Ron Paul and Main Stream Media

The media is tasked with getting info out to the public, right? The public should expect that info to be accurate, clearly presented and as complete as is humanly possible. In other words we don’t want lies, slants, tweaks to make it sound better, and we don’t want the media to ignore news because the media ‘thinks’ we don’t want to hear it.

The media does not get to ‘shield’ us from the truth as if it were our guardian trying to protect us. Give us the news, all of the news.

So, why is main stream media ignoring Ron Paul?

The media is covering GOP candidates that are ranked lower than him in polls. Polls that clearly identify choices the public has made.

When the media can pick and choose to cover only the candidates it chooses to then ‘fair and balanced’ along with ethics is taking a back seat to what CorporAmerica wants.

American media today is bought and paid for by CorporAmerica. They show this to be true the coverage they give and the coverage they don’t give.

The Journalist’s Creed is a code of ethics written around 1906 by Walter Williams shortly after founding the Missouri School of Journalism.

One of the statements made in that creed is “I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.”

Has this creed been tossed onto yesterday’s trash pile? It would seem so.

Have professional journalist thrown their ethics out the window for a paycheck? It would seem so.

The very large vacuum that has been left today’s ‘professional journalists’ is being filled by everyday citizens who want to get what they feel is missing in journalism today. The full and accurate news can be found only by citizen news reporters.

We have to educate ourselves in order to make informed decisions about our world. Relying only on the slanted and clearly biased news as presented by CorporAmerica will only serve them.

Reawaken the natural curiosity that separates humans from sheep and lemmings. We are not bred to be followers. We are not on this planet to be good little consumers of the watered down and biased version of the ‘truth’ tailored to match the views of CorporAmerica.

We can think for ourselves. We can make our own decisions. But we need a more complete picture than what main stream media is giving us.

Seek the real truth by following multiple sources. Don’t stake your future on only one source simply because it is convenient and less time consuming. The truth as it affects our future is worth much more than being thrifty with our time.

Be better informed in order to make better decisions for the sake of our nation’s future.

Corporate Media Cherry Picking the News – No Surprise Here

As reported by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting - a nonpartisan media watchdog organization - A sparsely attended Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C., on March 31 in support of federal spending cuts received generous media attention. One report (Slate, 3/31/11) suggested there was "at least one reporter for every three or four activists," and a Republican politician joked that there might be more journalists than activists at the event.

An antiwar rally in New York City on April 9 was in some respects very similar. Protesters were speaking out on an equally timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.

The difference? The ratio of activists to journalists. The antiwar protest had thousands of attendees--and received almost zero corporate media coverage.

According to the Nexis news database, the rally was apparently deemed not remotely newsworthy. The local New York Times didn't cover it--though it did have time for the D.C. Tea Party rally (4/1/11). NPR's Morning Edition (4/1/11) and the PBS NewsHour (3/31/11) reported on the Tea Party rally, which was also mentioned a few times on CNN and previewed on NBC's Today show (3/31/11).

Who did cover the antiwar rally? You could find reports from local New York outlets like the news site Gothamist (4/10/11), WABC and NY1, the left-wing Socialist Worker (4/11/11) and a handful of other sites.

What explains the wildly different treatment of the events? The organizers of the antiwar rally say they put serious resources into media outreach, and held a press conference the day before the event (which was reportedly attended by one reporter from Russia Today). The rally was framed as a way to talk about war and the budget debate, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't timely or relevant.

Corporate media has taken the reigns of ‘main stream media’ to become the ‘voice of America’. This is a sad state of affairs for Americans. Citizens who still believe in their right to receive the truth about what goes on in America need to understand that the internet and independent newspapers will soon be our only source of reality reporting.

Since major news media outlets are now owned by corporate America the citizens of this country can only receive a myopic and sanitized view of world events. This defacto censorship of events that are contrary to corporate views undermines First Amendment guarantees.

To all non-profit sources of information I salute you. To all muzzled journalists I applaud your tenacity. To all organizations seeking to suppress minority and dissenting viewpoints I condemn you you.

To all you passive consumers of news who sit in your easy chair and complain about the direction this world is taking, get off your butts and do something about it. Vote, voice your opinion, help those who are out there struggling to keep your freedoms from being trampled on.

Where is that story from?

Is it asking too much for newspapers to let the rest of the world know where a story takes place? Like, what city and state, for instance.

Now that we are in the ‘internet age’ more and more newspapers are posting their local stories online. Which is great, I really like the ability to see what goes on in small town America. But when a story headline reads “Reward offered in North Arlington rock salt heist; 75 tons stolen”, for instance, I would like to know where North Arlington is.

The body of the story gives no clue whatsoever.

A search for Arlington tells me there is an Arlington in Virginia, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois.

I’m just saying.


About the rock salt, someone actually stole 75 tons of rock salt from a public works garage. It is reported to be valued at $4,800. Unbelievable. Where would someone hide 75 tons of rock salt? Could this be the work of a neighboring city? Is there some newly discovered drug process that uses rock salt? I’m joking, but this story has got to be a joke.

Comcast takes over control of NBC, kiss another American Icon goodbye

Like it or not, and the current pulse is ‘not’, Comcast is the new majority holder of NBC. Their first order of business was to replace one of the most well-known American icons with a ‘unifying’ symbol that goes to show their lack of imagination. In doing so they mimic what every corporation is saying: America’s past means nothing. In the relentless march towards ‘one global market’, remaining attached to one nation spells weakness.

The corporate rhetoric was sickeningly thick – they actually said “We aren't a family of two favorite sons, rather one filled with talented people and companies all tied for first”.

Another image of ‘one big happy family all tied for first’’. Who comes up with this drivel?

Top Comcast executives were introduced to employees via a video feed to locations in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and London. After listening to pre-recorded and carefully worded interviews of these executives the employees were given a chance to ask questions. A chance to ask questions? The executives talked their company line while the most pressing question from the audience – are there going to be layoffs - was not discussed. You can see what employees only concern was. And I don’t blame them, corporations do not have a history of benevolence towards employees no matter what their public face says.

The welcome ‘gifts’ were laughable and stingy given the estimated value of this bloated conglomerate creeping ever so steadily towards total monopoly. Each employee received 25 Comcast shares, worth $23.31 each; a family pass to one of the Universal theme parks; and other materials, including a "Big Idea Book" in which they were to record their own. Can’t you just feel the love? I’d like to see if any of those ideas ever end up on the boss’s desk.

The business of wealth and power building just took another end run at sucking the American consumer dry.

Their new logo should be a video camera focused on a glittering and bloated dollar sign propped up by couch potatoes.

Supreme Court gets the chance to review police action without warrant

I learned of this story through a Washington Post report written by staff writer Robert Barnes. The tale is based in Kentucky, much later in the report we are told this took place in Lexington. The first paragraph tells us that the police were following a man who had just sold drugs to an undercover informant. We are not told that the police knew this man, he is only identified as ‘a man’.

I’m going over this story trying to make some sense out of it and I am not having any luck without jumping to conclusion, much in the same way the story is being told. The story leaves me with unanswered questions. And that does not bode well for the reporter. There are too many holes and leaps of conclusion that no well-written story should have. This reason I am focusing on this aspect of this story ahead of the subject is because this type of sloppy reporting is becoming all too common in today’s main stream media. One can expect this from what these so-called professionals refer to as street reporters. But I have read many street reporters who do a much more thorough job than Robert Barnes.

Anyway, I will try to wade through this mess and along the way I will point out the inadequacies of this reporter’s writing style.

Still in the first paragraph, we are told that the police entered a breezeway and heard a door slam and that they now had two choices. So far I am lead to believe that the police don’t know which door slammed or if it was even slammed by the as yet to be identified man they were following.

The second paragraph informs us that behind door number one (leap of faith, because how do they know which door he was behind since they only ‘heard’ a door slam?) and behind door number two is another person named Hollis King along with two people smoking marijuana.

Paragraph three tells us that after smelling ‘the drug’ (are we still talking about marijuana or some other drug?) they banged loudly on King’s apartment door and identified themselves as police and after hearing what they thought was evidence being destroyed they kicked the door down. Several questions arise here, since they are pursuing the dealer and they ‘know’ he is behind door number one, why are they pounding on door number two? Are they abandoning the pursuit of the guy who they have hard evidence against? Plus, by yelling out that they are police didn’t the dealer just become alerted and most likely did get rid of evidence? This sounds all very rookie-ish to me.

In the fourth paragraph the reporter has abandoned any reference to the dealer the police were pursuing. Instead he states that King was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Kentucky Assistant Attorney General Joshua Farley backed the police decision to kick down the door. Of course he would. And this is part of the problem. He claims to believe the story from his officers that they ‘heard noises’ that led them to believe ‘evidence was being destroyed’. I have to laugh at this claim. What ‘noises’ did they hear, a toilet being flushed? A match being struck to burn the evidence? This is beyond the realm of ridiculous. I cannot for the life of me imagine what ‘evidence being destroyed’ in this situation would sound like. They chose to use this lame excuse because of the three reasons for entering without a warrant this is the only one that they had a half-assed chance of getting away with. There was not a life being endangered, they were not concerned with the suspect escaping because as we read in this stellar report these were not even the guys they were chasing.

This Assistant Attorney General Joshua Farley should be ashamed of himself for using such a flimsy basis for taking this case to trial in the first place. By doing this only shows me that he along with many other legal system lackeys are emboldened by what the police are allowed to get away with.

The point of this Washington Post report is that the U.S. Supreme Court heard this case on Jan 12, 2011 and is in the process of deciding whether or not police can abandon the Fourth Amendment and kick down a door because the police claim they smelled marijuana.

I am in agreement with justices Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor on this that police would indeed roam the halls and sniff for ‘reasons’ to kick in a door. Justice Scalia said the police did nothing wrong and that the occupants could have told police they could not enter without a warrant. Where has this guy been living? He is clearly out of touch with what law enforcement has been getting away with.

Police departments all across this nation have a growing reputation for abusing the ‘probable cause’ tenet. Therefore, I see this as a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally define police powers in similar situations. However, I realize that given the current atmosphere of law and order in this country, chances are good that the police will be given a free ride on this issue.

I must say here that I am in complete agreement that the illegal drug issue needs to be addressed. Drug abuse in this country has cost Americans untold billions of dollars in lost productivity and tax revenue, years of freedom in the ridiculously unbalanced and unfair prosecution, and the waste of lives alone should make this issue a top priority.

I admit I am being hard on the police. They need to do things the right way. If, as Justice Scalia says, criminals are stupid, they will eventually be caught at their illegal activity. There have been many instances where police have busted down the wrong door. In some of those cases innocent law-abiding citizens have been terrorized and killed. Given this environment, of course people are going to panic when they hear that thunderous pounding on their door followed by “Open Up”, “Police.”

Listen, drugs need to be removed from our streets. Criminals need to be punished. I object to the citizenry becoming victims due to over-zealous police forces who would rather bust heads and let God sort it out.

Oh, and as far as this reporter goes, how about giving us some hard facts and stop leaving out information like what happened to the dealer the police were originally pursuing.

World Press Freedom Day

clipped from www.rsf.org In the run-up to World Press Freedom Day on 3 May, Reporters Without Borders is campaigning for the release of three women journalists who have been “taken hostage” by governments. Four members of Reporters Without Borders have been on hunger strike since 28 April in support of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, who has been sentenced to eight years in prison in Iran on a charge of spying for the United States. There is also an urgent need to obtain the release of two American journalists employed by California-based Current TV, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, who have been held in Pyongyang since 17 March. The detention of Saberi, Lee and Ling on arbitrary charges demonstrates more than ever the importance of World Press Freedom Day, which we will be celebrating on 3 May. We appeal to the Iranian and North Korean authorities to free these three women without delay.

Saberi, Lee and Ling are professional journalists who are neither spies nor criminals. Through them, press freedom and the right to report the news freely are being taken hostage by Iran and North Korea.

Why don't we hear more about these 'hostage' situations in the American Press.

These are political prisoners and anyone who cares about the freedom of press should be up in arms about their incarceration.

Showing Our Young How to Behave

We have had a recent ‘problem’ here in Utah revolving around underage students sending nude photos of themselves or others to other high school students. Is this problem as serious as adults say it is? Should they be punished as sex offenders and be classified as sexual deviants? Shouldn’t our attitudes toward sex lighten up just a bit?

The legislature is working on lessening the penalties that can be brought against these teens for fear that students are not being turned in due to the severity of those penalties. Many think the guilty students should go through the court system in order to ‘get help’ with their behavior.

This is all so medieval. Why should they be punished? Why should they have to go through the court system? They could be possibly counseled for their actions but to give them a criminal record is preposterous. Our attitudes toward sex in this country is positively antiquated. The actions these adults are taking in pushing for obtuse penalties for doing what they themselves did as teenagers is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Utah is not alone, Pennsylvania students were charged last week with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography. Three high school boys found with the photos on their cell phones are charged with possession of child pornography. In Texas, a 13-year-old boy was arrested on child pornography charges in October after he received a nude photo of a student on his cell phone.

Gone are the days when a photo of a young girl conjured up images of an older male coercing the innocent young girl into something she doesn’t want to co. Authorities are learning more often that the photo is being taken by the girl herself.

Is it degrading to our value system to allow our children to share nude photos of themselves? In light of the lapses in ethical judgment our politicians and civic leaders commit everyday, the answer is no. Taken in conjunction with the number of crimes against humanity anyone can easily witness on the evening news and main-stream media every day of the year, the answer is no. If you want to hold our young to moral standards that we as adults can’t or will not subject ourselves to, then you can say yes but you would be blatantly and transparently hypocritical. And then how can you possibly expect our young to look up to us as the guiding principle of how they should live their lives?

They should be chastised for their moments of bad judgment instead of having to register as sex offenders.

Protection of Privacy and Civil Liberties is our responsibility

The right to privacy is something we all expect and yet the concept is not found expressly in the Constitution or any amendment.

We assume the right to privacy is granted and protected even though we freely divulge information about ourselves on a daily basis, i.e.,

while navigating the internet our internet address can be captured to pinpoint where we live;

using credit cards, online as well as at brick and mortar stores, leaves a trail of purchases that marketers can use to tailor their advertisements towards what they think we may want to purchase;

telephone conversations and email correspondence can be intercepted which further defines who we are or what we are planning to do;

anything we do outside the home and who we do it with are all subject to monitoring by someone with the right equipment.

Accumulated information about each one of us, collected by using any or all of the sources mentioned, can be used to create a very clear profile of who we are. This information can also create a pattern of behavior that can then be interpreted, using sophisticated computer software, to predict the likelihood of future behavior and intentions.

It is no secret that our government eavesdrops on our internet activity. It should come as no surprise to learn that email correspondence in the workplace has no expectation of privacy. Surveillance cameras are becoming more ubiquitous in public places around the world.

Now, local police are advocating the use of spybots. They claim to be needed for, and will only be used for, tactical reasons during hostage situations. Homeland Security pushes for more complete fingerprinting, but only to catch terrorists. FBI wants more complete biometric data on everyone, to help catch criminals and, oh yeah, terrorists.

High-tech spy tools have become the most lusted after weapon in law enforcements arsenal of crime fighting tools. Flying drones are among the more exotic tools. These handy portable devices, complete with infrared sensors and able to fit in a backpack, will allow police to see behind barricades during SWAT actions. They will also be able to help police watch any neighborhood, any house, any person they want to.

Fingerprinting in hopes of catching terrorists is just an excuse to build a more complete profile of everyone in America. A known terrorist is not going to be caught by airport security through the use of fingerprints. Those people who readily submit to fingerprinting are least likely to be the type of people the police need to watch.

Scanners with the ability to “see” under our clothing in graphic detail will soon become common place.

How far are we willing to allow our government to creep into our private lives under the guise of combating terrorism? Who are the real terrorists here? Illegal immigration, terrorism, and criminal activity all provide our government an obvious cover for the proliferation of the latest spy devices and biometric data collection.

Most of us realize that foreigners come to this country in search of a better life for themselves and their families. As such, these people are highly unlikely to commit any crime that could result in them being deported. Of course there will always be a percentage of ‘bad guys’ in the mix, and fingerprinting them will not prevent them from crossing our borders until several conditions are met:

1) we are completely walled off and the only way in is through a tightly monitored entrance,

2) we have the ability for fingerprints to be immediately matched with a complete database,

3) the person being checked has to have already been fingerprinted.

Nothing will accurately predict future criminal behavior which is why fingerprinting is a useless exercise unless the purpose for doing so is to build a more complete profile of everyone in America.

Law abiding citizens should have nothing to fear from bring profiled by our government. But the requirement to be fingerprinted reveals a level of mistrust toward the individual by the establishment and creates a level of mistrust from the citizen being scrutinized. The few low-lifes who choose to live outside the ‘constraints’ of the rules of civilized society are the people causing law enforcement to pursue these heavy-handed measures, not in an attempt to control our movements but to remain aware of where the criminal element is at all times. The ability to ‘know’ where someone is and what they are doing is beyond human ability, therefore technology comes into play.

The issue of trust is of course at the center of the right to privacy vs. the need for personal protection issue. Police use the argument that during a SWAT situation they need a greater ability to collect more accurate and thorough information for the protection of both themselves and any citizen in the immediate vicinity. They say that remote controlled cameras offer this ability. Which is true. But I, like many others, have become weary of what police will do with these tools when not being used for SWAT actions. Who is to guarantee that these tools will not be used to ‘collect’ data on other citizens then?

Trust has eroded as a result of past incidents on the part of police against the very people they are sworn to protect. We no longer have trust in a police force that abuses its power and then is exonerated. We no longer have faith in the sincerity and purity of intentions of a police force that so readily resorts to tasering wheelchair bound or handcuffed individuals. We can no longer believe that our guardians will not use collected data for their own personal nefarious purposes.

Privacy advocates have warned of the dangers of a government collecting information on private citizens and we are beginning to see the great ‘Big Brother’ society materializing when we learn that our government is snooping through our phone records and trying to pass legislation to exclude telecommunications companies involved from liability. We can no longer expect privacy concerning employee email sent on company time. Websites we access at home on our private computers are monitored by our internet service providers. And we can’t even count on the press to inform us about what our government is up to.

We see evidence that the lack of attention to detail in performing our job duties can result in a threat to human life. Nuclear tipped missiles accidentally loaded aboard a B-52 bomber last August and flown across the U.S., electrical fuses for ICBM’s accidentally shipped to Taiwan in 2006, inspections of nuclear facilities on submarines not done resulting in false reports being submitted. These are of course the most serious examples of the infallibility of humans and how events can be purposefully triggered if the desire is there. But they illustrate how humans are prone to not take their individual jobs seriously enough to even protect their fellow man. How can we in any clear conscience give spy tools to a police force we no longer trust?

As these situations show, it is only a matter of time before some rogue individual in a security position or government office will use data collected on an individual to exert undue, unlawful, and immoral pressure on that person for their own dark reasons. This is human nature, no matter what assurances we are given that this situation will never happen, we still all know that it could and probably will.

Building a bigger, more complete database of American citizens only further erodes trust between citizens and those officials appointed to protect us. If we are willing to have complete blind faith in our protectors then watching our every move would not bother us. If the protectors would have complete blind faith in us then they would not need the ability to spy on our every move. It would be nice if such a world existed, but it doesn’t. That lower subset of humanity, the criminal, who would rather prey on the rest of us instead of putting forth the effort to become a productive member of our society, is the reason local police want spybots and why Homeland Security wants a complete profile on everyone that crosses our borders and why the FBI so fervently pursues having a complete data history on every person within our borders.

To add to the horrifying specter of our government knowing everything about us, private citizens can get their hands on our data not only though theft but through sheer incompetence of government officials. An alarming amount of data has been reported just within the past year and it has been going on for several years now. The following is a partial list (it would take up too much space here to list them all) is from actual headlines involving the personal data of millions of people:

Britain’s HM Revenue and Customs lost computer disks containing confidential details of 25 million child benefit recipients.

Half of London boroughs lost citizens’ data.

Connecticut Sues Accenture Over Lost Data.

CD of Georgia personal data lost.

More personal data lost — this time on paper.

Personal Data Lost on 650,000 credit card holders.

It is unconscionable that any individual would be so careless with other people’s personal data that they would loose that data.

I don’t like the situation that the unethical and morally decrepit morons among us have created but it’s there just the same. So, how do we respond? Do we tie law enforcement’s hands to its traditional role of being backup in case we need them, or do we allow them to become ‘proactive’ and use any method at their disposal in the name of protecting us? I don’t see how the latter scenario will make any of us feel truly safe short of embedding tracking devices into each of us and having 24/7 monitoring of our every movement and thought. That is a society that I want nothing to do with.

Limbaugh has lost his “Excellence”

Rush Limbaugh would resort to unethical, illegal means to ensure ‘his’ party wins the presidential election. Is anyone surprised that this egotistical, ‘holier-than-thou’ hypocrite would add riot inciter to his growing list of unethical behaviors?

It isn’t enough for him to be a proud member of a society that values fair elections in order to place the most popular person in the presidential office. He wants to stoop to the level of a Robert Mugabe and ‘force’ the election in his favor. Of course, he supported George W. Bush who stole the election by using the U.S. Supreme Court. So his level of what is ethically acceptable is already well documented.

Rush Limbaugh’s past actions and statements placed himself squarely in the midst of the lowest dregs of right wing radio talk show hosts. And his latest comments is further proof that he belongs there.

Here is his original statement:

"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.

Then, when faced with opposition to this comment he changes his tone expecting us to believe that what he originally said was a misinterpretation, merely a ‘dream of his’. In other words he ‘mis-spoke’. Now where did we witness this attempt at a cover up before? Oh Yeah, Hillary ‘mis-spoke’ when she said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia.

"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."

Is he actually saying that crime in this country is only committed by Democrats? What an utter ass this guy is.

He calls his grand plan “Operation Chaos” which would make the people on the far left look bad. Correct me if I am wrong but this operation is reminiscent of the plan that someone else had in mind back in the late 60’s. His plan was to start a riot by killing whites and make it appear that blacks were behind it and then he would come in and save the day. That someone was Charles Manson.

Rush Limbaugh has made many hypocritical statements that define him as an unethical, immoral hack, completely lacking integrity. Statements such as “Hillary Clinton supporters are feminists who had all had multiple abortions that had been married two or three times”, when he himself has been married three times and has NO children he has no right to cast dispersions onto someone else, yet this is Rush Limbaugh’s modus operendi. And let’s not forget that he was caught with illegally obtained Viagra prescriptions while at the same time ranting against medical marijuana users. He demands jail time for all minorities who break the law yet he did not do any jail time for his law-breaking activity.

He claims to be the leader in excellence in broadcasting yet he backpedals when confronted with inciting riots. Doesn’t sound very excellent to me.

The dictionary defines Excellence this way: the fact or state of excelling; superiority; eminence. I don’t see this definition applied to Rush Limbaugh in any way.

Rush, you really ought to re-evaluate what you consider “excellence in broadcasting”.

Beef recalled due to E. Coli, again?

Sound familiar? It is happening way to often despite USDA reports that the number of cases are down. How can the USDA support their findings in light of these following instances?

June 9, 2007 – 5.7 millions pounds of beef recalled in 11 states.
United Food Group LLC of Los Angeles, 14 people in six western states fallen ill.
Source of contamination none given.

June 8, 2007 – 40,000 pounds of beef recalled in 12 states.
Tyson Fresh Meats Inc of Springdale, no illnesses reported.
Source of contamination none given.

Jan 13, 2008 – 188,000 pounds of beef recalled nationwide.
Rochester Meat Co. of Rochester Minnesota, no data given on illnesses.
Source of contamination none given.

Jan 5, 2008 – 13,150 pounds of beef recalled in Detroit Michigan.
Mark’s Quality Meats, Inc of Detroit, no data given on illnesses.
Source of contamination none given.

Feb 14, 2007 – peanut butter recalled nationwide.
ConAgra Foods of Sylvester, Georgia, 300 illnesses reported.
Source of contamination none given.

Sept 29, 2007 – 21.7 million pounds of beef recalled in 8 states.
Topps Meat Company LLC of Elizabeth New Jersey, 25 illnesses under investigation.
Source of contamination: possibly Rancher’s Beef Ltd of Balzac, Alberta, Canada.

2002 – 27.4 million pounds of cooked sandwich meat recalled nationwide.
Pilgrim’s Pride of Philadelphia, PA, unknown number of illnesses.
Source of contamination none given.

1997 – 25 million pounds of beef recalled nationwide.
Hudson Foods of Columbus, Nebraska, 15 illnesses reported.
Source of contamination none given.

The reporting level on these cases was high, when they first appeared. But sources and causes of the contamination have not been identified. Why are we not told where the contamination is coming from and what is being done to protect us? We need follow-up questions to be asked, but I suppose that isn’t as ‘glamorous’ or as news worthy as a celebrity drunk driving ‘misadventure’.

Does the contamination start with the food crop itself? Is it due to improper handling of the food crop before the processor gets it or after? Is it the processing practice of the food? Are employees the source of the contamination (do you know how many people do not wash their hands after using the toilet? It is literally sickening.)

Is equipment not being cleaned properly? Are inspectors slacking in their duties that allows this contaminated food to get out the manufacturers control before the contamination is discovered?

These are serious questions that affect the safety of our food supply and we, the public, are not privy to any of this information, even when we dig for it ourselves.

Who takes the time to ask these questions? Main stream media sure doesn’t. When I called some of these companies for answers I was told, in every case, to talk to their public relations person and we all know what we get from these mouthpieces. Nothing but whitewash. Still we are left with the burning question, is the food I am about to consume going to make me sick?

These food recalls have affected product sold in grocery stores, delis and restaurants. No place can be considered safe.

The USDA is obviously overwhelmed in their duty to protect the general public. The responsibility falls to every single person who has anything to do with growing, handling, and processing our food. And somewhere along the line someone is letting us all down.

I have harped on this subject of personal responsibility to one’s job before. If anyone slacks off and underperforms in their assigned duty someone else invariably has to pay for it.

The guilty party needs to excuse themselves from their position and put someone in their place who will actually take some pride in what they do.

Sure, E. coli is naturally occurring, but, dammit, there are procedures in place to minimize its effects and someone is not doing their job. Period.

What's your opinion?

Erosion in local news coverage

The Federal Communications Commission has voted to allow ownership of both a TV channel and a newspaper. The rule that prevented this dual ownership has been in effect since 1975.

The chairman of the FCC, Kevin Martin, cast the deciding vote which broke the tie stating it "may help to forestall the erosion in local news coverage".

I have lived in several news markets around the U.S. and in each of those markets there has never been less than three local TV news stations and never less than two major newspapers as well as a handful of community and regional newspapers.

Does this indicate an ‘erosion in local news coverage’? I don’t think so. I am surprised that the FCC believes this.

Where I live, along the Rocky Mountains, there are four local news stations that currently broadcast so often in their morning (5 AM – 7 AM), afternoon (11 AM – 12 PM), evening (4 PM – 7 PM) and late night (10 PM – 11 PM) time slots that one would have to be actively trying to not learn what happens in this town.

This town has two major newspapers that do an outstanding job of presenting even more in depth coverage than the TV stations here.

Between TV and news print, so much of the local news is repeated that you must be blind to think there is an erosion of local news coverage taking place here.

It is shocking that the FCC would set the stage for any media empire to be in control of two of the largest purveyors of news, TV and newspaper. This does not support the diversity of opinion that the 1975 rule sought to enforce.

Allowing a handful of people to decide what news stories are presented and how those news stories are presented creates an atmosphere of mistrust and the potential for abuse. Opinions are going to either be stifled or slanted to match the owners political beliefs.

It is true that with the proliferation of cable TV and the internet we now have an even greater idea-base from which to color our world view, leaving these two media sources as the only real choice does not serve diversity.

Definite bias in national media

On the subject of the latest snow storm to hit this country from the west through the east, this snow storm dumped 4+” of snow and ice on the western states of Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, etc Friday night through late Saturday afternoon and I did not see one national media outlet say anything about it. But when it merely threatened the east coast, before it even got there, every national media outlet was predicting how it was going adversely affect the Monday morning commute.

Why was so much more attention placed on the east coast while the western states were ignored? Because all of the major national media is headquarters along the east coast.

This is not the first time I have seen this clear bias. It is as though the west is some other entity that is not worthy of the almighty east coasts attention.

Just an observation.

Indiana fights DUI

The court system in Indiana is trying something different in handling drunk drivers. DUI offenders are required to attend a court-mandated panel presentation at the Indiana State Fairgrounds.

At this particular presentation the offenders heard a panel member tell of how her brother was killed by a DUI driver. Her story is all too familiar, lamenting the loss of her loved one and how he will never do this or do that and how the offender spent a token amount of time in jail and is now free to go wherever he/she wants.

I applaud them for their effort to find the elusive method of preventing future tragedy. This is definitely a step in the right direction but it still is not enough. We cannot settle for reaching a small percentage of offenders who still have enough common decency to not repeat their offense against the unsuspecting innocents on our roads.

This reporter did not mention whether this was a one time panel or something that every DUI offender will have to go through. Maybe there are additional aspects of this program that goes further towards preventing future tragedy than what was reported in this article, I don’t know because the reporter did not go into any specifics. If this is all there is to this program then it is falls short.

Six people who were ordered to attend this panel showed up intoxicated. The reporter did not mention how these people arrived at the meeting. Did they drive themselves? Did someone bring them? Did any of these offenders loose their privilege to drive as a result of their arrest? Did anyone ignore this opportunity and just not show up?

The six people who showed up intoxicated clearly don’t get it. Something more needs to be done to keep them off of our streets. And reporters need to paint a much clearer picture about what is being done.

Is the U.S. becoming a fascist state?

I have read several blogs and webpages concerning this subject lately and I have to admit the authors of these sites present some very compelling evidence to show that our government is indeed becoming fascist.

This is an extremely scary prospect that needs to be closely examined. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, considering myself scholarly enough to tackle this question but as an American I feel deeply compelled to take heed of some very serious warning signs.

One of the blogs I have read is Vermont Commons, in particular, an article entitled “Speaking Truth to Power: The End Of America--The Police State Is Right Here, Right Now” shows the 10 steps to becoming fascist.

All of these actions took place to convert Germany from a democratic to a fascist state during Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930’s and because history does have a habit of repeating itself, I am in agreement with many others that these steps need to be scrutinized to see if this conversion can happen here.

As you go down this list, make note of anything that can be attributed to America today:

• Invoking an external and internal threat
• Establishing secret prisons
• Developing a paramilitary force
• Surveiling ordinary citizens
• Infiltrating citizens’ groups
• Arbitrarily detaining and releasing citizens
• Targeting key individuals
• Restricting the press
• Casting criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
• Subverting the rule of law

Can anyone deny that these steps will lead to fascism?

Can we deny that any of these things have taken place during George W. Bush’s term as president?

Let’s examine each one.

• Invoking an external and internal threat
George has been warning us for how long now that if we pull out of Iraq then the terrorist will follow us and we will fight them in our streets. Does anyone really believe his threat?

The Bush administration has repeatedly linked Iraq to the attack on the World Trade Center and we were told repeatedly and insistently that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, against proof to the contrary. Enough people believed these blatant lies that they gave him the go ahead to commit our troops over there, ostensibly to search for them. Saddam had nothing to do with bombing the World Trade Center nor did he have weapons of mass destruction.


• Establishing secret prisons
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating al Qaeda captives at Soviet-era compounds in at least eight countries in Eastern Europe. This is in addition to Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. This has all been verified by current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

See this article for further information.


• Developing a paramilitary force
My understanding is that a paramilitary force is not part of the regular armed forces of any nation but looks like them in their training, equipment and organization. In other words they look, act, and feel like a military force but aren’t considered ‘regular’ army. For example the Nazi SS was paramilitary. They were an elite security force operating in tandem with the regular German army.

The U.S. did create a paramilitary force of Iraqi militiamen to confront insurgents in Iraq while the regular U.S. military performed their duties. But I don’t think this is the same thing.

Can a private security force such as Blackwater USA be considered a paramilitary force? Not in the strictest sense. And because the U.S. ‘hired’ them to assist the military to act as bodyguards, can this be considered ‘developing’?. I am not convinced that private security forces meet the criteria for this step.

The CIA does have a paramilitary force.

So this could meet this criteria.


• Surveiling ordinary citizens
Oh yeah. Everyone who pays attention knows about this.


• Infiltrating citizens’ groups
See Surveiling ordinary citizens


• Arbitrarily detaining and releasing citizens
Just look at Guantanamo and remember that this is the first administration since the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II to enact special laws for a specific ethnic group. Non-citizen young Muslim men are now required to register and subject themselves to interrogation. Many hundreds have been arrested and held without trial or access to legal assistance--a violation of one of the pillars of American democracy: habeas corpus. In Guantanamo Bay, where it is said that they are now preparing execution chambers, hundreds of foreign nationals – including a 13-year-old and a man who claims to be 100 – have been kept for several years in a limbo that clearly contravenes the Geneva Convention.


• Targeting key individuals
See Surveiling ordinary citizens

I am not certain about what is meant by ‘key individuals’. Maybe terror suspects can be considered key.


• Restricting the press
Mainstream media is doing this themselves, or are they being coerced or threatened behind the scenes? True, they are not being restricted as far as not being allowed to report on certain aspects of daily life in the U.S. or government but you have to go to alternative news sources to get the whole story about what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Mainstream media is definitely painting a rosier picture than what the alternative news sources are.

I began questioning the mainstream media during their reporting of the Vietnam war and it turned out I was correct to do so. Only after the war was over did I learn more about what was really going on. Maybe this could be attributed to national security but I have always hated it when someone hides behind that reason for not exposing the whole truth.


• Casting criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
Florida student tasered by campus police at a political rally.

This one has nothing to do with Iraq or terrorism but why did the police insist on tasering this guy while John Kerry was saying he would answer his questions? This is just a very small sample of the police state we are currently living in. If you think this is inflammatory of me to call our nation a police state then look at all of the cases where police brutality charges have been dismissed or swept away by the very police departments who have the biggest interest in not going forward with them. Look at all of the police shootings that have been deemed ‘justified’ and the officers allowed back on the streets. There is no such thing as an ‘independent’ review board when it comes to investigating the police.

We have witnessed police brutality and shootings on video and still the officers involved go unpunished. Police state, hell yes.


• Subverting the rule of law
The Senate recently gave Little Bush ‘temporary’ expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants. The purpose of a court warrant is to involve an impartial judge so that citizens rights are not abused. Bush considers this requirement as a stumbling block to his freedom.

Can we truly trust this man to make a determination as to who is and who is not a terrorist? Since he lied to us about Iraq being a terrorist state out to destroy the U.S. and got us into an illegal war it is no stretch of the imagination to believe that he can ‘see’ terrorism anywhere in the world, including right here in the U.S. among our neighbors. Perhaps you or perhaps me. What is to stop him? Don’t even think that common sense has anything to do with it because that train left a long time ago.

What about all of the instances where he has evoked 'executive privilege' to get around a law to get what he wants or to protect one of his ‘cronies?

After examining these requirements for fascism for myself, I am not convinced we are in a fascist state, yet. We are on the precipice because no one can deny that all of the earmarks are certainly there. And, even though we are so dangerously close, there are too many other factors in play that will not allow this nation to fall under that evil ‘ism’.

Another blog that deserves mention if only because it highlights some of the dangers we face from having George Walker Bush as our president is this one. This blog goes a little deeper into identifying why King Bush Jr is such an insidious threat to our freedom. The blog deserves to be read by every American, free-thinking or otherwise.

There are others, there certainly is no shortage of what could be called ‘conspiracy theorists’ and I hesitate to label all of them so harshly, because this term is gaining a negative, lunatic connotation. But when there are so many people saying the same thing, coupled with the fact that we as a nation are becoming more and more apathetic about what our government leaders are doing, I think we owe it to ourselves to at least look into it.

I have been watching politics for many years, hence my general cynicism and skepticism about all political motives, and until just recently I haven’t really ‘seen’ what is happening to us. Now that I have opened my eyes I do not like what I see.

This administration is the most radical government in modern American history. George W. Bush’s ideologies, or rather the true ruling junta behind him, have become so pervasive and well-accepted that the main stream media doesn’t even realize that they are now a part of it.

There is no doubt that Little Bush has damaged this countries psyche, but, in the final analysis, I think we are a strong enough nation to withstand even his bungling attempt at leadership.

News media, get your facts straight the first time

Interpreter arrested after agreeing to help police.

This story is an example of what I see the news media accepting as ‘business as usual’. Let’s analyze this particular story to illustrate my point.

Monica Montoya was on her way to her daughters school and helped police interpret for an accident victim in Roselle Park New Jersey.

Now this is the beginning of the story and this much is true. The news media added two different views on even this simple truth.

One story I heard was that she was driving to her daughters school when she came upon an accident victim who was hit by a van and she stopped to offer assistance. The police arrived and asked her to interpret for the victim, which she agreed to do.

Another version was that she was walking to her daughters school, passing the scene of the accident, when the police stopped her to ask if she would interpret for the victim, which she agreed to do.

The first version, of course, makes her look like a true samaritan. the second version makes her look like she was 'commandeered'. Which version is true? It only happened one way people.

So far neither version mentioned whether the victim was a pedestrian hit by a van or if she was driving and was hit by the van. You might say ‘this detail is unimportant’ and you would be correct but the two different versions already chose to get into ‘some’ detail by saying it was a van, not just an automobile accident. So, the media, in both cases, already opened that door.

Continuing with the story, both versions said the reason for the arrest is that she was uncooperative after both versions reported she was co-operating. I heard her crying, as the officer was taking her to a squad car in handcuffs, that she needs to get her child from school. Since I have already heard two different versions of the story, the only thing I know for certain is that there was an accident of some sort, she was on her way to her daughters school, she helped police, she was arrested. I cannot believe either reporters interpretation. And since the public rarely ever hears a follow-up to a story, unless it is sensational enough, we may never know what really happened at the scene.

The bottom-line here is that the news media, in their zeal to get a story to the public ‘first’ will say whatever they first interpret instead of getting the facts. This is why there are always so many versions of any story. We the public are left to sort through ‘the facts as presented’ to determine the truth. The press is supposed to give us the facts, not their interpretations and then let us figure out what the truth really is.

Who came up with this concept of ‘just throw words out there, we’ll fill in the facts later’? This concept is born out of the news medias need to be ‘the first’ or ‘exclusive’. The public doesn’t care about exclusivity or who gets the story out there first. We care about the truth through the facts not someone’s interpretation of them.

Another thing, while I am on the topic of news media, why do you feel the need to dramatize a story?

As a news consumer, whenever a story is brought to my attention, I I want to know what the real story is. I don’t want to hear one persons interpretation of the story. Why are there so many different versions? Why can’t the media get the story straight the first time?

Being first is not always the best goal when it comes to the news. You need to stop being so competitive and give us the facts the first time. If you don’t know the facts then say so. We will wait.