Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay http://kopainstallmentpaydayloansonline.com http://kopainstallmentpaydayloansonline.com if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for the 'Media bias' Category

July 8th 2009

Just Can’t Stop That Palin Bashing

W

here did Time magazine go to find such a nasty picture of Arnold and such a smug one of Sarah?  Probably not too far because their photographers are trained to shoot uncomplimentary shots of Republicans and wonderful shots of Dems.

But I digress.

The new Time is using these two photos over a lead story on its Web homepage titled, After California, which states are in the most peril? Given Palin’s proximity to that headline, you’d guess Alaska would be right up there, right?

No you wouldn’t; you’re smarter than that.  And you’re right. Alaska is mentioned, but it’s fleeting as a summer breeze in Nome.

Two of the worst-off states by that [revenue shortfall] count are Alaska and Nevada. Each of them will need to spend 30% more than what state tax officers think they’ll be collecting. And neither has a state income tax, relying on oil and tourism taxes, respectively, for most of their revenues.

While the Left has been quick to pounce on this, the fact is the state is projecting a $1.25 billion shortfall because of volatility in oil prices – decidedly downward volatility – but has reserves of $6.8 billion, so unlike California, it won’t be sending out any IOUs any time soon.  Plus, she’s doing her part to manage it, recommending cuts of $268.6 million, an additional $17 million in reductions to state departments’ budgets, and has implemented a salary freeze.

And the Time article goes on to say Nevada, Vermont, New York, New Jersey and Washington all have problems at least as bad and in some cases much worse. (Especially those states with Dem govs.)

Yet there she is, pictured with Arnold.  It’s obvious the anti-Palin media bias is alive and well.  (And it’s also obvious that editors will put readership about fairness any day.  Would you be inclined to read a story with David Patterson’s or Jim Douglas’ mug on it?)

Share

2 Comments »

June 30th 2009

Leaving Iraq

W

iser minds always said that  publishing a timetable for leaving Iraq would lead to an upsurge in violence.  But what do wiser minds know? We’re just a bunch of warmongers, right? Wrong.

Today, four U.S. soldiers were killed in combat related to the withdrawal, apparently in some sort of firefight, although news is still sketchy at this time; we only know they died of “combat-related injuries.”  Their deaths are part of a rising tide of violence leading up to the much planned-for and publicized turning over of control of several Iraqi cities to Iraqi control: 250 people killed in all during June.

The American media has been mum on the surging levels of violence that have accompanied the withdrawal timeline, even though it’s following exactly the course those critical of Obama’s position on Iraq predicted.  Where are the charges of “Blood on Obama’s Hands!”  Where are the follow-up heart-wrenching personal interest stories on the families torn apart by the violence?  Nowhere. Such stories would require fair and factual reporting.

In AP’s report, linked above, there was one quote I loved reading.  It was a bit buried, so let me raise it up a bit:

President Jalal Talabani said the day could not have happened without the help of the United States, which invaded Iraq in 2003 and ousted Saddam — who was later convicted by an Iraqi court and executed in December 2006.

“While we celebrate this day, we express our thanks and gratitude to our friends in the coalition forces who faced risks and responsibilities and sustained casualties and damage while helping Iraq to get rid from the ugliest dictatorship and during the joint effort to impose security and stability,” Talabani said.

Quotes like that are, I hope, played loud and long throughout the repressed nations of the Muslim world, so they strike fear into the hearts of the likes of Ahmadinejad and al-Assad.

Share

No Comments yet »

June 26th 2009

Under-Reporting Palin’s “Long Face” Comment

T

he token Dem was “unsurprised to mildly happy” (which I read as “miffed”) over  Sarah Palin daring to make a joke at the expense of John Kerry’s “long face,” but didn’t seem to be bothered that Kerry’s earlier crack wishing it had been she, not Mark Sanford, who went missing was unprovoked and clumsily tied Palin to dereliction of duty and infidelity.

He says I’ve mischaracterized this position, and for brevity’s sake I’ll just say Wah! Wah! Wah! that I have.  This post isn’t about that.  It’s about media bias and it all started when the Token Dem sent me the CNN news clip below, saying it showed that Palin was “just cementing her ‘mean-girl cheerleader’ image.”

I actually chuckled at the nasty tenor of the crack, even if I didn’t agree with it, but I didn’t much care for the clip:

(CNN) She’s visiting troops on a peacekeeping mission, but Sarah Palin signaled Friday she’s ready to go to battle with John Kerry, who reportedly made a joke earlier this week at her expense.

The Boston Herald reported that on Wednesday, before South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s exact whereabouts were widely known, the Massachusetts senator mused to reporters the wrong elected official had dropped out of sight.

“Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska,” he said, according to the paper. “You know, Sarah Palin.”

Palin herself, speaking to U.S. troops in Kosovo, responded Friday with a shot aimed straight for the face — literally.

“Then Sen. John Kerry makes this joke, I don’t know if you saw this, but he makes this joke saying, ‘Aw shoot, of all the governors in the nation who disappeared, too bad it couldn’t have been that governor from Alaska…’” she said.

“But the way he said it, he looked quite frustrated, and he looked so sad, and I just wanted to reach out to the TV and say, ‘John Kerry, why the long face?’”

Palin is overseas visiting Alaska National Guard troops on a peacekeeping mission.

What’s missing that keeps this report from being an objective recounting of the Cute Face/Long Face tiff? Why, the troops’ response, of course. Give it a listen:

Would it have been that hard for the reporter to mention that the troops cheered – or even that they cheered wildly – at her joke?  Answer:  While it would have required just typing a few words, yes, it would have been very, very hard for the reporter to do anything that might tilt the advantage towards Palin.

It was not hard, of course, for the reporter writing the Boston Herald recounting of Kerry’s original joke to include the line, “The democratic-centric crowd laughed.”

Share

No Comments yet »

June 13th 2009

AP’s Anti-White Bias, Coddling Of Muslims

Let’s hear it for objectivity! AP’s big story on “lone wolf” terrorists dutifully lists all three recent lone wolf killings: The jew-hating white supremacist in DC, the anti-abortion murderer in Kansas and even the “militant Muslim” in Arkansas.

Hooray. Here’s today’s lesson in objectivity: It is not comparable to fairness or balance. Let me illustrate.

The number of words in the story related to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad total 16: “A young man in Arkansas pulls the trigger outside a military recruiting office” and ”one a militant Muslim.”  Muhammed is never even named in the story.

Let’s contrast that with the number of words the article heaps upon racist angry white men.  It begins similarly with 19 words, “An elderly man enters a crowded museum carrying a rifle and begins shooting,” and “One gunman was a white supremacist.”  After a couple general paragraphs about the “lone wolf” phenomenon, the writers, Devlin Barrett and Eileen Sullivan, dedicate most of the remainder of the article – 17 paragraphs! – to James Von Brunn and other angry white men. Excerpts:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks white supremacists, says the number of hate groups in the United States has risen 54 percent since 2000, fueled by opposition to Hispanic immigration and, more recently, by the election of the nation’s first black president and the economic downturn.

“Today the vast majority of domestic terrorist attacks are in fact lone wolf or so-called leaderless resistance attacks,” said the center’s Mark Potok. “There are very few ways to prevent them … short of assigning a police officer to every person in America.”

The number of angry white men in America is getting larger, said Chip Berlet, senior analyst with Political Research Associates in Somerville, Mass., a think tank that studies right-wing extremists.

In particular, the heterosexual, white, Christian men in America feel they’ve been pushed out of the way, Berlet said. Attacking the Holocaust Museum is a no-brainer, he said, because white supremacists blame Jews for the advancement of black people.

“The idea that blacks are put in positions of power by crafty Jews is central to their conspiracy theory,” Berlet said.

We are told that the number of angry white men in America is getting larger, but no studies are cited, no data is provided.  And, of course, the article does not provide any estimate of the number of angry Muslim men in our country. No experts on domestic jihad are cited, nor or any of the numerous recent examples of lone wolf or small group jihad or attempted jihad in America cited.  Certainly they outnumber angry white man violence.

To its credit, the Southern Poverty Law Center has published several articles on the links between radical Islam and white supremacy, but if Mark Potok mentioned this to the AP reporters, they didn’t include it in their article.

We are left with a picture of how white extremists think and enough fear about them to justify, in some “liberal” minds, increased invasions of their privacy of the sort they howled about when applied to domestic friends of Islamic terrorist.  We are not left with any greater understanding of the nature or size of the threat posed by lone wolf jihadists.

But hey, the article passed journalism’s objectivity test with flying colors simply because it clearly identified each of the three recent shooters.  Fairness should be the media’s standard, but reporters and editors conveniently opt for sloppy objectivity so they can justify intolerant, hate-stoking garbage like this.

Share

No Comments yet »

June 12th 2009

Krugman: No Difference Between Us And Von Brunn

Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as terrorists.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

T

hat’s the lead of Paul Krugman’s column in the NYT today – a column you just knew was coming.  You can imagine the gleeful smirk on his face as his fingers smashed away at his keyboard.  But Krugman’s just turning over his liberal outrage engine; the howling rpms build from there, as he rushes to build the “conservative political establishment” as junior Von Brunns:

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Interestingly, Krugman’s column is almost identially mirrored by Alex Kingsbury in U.S. News:

A month before a suspected white supremacist walked into the Holocaust Memorial Museum in downtown Washington and opened fire, the Department of Homeland Security warned that domestic right-wing extremism was the most pressing domestic terrorist threat that the country faced.

Conservatives were outraged that the DHS analysts had singled out antiabortion and antitax radicals for scrutiny. But the report was part of a series that DHS compiles on domestic dangers from all sides of the political spectrum, an area that’s taken a back seat to overseas threats.

A series of recent incidents shows the prescience of those reports and illustrates the worrying reality that terrorism often comes from inside the homeland.

And that’s hardly the end of it.  Just check out the piling on by the Left at Memeorandum.

While Kingsbury mentions the assassination of Pvt. William Long, an act of terror most mainly marginalized media managed to report without mentioning the word “Islam,” Krugman fails to mention Long at all.  To his credit, Kingsbury approached the subject pretty fairly and didn’t go on to condemn mainstream Republicans, as Krugman did.  I thought this excerpt from Kingsbury’s piece was particularly even-handed:

In another recent high-profile incident, George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who performed legal abortions, was shot and killed last Sunday as he stood in the aisle of his church. Scott Roeder, the man charged in Tiller’s murder, echoes the DHS report on right-wing extremism. Believed to have been a member of an antigovernment militia in Montana during the mid-1990s, Roeder had a history of railing against taxes and abortion, according to news reports. “We can see from these incidents that the U.S. is not immune from these types of attacks and that a lone gunman or cell can kill just as effectively,” says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “But it also shows that those operating outside an organized terrorist network lack the training and tradecraft to make their attacks either sustained or a systemic threat.” After the killing, the U.S. Marshals Service was instructed to increase security at the country’s abortion clinics.

There was no call to reinforce security at military recruiting stations, however, after Abdulhakim Muhammad allegedly shot two soldiers smoking cigarettes in the parking lot of an Army center in Arkansas. Pvt. William Long was killed and another soldier was wounded. Muhammad was reportedly angry over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Tuesday, he pleaded not guilty to murder charges.

Kingsbury should have reported that Muhammed has said his act was jihad, and he (Muhammed) should not be deemed guilty because Islam requires such actions.  Still, he’s no Krugman.  Here’s the NYT columnist’s evidence that we are dangerous:

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

Where was Krugman for the last eight  years?  Where was his concern when the Left called Bush a baby killer? When they launched conspiracy theories from Haliburton being behind the war in Iraq to Bush being behind 9/11 – the same whacked out theory that was part of Von Brunn’s lunacy? Did he condemn the film about Bush being assassinated?

No. When the Left attacks the Right, it’s all good, justified and exactly the sort of thing Jefferson was thinking about when he wrote that a little revolution is good and necessary from time to time.  Let Code Pink harrass military recruiters and block the entrance to recruiting stations, but never, never, allow abortion protesters to be anywhere near an abortion clinic.  This is logic, leftist style.

Krugman has particular villification for Glenn Beck, but probably has never written a critical word of Keith Olbermann.  He says Rush Limbaugh has “joined hands with the lunatic fringe.” He accuses the R.N.C. of of somehow being unstable because it wants to change the leadership of the nation.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  So he’s a hypocrite.  So he can’t stand looking in mirrors.  So he trumps up fear where no fear need be.  No matter.  He’s got a trump card:

What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s — that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”

And that’s a threat to take seriously.

Oh, yeah.  We’re all racists and we wouldn’t be so angry if Obama were just white.  What a masterful example Krugman has given us of the Left’s ability to use hate speech in order to ignore the issue at hand – whether it was global jihad under Bush, or unconstitutional economic lunacy under Obama.

Share

3 Comments »

June 8th 2009

So Much For The Theocracy Scare

W

henever George Bush mentioned God during his presidency, the mainly marginalized media and the leftist babblers all launched into a great fear of a Bush-imposed theocracy (the Church of Halliburton?), giving us a moment of comic relief from their fears of martial law, of shredding the constitution, and of global warming meltdowns.

But now that The One is in office, theocracy is A-OK with the loons, as NewsBusters reports:

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

Thanks to Okie for bringing this to my attention (I was sick all weekend and read nothing and posted nothing), and also for posting this killer comment on this development from The Anchoress:

Evan Thomas, that bellweather of media obsequiousness … has declared that President Obama is “sort of god”. Chris Matthews, who would suckle Obama’s manboobs, if only Obama would lactate for him, can be heard saying “yeah,” in the background.

I’ve always told you they thought Obama a godling. Now, they’ve admitted it.

Our press is not only not free, it is completely nuts; mad in its teen-fan lust, lost in the misty aphrodisiac of Obama’s power.

{…}

Even Vanity Fair understands that the press is nothing to the man they love, but a bunch of useful idiots.

Obama will suckle them while he must. Then he will eat them. And they’ll have it coming.

Share

1 Comment »

June 3rd 2009

AP Ignores Political Angle To Chrysler Dealer Closings

H

ere’s the second lead story from AP in on Yahoo this morning:  Senate Reviews Closing of GM, Chrysler Dealerships.  I didn’t know how to gear up for this story.  Would it finally reveal to readers of the mainly marginalized media what blog-readers have known for some time: That Chrysler dealerships owned by friends of the Dems have been spared while those owned by friends of the GOP have been decimated?  Or would it reinforce my media cynicism and say nothing of these charges?

Are all bets in?

The latter.  Not a peep. In fact, in its 13 paragraphs, it quotes two Dem Senators and no GOP senators.  It focuses on job losses and whether enough time has been granted the dealers to close up shop, but ignores the 800 pound gorilla – much to the benefit of the Obama admin.

Share

No Comments yet »

April 13th 2009

Toast Krugman At Your Tea Party

I

t’s as if the last eight years never happened. There was no George W. Bush. There were no deranged liberals making all sorts of hysterical claims about what was happening or would happen under W’s watch. We just went from Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America to today’s tea parties.

At least that’s the fantasy Paul Krugman is promoting this morning as he takes a look at the tea party movement.  He professes that he doesn’t want to “make fun of crazy people,” but then goes on to say of anyone who doesn’t skip and sing merrily under the smile of the Great Obama is “the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so,” that they represent “standard practice” in the GOP, which is wont to make “bizarre claims about what liberals are up to.”

The rallys themselves are not spontaneous, grassroots campaigns in Krugman’s eyes, but rather, “AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects,” in this case, Dick Armey and “the usual group of rightwing billionaires.”

It must be wonderful to live Krugman’s life, blind to the excesses of his own and hypercritical of anyone who has the timerity to think thoughts that are not his.

How nice to be able to ignore George Soros and Peter Lewis, leftwing billionaires who funded human waves of crazed anti-Bushies who relentlessly attacked the GOP while the Dems were out of power.  But they do exist, they have names, they have track records, they leave bodies in their wake – more so than any “rightwing billionaires” Krugman can conjure but not name.

How nice to be able to ignore current events, like how citizens like Keli Carender and Amanda Grosserode spontaneously organized tea parties following Rick Santelli’s unscripted rant, and how TCOT and Twitter and Craig’s List and Facebook are the tools of this movement – yes, new media used by gasp! conservatives – and how Armey’s tagging along, not leading.

How nice to be able to ignore the wrongs of your own party, with its ad hominem attacks and crazed policies, by just poking fun at the sincere and concerned opposition.  Here, for example, is Krugman explaining how silly it is to call Obama a socialist:

Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.

Bizarre is reducing the now-rich Obama record to the tired canard about tax rates on the wealthy.  Krugman’s coddled world will not allow him to mention massive government intervention into the private sector, like Obama’s firing of GM’s CEO, or the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, or cap and trade, or the Omnibus Public Land bill’s stripping of property rights, or the planting of the seeds of nationalized health care, or the massive new national debt or the power grabs by every branch of the federal government that have been going on since Obama took office.

How nice to live in a world where living, and writing, the lie gives one the fame of a New York Times column and the adoration of leagues of liberals who share Krugman’s psychotic fear of the real world that surrounds them.

If you’re not sure you’re going to attend a tea party this Wednesday, do it for Krugman.  Make us impossible to ignore.

Share

No Comments yet »

April 3rd 2009

Burying Dissent On The Budget

L

et’s say, just hypothetically, that every single Republican in the House and Senate voted against Obama’s Orwellian [oops; Tweet-corrected by Shoq] newspeak-ian “A New Era of Responsibility” budget – even Specter, Snowe and Collins.  That seems like it would be a little bit newsworthy, doesn’t it?

Not to Lori Montgomery, who apparently is a well respected journalist, since WaPo tagged her to write this important story.  The significance of the complete GOP rejection of Obama’s budget seems to have passed her by completely, however.  I mean, c’mon, Lori, this is journalism 101: Obama promise to be the post-partisan president who would seek consensus and end petty party bickering, but he can’t get a single GOP vote for his budget.  Back in the day, they called that “news.”

But we learn from Montgomer’s lead only that the House Dems “overwhelmingly supported” the budget.  In paragraph eight, we learn that 20 Dems weren’t overwhelmed with joy about the budget and voted with the GOP, and that two Dem senators voted against it.

But nowhere in the 15-graf story does Montgomery actually say every single GOP representative in both houses of Congress voted against the budget. Every. Single. One.  She relies on you to do the math, instead, subtracting the wayward Dems from the “nay” total and remembering that the number you get by that process equals the number of Republicans in the two houses.

(Even the NYT got it right: Budgets Approved, With No G.O.P. Votes said their headline.)

OK, I can do the math, but wouldn’t it be easier to say in the lead that once again the Dems were so blinded by power, so resistant to compromise, so committed to endangering the future of our country that they couldn’t find one – not even one – RINO Republican to go along with their fiscal and policy insanity?  Instead, Montgomery and her editors turned their backs on history and tried to pretend it just didn’t happen.

Share

No Comments yet »

March 31st 2009

Dem Insanity Continues

I

t’s as if the economy were robust, spewing out money to burn.  It’s like everyone agreed there was an imminent threat of global environmental collapse because of human activity.  It’s as if everyone was eagerly awaiting higher costs to everything.

It’s as if the Dems didn’t have a brain in their heads:

House Democratic leaders unveiled a sweeping plan to fight climate change and boost renewable energy this morning, including mandates for renewable electricity nationwide and a market-based system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan … is a “discussion draft” authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D- Beverly Hills), the committee chairman, and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. Among the bill’s provisions:

* A nationwide mandate for renewable energy — such as wind, solar and biomass — in electric power generation, starting at 6% in 2012 and rising to 25% by 2025.

Shall we discuss the cost of developing that infrastructure out of thin air?  Or the plausibility of the entire concept?  Or the need, considering our coal, oil and natural gas reserves, our hydroelectric capabilities and potential, a nuclear industry just waiting to re-emerge?  (All quotes from the LA Times, BTW.)

* A “cap-and-trade” program to restrict greenhouse gas emissions by requiring utilities and other emitters to hold “allowances” for the carbon dioxide they send into the atmosphere. The level of allowances would shrink annually to reduce carbon emissions to 3% below 2005 levels by 2012, to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

Shall we discuss this a bit?  I did with the American Petroleum Institute earlier today, and here’s what the good folks there told me:

API hasn’t taken a position on the topic of cap-and-trade per se, but we have been very outspoken about the potential costs of the cap-and-trade proposal in the administration’s 2010 budget.

Based on the administration’s initial estimate, it appeared the proposal would generate $646 billion in revenues.  Our calculations indicate that about 60% of that would come from oil and natural gas, which equates to about $400 billion. Later administration estimates indicated that the revenues could be three times the $646 billion figure, so it appears the burden on this industry – and on consumers – could be much higher than originally anticipated.

You’d think that before madcap schemes are introduced for discussion, someone somewhere might have a handle on how much destruction the proposal will cause family budgets across America.  But really – $646 billion or three times that amount; do we really need either?

* A national standard, akin to California’s, limiting carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles and a new low-carbon fuel standard to further support bio-fuels and low-emission alternatives to gasoline.

Can we discuss this?  Is this really what the automobile industry needs right now?  Perhaps it would be better to get them back on their feet again before cutting them off at the ankles.

Remember, no alternative technologies are ready for market without cap and trade to penalize existing technologies.  They cannot produce enough energy, and they cannot produce it cheaply enough. Cap and trade is just a fancy name for government tromping all over the free market in the name of “saving the planet.”

The planet doesn’t need saving.  The economy does.  And the free market’s on life support.

P.S.: The LA Times report quoted several environmentalist, most of whom were positively giddy about the day’s development.  I sent the reporter this email:

Just read your story and was amazed to find that apparently there wasn’t a single source from industry anywhere for you to get a quote from. Really? Just representatives of environmental groups?

Guess what?  No response.

Share

No Comments yet »

Next »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

napoleon hill law of success free ebook