More Baloney In The News - Media Propaganda

Fox - Gutfeld: Why America has trust issues with the media. The speakers opinion, from Conservative Fox, is convinced that the reason the media is no longer trusted is because it is liberal. He goes as far as to claim that Fox is not part of the media. The establishment cannot seem to understand why people jointed the Tea Party or Occupy movement a few years back and now cannot seem to understand the support for Sanders or Trump and the media is even more confused over why they are not trusted. The reason is quite simple, because everything they say is a sales job rather than an attempt to just present the facts in any in depth way. The hypocrisy of the media is only highlighted by the following video that literally auto played after the one above.

Fox - Anarchy in America. In this "report" Bill O'Reilly talks about how certain cities (he chooses San Francisco) are considering themselves "sanctuary cities" and not going after illegal aliens. I sort of agree with him on that, cities, counties and states need to keep the laws. Whether it be federal safety laws or any other laws. The problem is that O'Reilly said that the legislators who voted to remain a sanctuary city should all be jailed even if the law would not allow them to be prosecuted. Is this the same Fox News and O'Reilly that thought the clerk should not have to issue marriage licenses because it violated her religious beliefs and also supported that idiot farmer in Arizona who thought he had an innate right to graze on federal lands and not pay a fee? Well, yes it is. Fox is a bunch of hypocrites and it was funny to see this right after the video on the lack of trust in the media.

New Scientist - Carbon nanotubes found in children’s lungs for the first time. This is a really important finding. Carbon nanotubes are created in labs and may have many important uses down the road. We don't know if they are cancerous and it is believed they could be or at least increase the chance of cancer. It should also be noted that they have never been found in the air before; but, now are being found in the lungs of children in Paris and may also be in the lungs of adults in Paris. The big scary question is where are they coming from and how are they being released. If they are intentionally being released then we have an even bigger issue; but, we should at least be trying to find out how they are getting in the air. For my regular readers you may recall that not long ago the French also accidently sold some genetically modified sheep, illegally, that were put into the food supply "by accident". France might want to consider keeping a better eye on it's labs.

Fox - Business Insider - Donald Trump has experienced a major shift in one of the most significant predictors of electoral success. The short of the story is that 60% of Republicans have said that they could vote for Trump with 43% saying they think he will win the nomination. No matter how much support he has, the Republican party establishment does not want him because he is not already sold out to their traditional economic interests.

Yahoo - Reuters - Marijuana Use and Disorders Have Doubled Since 2001. The title and the way the article is written are both mislead. The article claims that Marijuana use has doubled according to surveys. Well, that would make sense as it is now legal in about half the states for medical uses. After having taken car of, helped and known people who have had cancer and gone through chemotherapy and radiation therapy, anyone who deny them marijuana to me is scum. It really upset me that my father could take morphine and was dying but it was still illegal for him to smoke weed even if it helped him to eat. He would not have taken it and did not want the morphine either; but, it really brought it home for me. This post is about marijuana though, it is about the media slant. The very first sentence of the article is a lie, it states that "abuse" of marijuana has doubled since 2001 because us of marijuana has doubled. Think about that. Do you honestly believe that people who are using medical marijuana are all "abusing" it? If you read the whole article you will find that 10% of the population is believed to have used marijuana in the last few years and of the roughly 320 million Americans that means that roughly 32 million have used marijuana in the last few years. I should point out that about 25% of the population had at least one day where they had at least 5 heavy drinks according to the CDC, or 2/12 times the number of people who even smoked marijuana once during that same period. Now, according to this article, the number of people that actually had a clinical problem with marijuana was roughly 3% of the 32 million who used it or a little more than 300,000. I am pretty sure the number of alcoholics is much higher than that. I should point out that it is believed that about 14 million people have problems with alcohol (Alcoholics Information - Statistics About Alcoholism). The statistic means that 2 1/2 times many people as have smoked marijuana in the past few years have serious problems with alcohol and the number of people wish serious problems with alcohol is about 50 times higher than the number of people who misuse marijuana. I should also state that later in the article it says that 3 out of 10 users were diagnosed with a marijuana disorder; but, aside from the fact that is 30% and not their earlier quoted 1.5% to 3% of users. The reason for the confusion is because they are playing games with numbers and they never define what this marijuana "disorder" is.

Now the source article came from JAMA which is publication of the Psychiatrists in America. You know, the people I wrote about recently who push psychotropic drugs like Ritalin and Prozac and Valium and, well, the list goes on and on. I hate to say this; but, I don't articles about medicine very much anymore. In fact, I lost most of my faith in the articles when I discovered that the number one study quoted that claimed second hand smoke was worse than first hand smoke was not based on second hand smoke; but, was instead based on the effect of smoking on babies when they were still in the womb. If someone wants me to trust what they say about a study, they have to provide me with the name of the study and where I can read it myself. I don't expect my readers to trust that I am accurately reporting on news articles, I provide a link to the article itself.

UPDATE:

I had just posted the above and I returned to read news articles when I came across this.

Fox - Bill Murray reportedly dating former child star Jenny Lewis.

Personally, I had never heard of Jenny Lewis and there is a good reason, she was not a "child star", at best she had been a child actor. She has actually been better known for music since 1998. I should also point out that she is 38 years old. What do you think sounds more shocking that Bill Murray is dating a 38 year old musician or a "former child star"? The truth is the article cannot even state that Murray is dating her, it is a "rumor".

Paul Ryan Full of Nonsense

The speaker of the House of Representatives quit, his name was Boehner. Now people in the media pronounce it Bayner; but, lets be truthful nowhere in English does oe make the ayyyy sound. The rules of English tell us that when a vowel is followed by another vowel, the first vowel is pronounced in its whole sound. Boner. We are not a nation of 12 year old boys in school and shouldn't change the rules of English to accommodate foolishness.

Be that as it may. Nobody in the Republican house wants the job as speaker as that would require them actually trying to work with Democrats to get laws passed, you know, doing their job. The one person who appears to be able to get sufficient support is Paul Ryan, you know, the guy who wants to be President. After a lot of pressure he has said he will accept the job; but, only if every Republican in congress supports him. What???

Yahoo - AP - Ryan to seek speakership if House GOP unifies behind him.

Why is it so hard to find a Republican that wants to lead his party in the House of Representatives? I have never seen or read of this in history. What is it this year, I mean, Vice President Joe Biden is being begged to run for President by his party and he doesn't want to. Actually, Joe Biden lost his son and is looking to retire so I can appreciate his position. Ryan actually wants to be President. Can you imagine his campaign, "I will only accept being President if all the Republicans and Democrats support me". He has all the backbone and courage of a jellyfish. Ryan is claiming that he wants to not spend less time with his family or travel for fundraisers, he didn't have a problem with either of those things when running for President. The truth is that the Republican party is no longer a party of consensus and nobody can get it's support. Currently, it is a party of corporate whores and extremists, not the conservative, pro-American party of the past and even the Republican voters know it.

Unexplained Changes In Your Life

Fox - DC church calls proposed bike lanes unconstitutional.

The article itself is about a church suing over bike lanes taking out their parking. I know a lot about transportation laws, I have been asked to write a book about public easements and I am telling you right now that the church does not have a leg to stand on and will lose horribly thereby setting the legal precedent for cities to put in bike lanes and take away parking and traffic lanes.

Here is what you need to consider. All across the nation crosswalks are being modified, they now resemble the crosswalk on the cover of the Beatle's Abbey Road cover. At the same time all across the nation bike lanes are being put in at the same time. Do you ever wonder why? Funding determines what gets built and federal funding has a big impact on local paving. Local municipalities are responding to the Federal governments call for an "intermodal" approach to streets; but, there is a problem. Municipalities do not own their streets, they only have a public easement (the right to traverse the streets and keep them clear for such purpose).

Traditionally, sidewalks were for foot traffic and streets were for wheeled traffic (originally for horse drawn traffic). The law also frequently prohibits pedestrians from walking on street if there is a sidewalk and from driving on sidewalks almost always. Those laws are established. Creating a new type of public easement limited to bikes is an outgrowth of laws allowing for bus only lanes. This is why I did not write the book on public easements, I bore myself when discussing these things; but, they are relevant to our lives. The truth is that bus lanes are not needed, one can make an argument for ride share lanes as they were, in at least California, required to be built with funds specifically for such a thing and lanes that had previously been built could not be re-purposed (yes, there is actually a court case over that).

If you cannot repurpose existing highways lanes for limited uses, why should municipalities be allowed to repurpose traffic lanes for only one type of traffic. Why should we have traffic lanes limited to bikes when bikes can ride in car lanes. Bikes are not limited to any lane, buses are not limited to any lane; but, cars and trucks are. Is that legal, probably not if the right law suit was brought. One that questioned why streets were allowed to be made into public easements for limited use by vehicles.

Alien Worlds and Politics

The Atlantic - The Most Mysterious Star in Our Galaxy.

Scientists have found a star that apparently has objects circling it that may have been made by intelligent life. That is the short of the article. Now, the reasons that they believe this has to do with the age of the star, the lack of consistency of the circling objects and some other observations. The fact is that it is only a question of when we find other intelligent life in the universe. If you believe in God then you have to believe that he didn't need to make so many planets if we were going to be the only sentient beings using them and if you are an atheist you have to believe that planets similar to ours would have had similar results.

There is one philosophy that might assume that there is no other life in the universe. If you believe God made the universe so that we could discover that we were his only creation. Of course, that doesn't explain angels. If you believe that God made the universe and angels then you already believe in aliens.

I personally don't think we have a clue what is circling that planet. I sure don't know. My thoughts on aliens are sort of limited. I do believe there is life on other planets, what kind and why, I have no idea. I believe something happened at Roswell and that we have still not been told the truth. I am far from convinced it was aliens. I do not believe that aliens from other planets are regularly visiting the earth. I do believe that reports of flying saucers represent something people are seeing and are not all hoaxes. Finally, I believe the media regularly ridicules strange phenomenon because they don't want to be seen as not knowing more than the rest of us. The media saying they don't know the truth is like a police officer arresting you and saying he doesn't have the authority. I don't expect to see either happen.

Here is my question. If one day we actually communicate via any method with alien life (lets say laser beam communication that takes 5,000 years to reach the other planet), how will the media react? If we received a message from an alien planet that had been sent 5,000 years ago I think most people would accept it pretty quick and not even be surprised. The media, government and business would freak out and be scared, then they would try to scare us too. Alien life is only a threat to the people in charge. People who were about to be sacrificed by the Incans were not half as afraid of the conquistadores as the people who ruled the empire. The people who were about to be sacrificed by the Incans had nothing to lose and often sided against the Incans.

What would an alien race have to offer the world that might cause 99% to go along. What if they promised that all people would have medicine or homes or food or protection from aggression? If you want to take over a country or society and not have to spend all your time managing and fighting them, you have to offer to be better than the people they used to be under and that is our problem in IRAQ.

It is pretty hard to tell people in Iraq that America is better for them because Hussein used to torture them when we also torture them. How do we tell Iraqis they are better off under us when their houses are all destroyed and are even more likely to have their children killed? If the Iraqis and Afghanis don't believe us then why would they not accept the promises of aliens over ours?

There is a part of the bible that has always confused me. After the final battle at Armageddon, Jesus takes over and rules for 1,000 years. At the end of that time he releases Satan and some of the people on earth fight against Jesus with Satan. Why? What if it is because they believe they can get a better deal than others? What if it is all the believers of Ayn Rand, those who think that helping one another is the despised "collectivist mentality". The most hardcore believers in dog eat dog capitalism believe that working together and helping the less fortunate is the sin and that selfishness is being godlike. Psychopaths and Sociopaths. If ever aliens come here, it will be the rich and powerful that will have to change their ways if we are to stay in charge of our own future.

Outsourcing To China Versus American Production

I was getting ready to go to bed and I read and saw a couple of news articles. One was about all the toxic products, like toys and sheetrock, that China sells to the rest of the world and the other about clothes made in foreign countries using child labor and having little if any safety checks. Anyways, I had a thought about how to improve the products sold here and make American producers more competitive. What if we required all products sold in America to meet the same requirements that we make of American companies?

I know this is crazy; but, what if we held foreign companies selling in the United States to the same rules that we hold our own companies to? Why does our government allow foreign companies to sell in America; but, not require them to not use slave labor or children or put toxins in the products they sell here? Does allowing toxic products from foreign countries to be sold in America protect Americans? I don't see how. And if you think about it, making that requirement would increase the profitability of American manufacturers. Heck, if you are liberal and believe in global warming, the requirement that other countries companies meet American pollution standards to sell in America you would decrease global warming. For conservatives, making foreign countries follow the same rules for selling in America as we do our own companies is even better than a tariff. It takes longer to meet health and safety laws than to pay an extra fee. Oh, and buy the way, the United States holds a lot more patents on clean air products than China, just look at their smog and it should be clear. They haven't invested much in clean technology.

Let's go a little bit deeper. Every American company should be in favor of what I have proposed. Heck, if the real problem is American wages or unions then it will still make sense to outsource our jobs because our competitors in foreign countries would still be cheaper. We are willing to tell other countries what weapons they can and cannot make; but, don't believe it is right to tell them what products they can sell here?

By the way, the free trade agreements make it so we cannot question the methods employed by foreign countries in making products for sale in the United States and also allows corporations to sue the United States for having standards, like age and safety requirements. That is what the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is all about. Fight any trade agreements that do not put basic health and safety requirements on goods to be sold in this country.

It Is Not News It Is Propaganda

I went out with friends and had a very nice meal  When I got home I read the news and saw the following article.

Yahoo - Reuters - U.S. confirms Iran tested nuclear-capable ballistic missile.

If you read the article and pay attention, you discover that what they said is not true. There is absolutely no proof the missile could carry nuclear weapons. The article states that the problem with the missiles is that they are medium range ballistic missile, that means it can travel far and that is all it means. An Inter-Continental Ballistic is one that can reach half way across the world, so whatever missile they tested is not capable of reaching America from Iran.

Now, if we accept that statement from the author that every missile is "inherently" capable of carrying nuclear weapons then it is also saying that no other nations should have rockets capable of delivering satellites into space, same technology. Here is an important line from the end of the article.

"The missile test is not a violation of the nuclear deal, which focuses on Iran's atomic program, U.S. officials have said."

Lets be clear, under the proposed Iran Nuke Deal, they would even be allowed to buy ballistic missile technology from other countries including the United States so long as it was not designed for nuclear missiles. That strongly suggests that not all ballistic missiles are capable of launching nuclear weapons. This article by Reuters is a series of internal contradictions. Whether you like Iran, hate it, trust it, love it or think it is just a bad place to go on your honeymoon, the article is a giant lie and that is the issue I am addressing.

I want you to consider the linked article again. It basically said that Iran tested trucks capable of carrying nuclear bombs. That would include every truck if you believe nuclear bombs can be made the size of a barbecue from Home Depot and not weigh more than a quarter ton. What about this, what if it said that Iran tested software capable of detonating a nuclear missile? That would include any program and not even a complicated one. It would include every cell phone as detonating a bomb is not that complicated and neither is making a rocket, the Germans were doing it in the 1940s.

Medical Dramas and Cop Shows

Other than "reality shows" that are not real and are just an excuse to hire cheap actors, the two biggest types of shows on television seem to be medical dramas and dramas about arresting people. Here is just how silly these three types of shows are.

Reality shows spend all their time with people yelling unrestrained at one another and spending time together willingly. Other than your children and possibly your spouse, how long would you put up with someone freaking out at you every two minutes if they were not under medical care? I especially like the shows about rich housewives who put up with psychotic friends who are always yelling and talking garbage, if you are a rich housewife, why are you with them and not getting a massage or in Hawaii?

Lets think about reality shows a little more. When my eldest daughter was about 6 we had some offers to put her in commercials. I was against it. She had not expressed an interest in acting at the time, nor at any time since. I don't remember her ever asking to take drama class. I grew up with kids in the industry including ones that you would know. I cannot think of one that benefited from the experience other that for short term monetary gain, which few if any managed to keep or put to beneficial use. So here is my question, if you wouldn't want to be a show biz mother, why would you let your family be filmed all day for a reality show and get paid pennies?

I don't know if Bruce Jenner really had a sex change operation, nor do I care one way or another; but, I am disgusted that he participated in having his children portrayed as vain, idiotic tools of the media. They are spectacle and not actors or performers. He participated in that. As bad as that is, Miley Cyrus's dad is worse. Currently, the 22 year old Miley is considering doing a naked concert. Her dad has supported her in her endeavors. Wow. Although I have known at least two women who have posed in men's magazines, I am not aware of any of their parents thinking it was a good thing. How many of us would actually promote our children posing nude, basically, selling their bodies for money? It is not reality television, it is perversity television where the lowest common denominator gets the highest revenue from advertisers.

Now let us consider medical dramas. In the last few years the two most popular were House, about a doctor who is a drug addict and "Grey's Anatomy" about a bunch of young doctors who all sleep with each other and have the emotional maturity of 13 year olds with limited parental supervision. I have to give some history. I have had arthritis since I was about 19, I have mechanical arthritis from being a gymnast and being one of the most highly ranked in pull ups in history. That is actually true about me. It cost me my hands as I was 15 by the time I had earned that recognition. Years later I had severe arthritic attacks and the doctors wanted to remove my knuckles and replace them with plastic. That is also true. After years of misdiagnosis it turned out that those severe bouts were not from the arthritis alone; but, from gout which inflamed my arthritis. A simple blood test showed that and after changing my diet I have avoided those except on very rare occasions and I now know what to do to prevent that again, it is called changing my diet and I have. Once identified it was pretty easy to avoid it.

Here is another interesting fact. My mother had cervical cancer and went misdiagnosed for a decade. Yeah, they missed it. Yet, on television medical dramas, they all seem to be about great doctors who misdiagnose diseases that are so rare that they have only been seen once or twice in history. Still, Dr House and the people of Grey seem to figure out, in the last 10 minutes, what the obscure and unlikely disease is. It took 20 years for my doctors to figure out that I had gout and I don't know if my current doctor even knows that and he is a really, really good doctor. His problem is that because I haven't complained about arthritis, having changed my diet decades ago, it is no longer in my medical records. Wouldn't medical dramas be more pertinent and useful if they brought up the diseases most commonly misdiagnosed? They are neither reality based nor useful.

Finally we come to police dramas. I want you to think back to all of the worst and most extreme crimes portrayed in police dramas and then ask yourself, how many times have police vehicles actually been blown up by hand grenades? Okay how many times have police vehicles been blow up by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices as are used in Iraq and Afghanistan)? The answer is zero; but, that doesn't stop us from having local police buy vehicles to protect them from such threats, threats that they have never faced in their history and you are paying for them.

I don't understand right wing extremists like Alex Jones complaining that the police are being more militarized, which they are, and then claiming that the second amendment should allow them to personally own military equipment. I do not believe either individuals nor the police need tactical nuclear weapons, tanks or bazookas to protect themselves. Do you? I am okay with the military having such weapons, I am a pacifist; but, I cannot understand the military thinking them these weapons will at least let them do what they perceive to be their job. As a Christian I also believe that God said that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword; but, I don't expect non Christians to adhere to that belief. My problem is with Christians who do not.

Here is the problem. How many shows really deal with the most common problems faced by people and families. Sorry, the number of fathers who want to have sex changes, the number of people faced with exotic diseases and the number of people faced with being blown up by terrorists while in police cars is so minimal as to be ludicrous and fantasy. How many shows actually deal with real family issues?

We laugh at shows like Adam 12 and Dragnet today; but, at least they dealt with the real issues of the day. Dragnet tried to make us believe that people who smoked Marijuana killed their children; ludicrous, but at least they didn't know what Marijuana did. The original medical shows were about diseases that you or your family might actually get and the decisions you might have to make. The first reality show was called "An American Family" about the Loud family and it was real. It was on PBS, regular television would not show it. Most of the family hated the fact they ever did it. Why don't we have television focused on the real problems we face, like a cop show where the cops fight to keep their pensions or a medical show about how many people they don't serve. Think about it.

Now here is an interesting fact, how much money was stolen during the "financial crisis", lol, how many billions did the big banks steal by rigging all the markets with them paying tens upon tens of billions in legal fines, JP Morgan paid over $25 Billion in fines. Remember they stole more than they paid in fines by hundreds of billions and cost this country Trillions in losses. Neither the Mafia nor the Mexican drug cartels could possibly steal as much from the average US worker as our friends on Wall Street have, tell me I am wrong. By the way, the banks gave a higher return on interest to the people that laundered drug money than they did to you and I They did however charge them higher fees, to be fair. Maybe not as high as the fee they charged your pension fund.