No clearer example of media bias is there than this example from the Washington Post's columnist, Jonathan Capehart, who lies by omission:
Joseph Stack was angry at the Internal Revenue Service, and he took his rage out on it by slamming his single-engine plane into the Echelon Building in Austin, Texas. We now know this thanks to the rather clear (as rants go) suicide note Stack left behind. There's no information yet on whether he was involved in any anti-government groups or whether he was a lone wolf. But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.
Now here's the lie - he quotes the suicide note, but leaves out a very critical element:
Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010
That's what Jonathan Capehart quoted. But here's how the note actually reads:
Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010
Tea partiers are fierce defenders of the free market and capitalism. Joe Stack clearly isn't cut from that tea party cloth.
Jonathan Capehart knows that, but doesn't care. He's a journalist, and he's got an agenda, you see. Never mind that what he reported isn't the truth...
And people wonder why the public pays less and less attention to the media and to newspapers.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.
So let's see just how dishonest the anthropogenic global warming "science" has been. Two graphs, via SonicFrog:
Q: Is the earth warming? A: Possibly.
Q: Is it man's fault? A: Probably not.
Q: Does anyone know enough about this now to be able to predict what's going to happen? A: Absolutely not.
Q: And if they can't predict with any reliability, should we trust politicians to arrive at a solution? A: Only fools go there...
"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.
"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."
Local factors? The article cites another researcher who published "photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air-conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator."
Moving the data collection equipment next to a waste incinerator - wow, I guess anthropogenic warming does exist.
Snobs ignore these two political forces at their own peril.
For what it's worth, Sarah gives a speech that encapsulates well the problems with the policies of our nation's resident Super Genius. Give a listen...
Over the past year, my work life has transformed a great deal. On the drive home tonight from Des Moines Local Live, I realized what I'm becoming.
I recently said to a friend of mine that what we do at work is not nearly as important as what we become through the work. Labor, earnest and passionate, is transformational. If we allow it, work expands us and broadens our vision and capacity.
I've said many times that ideas are cheap. It costs nothing to conjure up an idea, and ideas, frankly, are worthless. Give me a day, I can cook up twelve "killer" ideas. Big deal.
But taking the idea and making it become reality, then the idea begins to have value.
Too many entrepreneurs place a valuation on their idea before the idea is market-tested and proven to be sturdy and reliable under use.
That's what I'm doing at DMLL - I'm taking an idea and turning it into reality. Yes, it existed already, but frankly its technology was shaky and its web site sucked. By my revision of it, I'm creating something of lasting value. Each day, my efforts make it worth more than it was the day before. If someday it makes money, it's in part because I drove value into the company, and the more value I drive into it, the more purchasable it becomes.
That's what I'm doing for ESI, the HVAC industry provider. They came to me with an idea and I created a web site that gives the idea shape. In one month, Alliant Energy will begin using it, and there are talks with Best Buy underway. The idea is worth more because I drove value into it.
And that's exactly what government can't ever do: drive greater value into a company or enterprise. Only individuals can drive value, by their energy and expertise, to make it more valuable than it was before. A carpenter takes plain pieces of wood and fashions them into something usable. A farmer takes a seed and dirt and feeds people. A loan officer assesses risk and provides a means to borrow money for people and companies.
What does government do that you would pay money for? For every effort of government that you wouldn't purchase, that effort has no value and is therefore a subtractive force on the economy. The bigger government is, the more subtractive it is.
Driving value is an additive force in the economy. It creates purpose and use from nothing and makes it attractive to purchase, which increases the velocity of money around those driving value.
My son, Nick, and I got into a discussion over the weekend about whether socialism and capitalism can be successful economic systems. We came to the conclusion that only capitalism can be a successful economic system because its primary goal is exactly that: expanded economy. Socialism can't be a successful economic system because its primary goals are not economic but social.
To take the point further, as an economy expands, the stress on society diminishes because needs and wants are fulfilled.
If an economy subtracts, the stress on society increases because needs and wants go unmet.
Therefore, I question whether socialism can ever be a successful social system, even if everyone in it craved its purported social outcomes: equality and fairness. Every socialist system ever tried collapses and leads to unrest and poverty.
On the other hand, what if every person believed that a chief purpose of their life was to drive value wherever they worked?
"What do you do?" I'll soon be asked.
"I drive value," I'll reply.
Through my direct efforts, do I leave whatever I touch more valuable than how I first found it? That's a hell of a question...
Here's the dilemma: the government knows that the source of all money in America is business. Everything happens in America because business creates the economy.
Now businesses are oftentimes partnerships. The larger the business, the more likely it's made up of multiple people. Therefore, a corporation exists as a legal entity, and also to protect the entrepreneur(s), who risk their wealth and property by starting a business.
But it's just a legal construct. No corporation is actually a person. Of course corporations are not people.
Government loves money, and if it is to get money, why not go to the source? So it taxes corporations.
If government taxes corporations, just as it taxes individuals, then it's a bit inconsistent to deny the taxpaying corporation a voice.
If the government collects tax from any entity, that entity has every right to speak on its own behalf.
Personally, I don't think corporations are people. I don't believe that corporations should be taxed. And I don't believe that corporations should have a political voice. The people who own and work in them? Yes, of course. But not the corporation itself.
Some in government want to silence corporations. Fine. But if you choose to silence corporations, then silence the taxation as well.
I expect that businesses will be okay in either direction, but a mixed result will only hurt jobs because it diminishes the health of the business by removing its advocacy for its own survival.
Demonstrating his super keen sense of the American people, the Super Genius gave us this tidbit after Massachusetts:
Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.
Were voters mad in 2008? Yes, they were.
Were voters mad in 2010? Oh hell yes they were - by every multiple of the deficit over what was there in 2008. We're alarmed by his bankrupting policies, and we're not the same crowd that voted him into office...
So one of two things is possible with his tone-deaf comment:
He's too stupid to get it. Anger is anger, right?
He's stupid enough to think that he's persuasive enough to convince us that he's actually on our side. Persuasion... yes, more Time magazine covers, more Prime Time news conferences, that's the ticket. We haven't yet basked in his royal presence enough yet to soak up that socialist sunshine and feel good about it.
What a maroon.
Either way, though, he can't see us. We're standing, millions strong, right in front of him and he can't see us at all. Which is fantastic...
And whether Martha Coakley wins or not, Obama has lost and ObamaCare is toast. When the voters of Barney Frank's and John Kerry's and frickin' Ted Kennedy's state rebel against ObamaCare and Democrats, Obama has lost.
This is the point at which he should pull a reverse Sally Field.
You don't like me. You really really don't like me.
No matter how cool you initially come across, socialism will never appeal to people who have tasted freedom. I bet Ben Nelson gets that point now.
It's fitting that it's one year after Obama became president. Happy Scott Brown Day, Barry. You earned it.
ETC: I misspoke.
Happy Senator Scott Brown Day!
In honor of our Super-Genius-in-Chief, an older graphic of mine:
Whether he wins or not, Scott Brown has won.
