of his message each day. As I recall, by hook or by crook, he *lost* his bid for the Presidency. As a bare minimum, he did *not* command overwhelming respect and support. That hasn't changed that much.

President Obama's administration looks shabbier, ethically, each week. The mainstream media is *not* calling the administration on faked numbers of jobs "saved" - including practices of counting pay raises, for whatever reason, as a job "saved", as well as requiring people, like shoe store owner Bud Moore [You Can Officially Ignore All Future Administration Jobs Numbers] to *invent* a number, to avoid "assistance" in arriving at a number, for an order for 9 pairs of shoes["nine pairs of work boots"] for the Army Corps of Engineers. ["sent in her answer: nine jobs, because her father helped nine members of the Corps to work"]

There is too little notice being given to the impact on job losses due to proposed legislation - such as the oncoming ObamaCare and the Food Safety Enhancement Act, S.521. In addition, as the jobless rate remains high, the ballast effect of reduced productivity has to be exerting greater and greater pressure on the economy, creating more inertia to turn the story around.

There has been too little attention paid to the number of new, permanent Federal jobs, from border patrol officers to the proposed Food Safety Administration (intended to audit and receive reports from everyone producing or handling food for people or animals, and to enforce reporting and process control regulations), and administrators and staff for whatever ObamaCare and other regulations like Cap And Tax will require.

Washington News Observer tends to acquire interesting, short interviews that address issues that NBC seems to not want ignore away.

KGB Analyst Igor Panarin's forecast of the demise of the US - beginning with rebellion against punitive federal taxes by cash-strapped California and New York - in June/July 2010 continue to seem more likely, as President Obama continues to alienate those that don't adore him, and alienate those that won't overlook his actions. President Obama's reliance on unlimited government handouts is appallingly naive, even compared to Sarah Palin.

I fear the time is now, to heal the breech between those relying on the Constitution, and those favoring President Obama. Will MSNBC polarize the contending elements, join the President in calling (and causing to become true) loyals citizens of the United States "potential terrorists"? Or will MSNBC examine the issues, and *convince* their audience, including me, about what is true and lawful?

So, how does Daily Nightly, MSNBC, and NBC respond to the bias that Tam, and I, see in what news is presented and what is not? And the wording and editorial bias as to what is respected and what is disparaged?

Thanks for the impetus, Tam.

Electric Carbon Labeling Proposal

Climate Change vs. Global Warming

Advocates of the Kyoto protocol - which was supposed to fight Global Warming by shutting off, and robbing, rich countries - prepare now for The Treaty at Copenhagen, where the plan to rob rich countries, and launder money to other countries.

Unfortunately the concept that the earth will moderate it's own climate very well, thank you, seems to have reared it's ugly head. So now the watch-word is "Climate Change", instead of "Global Warming". Different problem, but the tree huggers are still monitoring cows eking out that methane, and gasping at coal fumes.

President of the United States B. Hussein Obama is expected to laud the efforts. His own Cap and Tax plan is straight from the One World Government plan of the tree huggers heading to Copenhagen. The Treaty intends to tax our Cap and Tax plan, tax the US as a bonus, and take responsibility for enforcing the environmental provisions of The Treaty, and of the One World Government that treaty creates.

(Hint to B. Hussein Obama: They will pick someone *else* to be the world leader. You couldn't buy that ticket any more than you could buy getting the Olympic committee to pick Chicago. It won't happen. And odds are that they won't pick any of your buddies in Iran or Venezuela, either.)

My Proposal

Let's require the EPA, appliance and car makers, ISP's and hosting services, utility companies, and all others - to label the amount of carbon that a coal fired plant uses to generate that electricity.

How much carbon?

Let's survey all coal-fired plants. For each, determine how many kilowatt hours of electricity are produced in the course of a year, and how many tons of coal were burned. A year makes a nice, round, seasonally adjusted total. It doesn't take into account the variations from year to year as the earth warms . . or cools . . or other factors, but it gives us a starting figure. Only count electricity consumed or provided for use by customers of the power station.

Figure out how much electricity and fossil fuel, from diesel to natural gas to propane, to mine and transport all that coal to that power plant.

Compute the tons of coal burned, plus the carbon burden to get that ton of coal to that plant, for each kilowatt hour *delivered* from the transmission lines leading from that plant. The utility companies know and work with "line losses" all the time - they *know* what percentage of power placed on the power line is lost (heat and electromagnetic losses) in getting a kilowatt hour of energy to a customer.

Multiply the largest amount of carbon per kilowatt hour by 0.707106781187, or sqrt(2)/2. This ratio is commonly used to find the Root Mean Square, the power factor of alternating current electricity. It is the difference between peak power and RMS power - a useful distinction.

The Goal - end coal fired plants.

Let's assume, for a moment, that climate change and burning coal in power plants have anything in common. Stop laughing. Now, if we thought that burning coal in power plants was the single most reprehensible thing that humankind is doing to destroy the environment. I am looking at you and your deforestation disasters, Asia, Bolivia, Africa. And I am counting all those plane trips to Copenhagen, tree huggers.

Anyway, then obviously the goal has to be to stop using the last kilowatt hour of electricity that requires that last coal fired power plant to keep operating. I mean, if we drop our usage below that threshhold, we can stop using that power plant, right?

So, until that happy day, we label everything that uses electricity. That car charger, that electric water heater, that electric pencil sharpener. We post how many kilowatt hours that gizmo uses in a year of average use. Because if that DVD player uses one kilowatt hour per year, then that might be the very last kilowatt hour that prevents turning off that last coal fired power plant. So every kilowatt hour is identical, and each might be the last. So label each and every use as to how many pounds or tons of carbon using that electricity is responsible for.

What about stuff that doesn't use electricity - AA cell batteries, and garden broad forks, UPS delivery and Earthlink.net, GoDaddy.com and AT&T, The US Congress and the jail in Newkirk, OK? Any organization with an electric light, a computer, an electric pencil sharpener, an electric jail cell lock - they use electricity. Utility companies should include the pounds of carbon each user is responsible for, with total kilowatt hours, on each monthly bill. Each organization and individual should have to report their total kilowatt hours on their income tax return, to keep the US government apprised of who is responsible for consuming coal, and emitting carbon dioxide from electricity generation. And so the government would know when to turn off that last coal fired power plant.

All services, from fast foods to web hosting, would have to label prominently how much carbon they expended, as a function of kilowatt hours and as reported on their electric bill, the preceding month.

Electric vehicles aren't carbon free.

The point, is that electric-only cars, and plug in hybrids, still cause carbon to be consumed. Just not directly, as fossil fuels. That electricity used to charge up that car *might* have come from Hoover Dam. But that kilowatt hour is *usage*, and is no more carbon neutral than that last kilowatt hour needed to justify keeping that last coal-fired power plant on line.

And new cars, of whatever fuel, should have a sticker that lists how much carbon, in direct fossil fuels and electric-equivalents, was consumed to mine and process the metals and other components of that car, of transporting materials from origin, processing, to assembly, then transported to the point of sale.

And no fair only including carbon expended within the US, for materials and goods imported from other countries. If you can't audit the carbon trail, you can't sell it in America. Ha! We could all be California boys and girls!

Socialism v. Capitalism

This isn't a new question. Barracuda Babes picked up the Donahue TV show segment discussing socialism and capitalism with Milton Friedman.

History is clear, no system holds a candle to capitalism, for improving the lot of the common people.

Take that, Copenhagen/Kyoto tree huggers, and your concepts of "climate debt".

Do it for the family

I just got an email. I was surprised at the sly twist to the message, a bit of propaganda disguised as being patriotic and family-friendly.

A politician said this not too long ago;
"We don't need government intervention to save ourselves as a country.
We need a movement. A unified movement for the people, by the people.
As a member of the greatest nation, we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world to protect and strengthen our economy.
With the greatest "buying power" of any nation, all that is needed for a national resurrection is for us to give our power back to ourselves.
Support Made In the U.S.A. Support yourself. Support US, so that we may continue supporting others. "

I can't remember his name or where I read it, but it is simple and makes sense. I copied and pasted and it and now use it as my signature for all of my emails. PLEASE do the same!!! If we could spread this message around the country, imagine what we could accomplish!!

Unfortunately, this looks like a clandestine union bit of propaganda.

Yes, America needs jobs. But Fiat bought Chrysler, Ford and GM cars and trucks are assembled in Canada and Mexico, your local Ace Hardware store is a local franchise - of an out of state chain, not that unlike Wal-Mart. Unions commonly portray Wal-Mart as the common, un-American villain, because Wal-Mart employees have refused, time after time, to organize and join labor unions. I note that Toyota, Hyundai, and other manufacturers build lots of cars in America, with Americans filling their jobs, but are disparaged because the unions don't get to collect union dues in most plants.

That means labor unions don't collect dues from Wal-Mart employees. Or car plants hiring Americans that aren't union.

I have a neighbor that adamantly states that belonging to a labor union got him benefits he wouldn't have had if not for the union. I say that unions have prevented employers from providing common employment benefits, to maintain union leverage, union dues, and union membership.

I have never seen a labor union act, or form, in order to preserve and improve profits at a business. There used to be, at one time, craft based unions that established and maintained training and skill standards. Much more common today is reliance on the union to prevent firing employees that cost their employer productivity and expenses. Union work also tends to isolate work from management, interjecting rigid rules and additional paperwork and record keeping, restrictive rules about work, about hiring and firing, etc. Unions often create an adversarial relationship between employer and union labor, which might or might not have existed without the unions.

Buying "American" doesn't do a danged thing to influence the economy or preserve jobs. Protectionism, avoiding or penalizing products from various and sundry countries hurts America and Americans. The only change is who gets richer here in America - the propagandist or the importer. If someone in the world can make a product useful to an American, and ship it to America at such a price and availability to compete in our marketplace - great. Americans bought that item, they sell it to their neighbors for a good markup, often more profit that stuff made in America. Instead of paying Americans to make it, we pay Americans to warehouse, transport, and invest in it. If it is so great, and so cheap to make elsewhere - and Americans are that good at making things - we should be able to compete, if we care to. And if the labor unions and state, federal, and local governments don't legislate and regulate away the ability to make the item and sell it at a profit.

One instance - the hemp plant. Yes, I know some folk get hung up on smoking the flowers. I recall one single argument from my time in California that struck me as compelling. When Marijuana was banned in the 1930s there were 10,000 industrial uses for the hemp plant. Those uses, and those jobs, were pushed overseas. Did you know that some farms around central Iowa and elsewhere in the Midwest were licensed to grow hemp during WWII, to provide fiber for ropes and hawsers for military use?

Raising the minimum wage in the last couple of years sounds good, right? Who doesn't want more money. Yet raising the minimum wage increases the cost of the products people making minimum wage work on, without improving productivity. This increases the cost of burgers and movie popcorn and grocery store produce, among many, many other things - and that raises the price that is charged for those things. Raising the minimum wage has always forced some businesses to cut back on the number of jobs they can pay for, costing people employment.

Now ObamaCare and the upcoming Food Safety Enhancement Act 2009 threaten to dramatically increase regulation and reporting costs, taxes, and especially for anyone producing or transporting food (Farmers markets, gardners, as well as farms and industrial processing plants) increase the cost of food. This all acts against American business, and the ability of the American economy to support jobs.

When the seed Monsanto offers is too expensive for farmers to make a profit off of any field they might plant (some $300 a bag for seed corn next spring), when fuel costs rise another 20%, when costs of servicing and repairing tractors and ag equipment rise another 5% - when banks raise their interest rates 2 or 3% - why would farmers plant crops they *have* to lose money in raising? Who would loan them money they wouldn't be able to repay? What if our supplies of food are dramatically reduced next year, for economic reasons not even counting the likelihood of increasing shortfalls of oil for the currently rising demand, and the much ballyhooed worry about climate change causing droughts and disrupting harvests and growing seasons?

What if countries that we buy cheap clothes and cars and trucks and computers from - are expecting to buy grains and other food from us to feed themselves next year, and we don't have that food?

Unions and governments need to deregulate, drop taxes, reign in unfunded spending. So, yes, return power and authority, independence back to ourselves. But be wary, protectionism and unions have always hurt the economy, and put folks out of work.

But that is just my thought.

Brad Kruse
Ponca City, OK

I wrote my Congressman. Please vote "No" on ObamaCare

I sent the following email to my representative, Congressman Frank Lucas, today.
---
Congressman Lucas,

President Obama, and the Democrat Congressional leadership, cannot - *cannot* - overhaul health care or health care insurance, until they *own* health care and health care insurance.

Please oppose all attempts to involve the US government in industry, in health care, in private lives, and in retail and other small business. Government is already too intrusive. Individual rights, including property rights are being trampled. President Obama uses the power of the Executive Office to intrude into the relationship between employer and employee - at every level.

If we were to suppose that the unholy alliance of big government and big union bosses were not corrupt today - this sets the stage for wholesale, rampant corruption tomorrow.

The price of freedom is vigilance. Please oppose all actions of President Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership to hamper, to obscure, and to denigrate vigilance on the part of each and every US citizen.

Please return the United States to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - and not a fascist regime of big government, big unions, and powerful (often corrupt) big money interests.

Please, as a first step, show President Obama just how angry his proposals have made so very many Americans.

Please oppose President Obama and the Democrat Congressional Leadership's version of health care seizure or reform, or whatever it should be called. Vote *NO* on ObamaCare.

Instead, support and defend the Constitution - the same Constitution that President Obama swore to serve. I am appalled that President B. Hussein Obama considers his oath of office a mere campaign comment, rather that the basis, and limitation, of the power and duties of the office of President of the United States. Please help remind the President that his duties come before his whims and dreams and wild-eyed social engineering schemes.


Thank you,

Brad Kuse
Ponca City, OK
---

Have you weighed in, yet, on ObamaCare?