I find that I get my news from the Internet (from a variety of sources), and that I turn to a newspaper (rarely), or a news channel to get perspective on that news. This is reason #1 why I think the mainstream media’s numbers (ad revenue, readership, viewership) continue to decline: since Drudge and Twitter “news” is more new, and seemingly more raw, the mainstream can’t compete. They’re no longer a news source, they’re a commentary.

The Internet was and is a game changer for news, and for the most part the MSM has been asleep at the wheel just as Motorola was when digital phones entered the scene, or as the record labels were when digital music arrived. That is what it is, and it is sad to see the MSM so slow and resistant to change, but they’re paying for it.

Nonetheless, here’s the second reason why I think the Mainstream Media’s numbers continue to decline, and this is the one that bugs me: they seem to try and tell me what to think. I can go online and get any news about anything. I turn to the Mainstream Media, and I seem to only get what they think is important.

Obama’s associations were just as important during his campaign as Bush’s were during his. ACORN was as important then as it is now. The corruption in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was important, but hardly anybody chose to effectively report on it. And now, Climategate is important, but once again we see networks like ABC and CBS holding off on reporting it.

These things aren’t important to me because I’m some hard right-winger, they are important to be because they are news and all three of those issues concern my tax dollars as well as the leadership and future of this country. Let the mainstream media decide to what degree to cover a certain story based on their perspective and their viewers, i.e. slant it or water it down as they may so choose, but still report on it. Otherwise, who’s going to read or watch a source they think is deliberately withholding or delaying a story to fit some political agenda? I have to think that by not reporting certain news, the mainstream media is losing trust with readers and viewers and is in turn, losing ratings.

Many people (including White House staffers) harp on Fox News, but they appear to report on far more of the issues than any other network. Even if they do have a heavy right-wing slant, at least it’s being reported. From that perspective, I find it ironic that the other networks who withhold stories for political reasons accuse Fox of not being a “real” news organization.

Rex says it all!

by Snidely Whiplash

I finally figured out why Progressives and the rest of us never agree on the facts – because Progressives get their news from sources that while near and dear to them, are suspect in terms of factual reporting sans agenda.

Of course they scream “Fox is the propaganda wing of the Republican Party,” which I in fact love. If Fox is presenting pure unadulterated facts on their NEWS, not opinion their programming, then if they are the “propaganda” wing, does that not mean that Republicans are forwarding facts in their news presentations, again, NOT in their opinion programming? Seems so to me.

Think about that. It’s a great “gotcha” to use on Progressives cause they are the ones screaming Fox is bogus, yet Fox is the source of the widespread dissemination of the ACORN scandal, Climate Gate, and various other major news events that MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc., seem to totally miss reporting upon. Those are undeniable factual events, yet MM forgot to mention any of it ’til the weight of embarrassment grew too much for even their arrogant butts to handle.

As well there is some truth to the concept that Progressives believe Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann present news and not opinion. See, we Fox viewers know Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and yes even Limbaugh are largely opinion programming presentations. Sure they use facts in the news to form their opinions, but it is still opinion programming.

There’s the fundamental disconnect for Progressives – they cannot seemingly separate opinion from hard factual news. Or if they can intellectually grasp the difference they are just lying when they claim “Fox is propaganda.” I love this friends.

Each new day the events expose them and their Progressive ideology for what it is – a snow job of Siberian proportions. If their ideology could withstand the scrutiny of fact they would not behave in this manner. But as it’s a house of cards built upon hopeful desire, yet displays a totally failing implementation, they have to ignore the factual data that exposes the ideology. Can an observant reader see this clearly? It’s as plain as the nose on your mug.

To continue reading Snidely’s article, click here.

Luke Rudkowski
Russia Today
December 3, 2009

Today, talking heads, corporations, governments, editors and publishers no longer make the definitive judgment on what is news and what is not. More than 100 years after Upton Sinclair wrote his muckraking book “The Jungle,” the tradition of muckraking has a new life on the Internet.

Sinclair set out on a daunting task: to infiltrate the meatpacking industry in Chicago. He took months off from work and immersed himself in the business, working undercover to expose the gross mistreatment of workers. Sinclair gave vivid details about immigrant life in Chicago, depicting poverty and homelessness and exploitation by the powerful.

Today, all it takes to create an expose is a laptop and a camera, or even just a cell phone. Anyone can take video and upload it to YouTube for the world to see. This accessibility opens up the possibility of an uncontrolled flow of information around the world.

The people now have eyes and ears all over the world, and are waiting to broadcast. This gives them an advantage over the mainstream media, which cannot always be at the right place at the right time. This exposure allows humanity to see and understand issues more clearly than ever, as events unfold in front of our very eyes from all perspectives.

The mainstream media occasionally misses big stories that rock society – either by negligence or on purpose – that online activists uncover. For example, in his book “Here Comes Everybody,” Clay Shirky details how bloggers brought down Trent Lott.

“This would have been a classic story of negative press coverage altering a political career – except that the press didn’t actually cover the story,” Shirky writes. It was the bloggers that picked up on Lott’s racist remarks during his speech at Storm Thurmond’s 100th birthday party, which eventually cost Lott his leadership position in the Senate.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Recently, a groundbreaking story coined “Climategate” spread like wildfire through the Internet before making its way into mainstream media. This story concerned emails between scientists who produce studies to support theories of global warming. In the emails, the scientists were openly discussing destroying studies that didn’t support their theories.

This scandal, which was brought to the world’s attention thanks to the Internet, severely damages the validity of the global warming theory. If it weren’t for the Internet, this story might never have seen the light of day.

Major media outlets have not continued the tradition of muckraking for many reasons. It is a lot more efficient for a news organization to keep a reporter in the office writing news stories every day than to send him away for six months on a reporting trip that may only produce three stories.

It also has a lot to do with corporate relations. A news organization run by a corporation does not want to rock the boat and go after other large corporations to which they may have ties. It is impossible for a news agency to report fairly on an issue when their profits are involved. The news programs have been caught many times suppressing stories because their sponsors would be negatively affected by the media attention.

Corporations are only interested in profit and that’s why we have seen them forget about muckraking journalism – it is not profitable. Judith and William Serrin said it best in “Muckraking: The Journalism That Changed The World:” “Some publishers and broadcast executives might as well be selling shoes as selling news.”

Today, five corporations control nearly 90 percent of the mainstream media. Almost everything we see, hear or read in newspapers, magazines, books, radio and television is owned by Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Bertelsmann or Viacom. The democratization of information via the Internet could not have come at a better time.

The Internet not only allows us a greater and richer perspective on events, but covers events that would naturally be censored by the mainstream media and their corporate interests. It gives activists an opportunity to see, hear and smell for the people, looking out for the masses and at the same time exposing the elite. This threatening wave of truth can not only end the profits of the five information-controlling corporations, but reform and revolutionize society. Once the people fully recognize the potential of this tool to express their grievances, they will be an unstoppable force.

Day by day, more information is controlled by fewer hands – but because of technology, there are no longer any gatekeepers. We are able to get a rich abundance of perspectives and views online that help us grasp and understand important events in our history as they unfold. The Internet has become more effective than traditional media. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a sound. With the help of the Internet, today a single isolated tree can make so much noise that the whole world will hear it.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/the-dawn-of-a-new-age-of-muckraking/

Again I was going to say how much fun it is to see Obama and his teleprompter took nearly 4 months to decide to do both a surge strategy and an exit strategy (were coming to get you, but we’re leaving before my re-election campaign) and manage to look weak being decisively indecisive.

But then I saw this from the The Guardian newspaper in England, On Climate Gate:

Liberals, faced with having their faith challenged resort to even more childish insults.

For one thing, as well as the proper scepticism of the inquisitive mind, which all scientists face, they must tackle the talk-show brand of bastardised scepticism that is borne  of wilful ignorance.

Sound familiar?

You’re a “moron” for questioning us, the Liberal elite intelligentsia.

Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Global Warming, Cap & Trade, anyone?

The Guardian continues: Blinded or at least baffled by science, the uninitiated majority imagine it as the sort of impersonal process a robot might carry out. Days before the Copenhagen climate conference – where scientific reasoning will make strenuous demands on everyday life – we have all been reminded that the frontiers of technical knowledge are not in fact advanced by automatons, but by fallible human beings.

When we get caught we’re fallible and you shoud forgive us our sins, then lets us do whatever the hell we want because we’re right.

Orwell would be proud of the doublethink.

But calling protesters of the Health Care Reform collosus “morons”, “idiots”,”dupes”, “reacists”, “sexists”,”insurance company hacks” anyone?

CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “Journalist” on his own blog- “Granted, the way that opposition has been ginned up by outside forces does discount these outbursts some.”

A Liberal Blogger: Given the math deficiency of the American public, it is difficult to imagine how Democrats will be able to prove to the public with numbers, that health care costs will not rise with their reform.

Well, considering that Liberal control Education, and have for at least 30 years, then the “math deficiency” is their fault too.

Salaon. com editorial pick: A “Journalist” from St, Louis after a Town hall in August.

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

And the editorial agreed: They’ve become political terrorists. Yeah, pretty much.

So I guess I can add that to my list of list insults.

Then the editorial continues: “Terrorists, like it or not, are people who believe they are doing the right thing and feel passionately about their cause. They also feel that anything they do is justified because they have Absolute Right on their side.”

Sounds like the Liberals I know and have seen on display in the News, on the radio, and the internet.

But Liberals generally can’t even utter the word “terrorist”, it’s a “man-caused disaster” after all.

The point is, Liberal can’t argue or take criticism without resorting to condescending and insulting personal attacks and childish behavior.

But yet, they are “the consensus”. The “perceived wisdom”. The “majority opinion”.

They are better than you.

God help mankind if that were true!

Guardian: But like politicians before them, climate scientists are learning the hard way that sticking to the rules is not enough – they must also to be seen to be sticking to them.

So are they Scientists or Politicians?

You can’t be both.

They don’t mix.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Politics is the cynical application of power and manipulation of truth to fit ones agenda.

They don’t mix.

The fact that liberals think they do, is the death knell of science, just like journalism died under the weight of liberalism.

Climate projections are surrounded by margins of error, a vulnerability when humans are poor at grappling with risk and prone to letting self-interest cloud their thinking.

They were talking about you and me, but they  should have looked in the mirror.

Another rule of public life, however, is that the cover-up does more harm than the scandal. Any suggestion that scientists are being less than frank will shred their credibility. The leaked emails are thus profoundly inconvenient for all of us who are concerned to make the world wake up to an inconvenient truth.

So what is the media doing in large majority, covering it up.

And the truth is inconvenient.

So decry the cover-up, then cover it up.

Well, that sounds like a liberal.

Orwell: It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals, using psychology and omnipresent surveillance from telescreens to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

Meanwhile, today’s Times – the paper which boasts it has more environmental correspondents than any other publication: gotta use them somehow, I suppose – prints a special, glossy, Copenhagen-themed supplement about global ecodoom. On the cover there’s a picture of a pretty clownfish nestling amid an anemone. The coverline shouts:

“Losing Nemo: Is it too late to save the ocean?”

Sen. Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says that the recently released e-mails should be treated as a crime. (eaminer.com)

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’” she said during a committee meeting.

And her co-written bill is one of the Cap & Trade nightmares. So no conflict of interest there.

CBS: Markey, the head of a House global warming committee, said during a hearing that his Republican colleagues “sit over here using a couple of e-mails to (tell us) how to deal with a catastrophic threat to our planet.” And: “There is no alternative theory that the minority is proposing, other than that we know has been funded by the oil, by the coal industries that want to continue business as usual.”

Sound familiar?

Do you feel talked-down to yet?

Ed Miliband, British Secretary of State For Energy and Climate Change: “I think it’s a question of political will, of mobilising the public.”

And here I thought it was about science…

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy ( a “Czar”),He denied its significance, calling the embarrassing disclosures “not remotely sufficient to demonstrate a culture of corruption” and said “as to exactly what went on in the way of manipulation of data, that remains to be seen.” He objected to the idea of an independent probe — the CRU received U.S. government grants — on grounds that he’s not sure an “independent investigation by the Congress of the United States is a way to get at the truth.”

Isn’t that special. A liberal who doesn’t want to appoint a special prosecutor because it’s a liberal policy that is under the microscope.  Where is a Republican when you need one.

SYDNEY – Australia’s plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.

Whoops. Someone needs more re-education. So let’s go back to London:

A London Times Supplement write posited why on earth it can be we’re so reluctant to stop taking flights, turn down our heating and generally try to make our lives more primitive and miserable. Her conclusion? Because of our sense of powerlessness. The threat of climate change is so great, apparently, that rather than deal it we retreat into denial mode.

“When we can’t actually remove the source of our fear, we tend to adapt psychologically by adopting a range of defence mechanisms,” explains Tom Crompton, “change strategist” for the World Wildlife Fund.

So your fear of the Global Warming hoax and it’s doomsaying, and it’s massive government controls and taxes and the fact that it’s all crap is just an irrational pathological fear.

You have a phobia.

And you really should get some treatment for it.

The Government is here to help you get better.

Maybe they can include that in the Health Care reform legislation.

Climatechangeaphobia, the irrational fear that “consensus” science  and liberal politicians have gotten together to push a mutually beneficial hoax for their own benefit.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they’ve even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” produced its “reporting” on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

The Silence from the Ministry of Truth is both telling and deafening.

James Delingpole, columnist London Telegraph:

So here, very, very simply, is a quick idiot’s guide to why Climategate does matter.

1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.

2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.

3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.

4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?

I say no it’s not worth it.

But then again I’m just an “ignnorant” “terrorist” with climatechangeaphobia.

I need to watch more MSNBC, I will feel better…

Chris Matthews - speaking on behalf of MSNBC, NBC, and GE – lets the cat out of the bag…

Computer hackers obtained more than 1,000 private e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities have been openly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

The authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated. Indeed, we are looking the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

One of the highly disturbing series of emails show how scientists have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. There are emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

Some of the leaked documents show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their computer programs, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

Another shocking revelation of these documents is the way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.

If Vice President Gore has made a statement condemning the actions of the scientists, some of whom shared his Nobel Peace Prize, it hasn’t been anywhere that I have seen. You have to remember that Al Gore, for all his zeal in wanting to save the planet, stands to make a ton of money in “green technology” if the world continues to follow his preaching. That is why, for him, “The debate is over.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.

“Science will guide us, period,” Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.), said in February “Science will guide our committee and we will have a robust debate on what that science says.” That was February.

Today, however, Sen. Boxer said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

Where is the outrage in the American press? There was a time when a story like this would get more attention than a bloody carcass in a school of sharks. Now, unless you watch FOX or listen to talk radio or read the blogs, you only have been given a few details and most of that is slanted. The British and Canadian press coverage of the story is a lot more extensive than their American counterparts.

Where is the outrage in Washington? I cannot believe that ALL of our elected officials have been bought off by special interests with lots to gain by pursuing this policy of man made global warming. Is Sen. Inhofe the only one concerned?

Where is the outrage in the scientific community? By not rising up and denouncing these frauds, the remaining scientists, in all fields around the world stand to be tainted by this scam. There was a time when you could believe in science. Apparently, those times are over.

Instead of outrage, we find the administration and the Senate pushing ahead with Cap and Trade. The President still planning to attend the conference and has already announced a major commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the Conference on climate change in Copenhagen later this month.

I would suggest that, before we agree to spending $145 Trillion (yes, that’s what they are saying it will cost to “fix” the problem) and trashing a large portion of our economy, we might want to take a fresh look at the data being used to drive the decision making.

The reason the Progressives in charge won’t slow the progress, I suspect, is that the issue is not about a clean environment or climate change and it never has been. It was, and still is, about control and redistribution of wealth.

Reason?  Because the victim was a Post-Dispatch delivery agent.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball is at it again.  During the presidential campaign, Matthew’s infamously stated that after hearing Obama speak: “I felt this thrill going up my leg.  I mean, I don’t have that too often.”  That ranks as the dumbest comment made by a news reporter/commentator until this week when he outdid himself.  After watching President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan, here are his prophetic words:

I watched those Cadets, they were young kids, men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally and must be said as officers and I didn’t see much excitement but among the older people there, I saw if not resentment, skepticism.  I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there the President chose to address tonight.  And I thought that was interesting.  He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case.

Calling West Point the “enemy camp” for the Commander-in-Chief is too incredible for words.  And this guy questions Sarah Palin’s knowledge of the US Constitution?  Ouch!  What was he thinking?

When I read this letter, I was so happy that I ate a dozen sugar cookies. I laughed so hard that I shed tears of glee.

Thats one happy sugar cookie

The letter I refer to is Michael Moore’s open letter to Barack Obama on Moore’s crap website posted a day before Obama’s speech at West Point. Allow me to post some of this deliciousness that you may bask in the glory that is Michael Francis Moore.

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

I really enjoy that he posted this the day before BO’s speech and wrote “if you go to West Point tomorrow night” as if this letter that BO isn’t going to read will change his mind. He also says that BO will be the new “war president”… I have never heard that phrase before but since Michael Moore has such power and stature, he will label BO whatever he pleases and it will stick! Here was my favorite part in that last paragraph “And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.”

So what you are saying is that the millions of lives of the people who live in Afghanistan mean virtually nothing. Especially when compared to an American right? So disappointing the sycophants who voted for you is worse than disappointing an entire country who wants freedom from oppression? At this point, who really cares about disappointing young voters who really didn’t care to think for themselves when heading to the voting booth? Regardless of what BO’s decision on Afghanistan was, someone was bound to be displeased.

Let us continue:

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

“You’re fired!” hahaha. Yea that’s a great point, fire General McChrystal for doing his job and advising the President on how to proceed in the country that HE supervises. Why would McChrystal know the best course militarily? It’s not like he is in charge of that region and is a General in the U.S. military. Oh wait…

“We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals,”

Why is that? I’m pretty sure these Generals were once “kids in the armed service”, unless they were born Generals….it’s possible. Why hate these Generals? McChrystal is a stand up cat and doing what he knows is best. Instead of leaving Afghanistan in disarray and letting it fall back to being an Islamic run country ripe with oppression and fear, McChrystal suggests something that is crazy…a strategy to win the war. What a nut job

You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

Nothing good can come from this huh? Like victory, that would be bad for you and your career huh Mike?

Yea, I’m sure of all people in America, Michael Moore is the one who knows what the people in Afghanistan want. This isn’t Vietnam, Mike. This is Afghanistan; this isn’t a war we asked to be a part of. We did not ask for Al Qaida to fly planes into buildings and we didn’t ask the Taliban to harbor Al Qaida or allow them to train and plan within their borders. Your right Mike, the people of Afghanistan hate being free from oppression. I’m sure the women there hate being able to vote and send their daughters to school. Who would know more of what the people of Afghanistan want more than a fat documentary filmmaker from Michigan?

Who's that fat chick with Hugo Chavez?

Check this out, this is awesome:

Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor.

I’m assuming that the “haters” are Republicans which, if true, means that statement makes little sense. Since when is the Republican platform to make poor people even poorer? I think you got your parties backwards Mike. And of course, the other big selling point for the Republican Party is to destroy America. This coming from a guy who made a movie about how much capitalism sucks, who subscribes to a party that is full of progressives who idolize Che and Mao. This coming from the party who wants to raise taxes on the rich even though the rich already pay over 90 % of all taxes. This from a party who wants universal health care were you would pay penalties for NOT buying what the government is selling. Yea, that makes sense.

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that’s what they’d do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

So you have to be poor to be in the military. And while in the military, you go and kill people from an organization who are obviously poor since they get funds and weapons from Iran. And the best part of that was, Al Qaida and the Taliban “pose no threat to them”. I could write a large book on just that one quote. Actually, I believe books have been written on how Al Qaida is a threat to “them” or rather, “us”. What a moron this guy is, “no threat”?! You kidding me? 9/11 was less than a decade ago and he already forgot? Murdering 3,000 people is “no threat”? RPG’s, road-side bombs and rockets are not threats. When I was in Iraq, “no threat” landed in our base on a daily basis exploding and injuring Americans. But what do I know, I’m just a poor person sent to kill other poor people. Oh yea, and since I’m also a conservative, I’m a hater too.

Well, Moore continues in his letter to beg and plead with BO, “There’s still time! Stop the madness!” but I’m sure you get the point. Moore, who is known for cutting up videos and newspaper articles to fit his ideology to put in his sub-par movies, continues the legacy by making stuff up in a sub-par letter to a guy who won’t ever read it. If you read this letter, you too could poke so many holes through it that it will look like a screen door. But Mike wouldn’t know what a screen door is since only poor-folk in the military have those.

you can check out the letter here:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/open-letter-president-obama-michael-moore

Thanks for stopping by, make sure to add me on facebook and help spread the word to your literate friends. Share what you think and add a comment!

Love,

Uncle Von

Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced.

The concession follows claims from some media companies that the search engine is profiting from online news pages.

Under the First Click Free programme, publishers can now prevent unrestricted access to subscription websites.

Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.

“Previously, each click from a user would be treated as free,” Google senior business product manager Josh Cohen said in a blog post.

This may still be a significant moment in the battle between old and new media Rory Cellan-Jones, BBC technology correspondent Did Google just blink?

“Now, we’ve updated the programme so that publishers can limit users to no more than five pages per day without registering or subscribing.”

Google users may start seeing registration pages appear when they click for a sixth time on any given day at websites of publishers using the programme, according to Mr Cohen.

This will only affect websites that currently charge for content.

‘Significant move’

The announcement is seen as a reaction to concerns in the newspaper industry that Google is using newspaper content unfairly.

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of Newscorp, has accused firms such as Google of profiting from journalism by generating advertising revenue by linking readers to newspaper articles.

Some readers have discovered they can avoid paying subscription fees to newspaper websites by calling up their pages via Google.

This is because Google searches frequently link directly to newspaper articles, bypassing some sites’ subscription systems.

Broadcasting and media consultant Steve Hewlett said that Google’s response was “a pretty significant move”.

“Rupert Murdoch is trying to build a consensus that paying for content online is right and that aggregators like Google that use newspaper content but don’t pay for it are doing something wrong,” he said.

Search for revenue

Newspapers are increasingly looking for new ways to make money from their online content amid a continuing decline in circulation figures and advertising revenues.

Earlier this week Johnston Press, the UK’s largest regional newspaper publisher, announced plans to to begin charging for access to six of its titles online.

The move follows a 42% slump in advertising revenues at the group over the last two years.

Earlier this year, the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) cut 1,000 jobs at its regional arm Northcliffe Media, which publishes more than 100 newspapers in England and Wales.

Newscorp, which owns the Times and the Sun newspapers in the UK, has also been affected by the downturn.

In June, it announced losses of $3.4bn (£2bn) for the previous 12 months, describing the year as “the most difficult in recent history”.

It has also revealed plans to begin charging for access to all its online content. The corporation currently charges for access to its US title the Wall Street Journal.

Link to Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8389896.stm

MSNBC at a new low, Chris Matthews calls West Point an “enemy camp”.  When will folks see the divisive language is not from the conservatives?