Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Vanessa Niekamp, Whistle-Blower Hero
Vanessa Niekamp is a hero. She blew the whistle on improper (can someone say illegal) searches into Joe the Plumber's background by Ohio state employees. However, since she blew the whistle on Obama supporters, the article's title is: Employee Defends Exposing 'Joe the Plumber' Searches.
Gee, we never heard of stories titled: The New York Times Defends Exposing America's National Security Secrets and Making the US Less Safe. I wonder why.
The biggest culprit is Ohio Department of Job and Family Services agency director Helen Jones-Kelley. She received a 30-day suspension without pay. She should have been fired. Not only did she improperly use state computers to find personal information regarding Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, but she also improperly used state e-mail to engage in political activity. I wonder what Barack Obama has to say about this?
But what about Niekamp's boss, ODJFS deputy director Doug Thompson? He forced her to send an e-mail covering up the reason behind the searches into Wurzelbacher. "The e-mail, which was sent to chief privacy officer Rick Copley, explained that the queries into Wurzelbacher were made for child support purposes..." So Mr. Thompson lied. He should be fired as well. However, "Thompson has not faced disciplinary action." Nice going Ohio.
Vanessa, I think you should sue.
Gee, we never heard of stories titled: The New York Times Defends Exposing America's National Security Secrets and Making the US Less Safe. I wonder why.
The biggest culprit is Ohio Department of Job and Family Services agency director Helen Jones-Kelley. She received a 30-day suspension without pay. She should have been fired. Not only did she improperly use state computers to find personal information regarding Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, but she also improperly used state e-mail to engage in political activity. I wonder what Barack Obama has to say about this?
But what about Niekamp's boss, ODJFS deputy director Doug Thompson? He forced her to send an e-mail covering up the reason behind the searches into Wurzelbacher. "The e-mail, which was sent to chief privacy officer Rick Copley, explained that the queries into Wurzelbacher were made for child support purposes..." So Mr. Thompson lied. He should be fired as well. However, "Thompson has not faced disciplinary action." Nice going Ohio.
Vanessa, I think you should sue.
Labels: whistle blowing
Jackie Calmes, You have an Uncivil Right to be a Biased Idiot
Jackie Calmes of the New York Times is at it again. Her bias reporting can be seen in the previous post on the Lamestream Media, and she does not disappoint today in Obama Vows Swift Action on Vast Economic Stimulus Plan.
She writes: "Advisers to Mr. Obama say they want to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to act on many of the issues he emphasized in his campaign, including cutting taxes for lower- and middle-class workers, addressing neglected public infrastructure projects like roads and schools, and creating “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or probably know: 45% of the wage earners in this country pay NO income taxes, so how can he CUT them? Are reporters supposed to get to the heart of the subject or just take someone's word?
This is one of my favorites: "His address, a video of which was made available on YouTube, was part of an effort to calm financial markets roiled by the failure of an outgoing president and a lame-duck Congress to come up with a plan to lift the economy and restore investor confidence."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or know: The democrats made banks make risky loans to those who didn't qualify. Republicans wanted MORE oversight, and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and your's truly, Barack Obama, stopped it. Fannie and Freddie took on bad paper from Countrywide - thank you Chris Dodd. This caused the housing bubble to burst. Bush did NOT fail. Then Barack Obama is elected and the stock market TANKED...because Barack Obama was elected. Investment in free markets will go down when a SOCIALIST is elected as president, Jackie.
It's curious how you manage to deduce the increase in the market to the naming of Giethner: "News that Mr. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, would get the job helped send the stock market up by nearly 500 points on Friday after days of sharp losses." But no where did you EVER mention that the election of Barack Obama may have had the slightest impact on its downturn...hmmm...stupid?...idiotic?...bias???
In your defense, I will say you have the uncivil right to be a biased idiot.
But there's more. Speaking of letting the Bush tax cuts expire: "That could have economic and political benefits. Mr. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession, which many believe is counterproductive." FYI Jackie, that WOULD be a tax increase and would be reported as such by those willing to be objective and truthful. I understand you wrote what you wrote because YOU would NOT refer to it as a tax increase. And WHY do people think it would be counterproductive, Jackie? Because tax increases DO NOT necessarily produce more revenue. The collection of tax revenue is at its highest in the nation's history due to Bush's tax CUTS. You, however, prove your idiocy on this subject here: "By letting the tax cuts expire, Mr. Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond to help finance his promised health care plans without having to propose raising taxes on the affluent and without the Democratic majority in Congress having to take a vote on a tax increase."
When the rich are burdened with higher taxes, they hire accountants. Remember John Kerry's wife? She stated her tax burden was only 12%. Even Barack Obama stated, in an interview, that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not necessarily raise revenue. It wasn't about raising revenue; it IS about FAIRNESS. Of course, if you investigated this story, you would have known this and hopefully included it in your story. Instead, you made it quite clear that you are propagandizing for Obama, or Obamagandizing as I like to call it.
I'm sure the democrats enjoy your advertisements. I hope they will pay you well.
She writes: "Advisers to Mr. Obama say they want to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to act on many of the issues he emphasized in his campaign, including cutting taxes for lower- and middle-class workers, addressing neglected public infrastructure projects like roads and schools, and creating “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or probably know: 45% of the wage earners in this country pay NO income taxes, so how can he CUT them? Are reporters supposed to get to the heart of the subject or just take someone's word?
This is one of my favorites: "His address, a video of which was made available on YouTube, was part of an effort to calm financial markets roiled by the failure of an outgoing president and a lame-duck Congress to come up with a plan to lift the economy and restore investor confidence."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or know: The democrats made banks make risky loans to those who didn't qualify. Republicans wanted MORE oversight, and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and your's truly, Barack Obama, stopped it. Fannie and Freddie took on bad paper from Countrywide - thank you Chris Dodd. This caused the housing bubble to burst. Bush did NOT fail. Then Barack Obama is elected and the stock market TANKED...because Barack Obama was elected. Investment in free markets will go down when a SOCIALIST is elected as president, Jackie.
It's curious how you manage to deduce the increase in the market to the naming of Giethner: "News that Mr. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, would get the job helped send the stock market up by nearly 500 points on Friday after days of sharp losses." But no where did you EVER mention that the election of Barack Obama may have had the slightest impact on its downturn...hmmm...stupid?...idiotic?...bias???
In your defense, I will say you have the uncivil right to be a biased idiot.
But there's more. Speaking of letting the Bush tax cuts expire: "That could have economic and political benefits. Mr. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession, which many believe is counterproductive." FYI Jackie, that WOULD be a tax increase and would be reported as such by those willing to be objective and truthful. I understand you wrote what you wrote because YOU would NOT refer to it as a tax increase. And WHY do people think it would be counterproductive, Jackie? Because tax increases DO NOT necessarily produce more revenue. The collection of tax revenue is at its highest in the nation's history due to Bush's tax CUTS. You, however, prove your idiocy on this subject here: "By letting the tax cuts expire, Mr. Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond to help finance his promised health care plans without having to propose raising taxes on the affluent and without the Democratic majority in Congress having to take a vote on a tax increase."
When the rich are burdened with higher taxes, they hire accountants. Remember John Kerry's wife? She stated her tax burden was only 12%. Even Barack Obama stated, in an interview, that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not necessarily raise revenue. It wasn't about raising revenue; it IS about FAIRNESS. Of course, if you investigated this story, you would have known this and hopefully included it in your story. Instead, you made it quite clear that you are propagandizing for Obama, or Obamagandizing as I like to call it.
I'm sure the democrats enjoy your advertisements. I hope they will pay you well.
Labels: media bias
The Lamestream Media and Why It's Failing
Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, has admitted the bias of the Post's coverage of Obama here. She follows that editorial up, due to the loss of subscribers, with how the Post can remedy the "perceived" bias here.
Her "remedies"???
"More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two."
Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said:
"There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism."
Bob Steele, 'an ethics scholar at Poynter Institute (which trains journalists)' "recommends "prosecutorial editing" as one way to "minimize the ideological bias and beliefs that all journalists have."
Hey Bob, where are these journalists your instituion is training? And, Tom and Bob, why aren' these things happening NOW!? It ocmes down to the agenda of the owners and editors of these newspapers. There is a reason why reporters are liberal. People hire likeminded people. The idea that a newspaper is fair, balanced and objective is GONE. The Hew York TImes can call David Brooks a conservative, but that doesn't mean that he is, and true conservatives see this.
I believe the REAL problem, besides the agenda-driven articles, is the lack of true objective journalism. I am not just picking on the Post, but all liberal media outlets.
For example, this article was on the front page of the online edition of the New York Times today, Fed Official Is Said to Be Choice for Treasury.
Let's take a close look at OBJECTIVITY: "...quavering financial markets are looking for reassurance about the direction of economic policy." I didn't know financial markets had human attributes... And the source(s) for this??? "...people briefed about the decision said..."
How about this deduction: "Word of Mr. Geithner’s selection helped drive stocks sharply higher on Friday afternoon as investors concluded that Mr. Obama was taking steps to fill a leadership vacuum at a time when the economy and financial markets are showing new signs of strain." It's interesting to note the mention of this man's name drives stocks up, yet the election of Obama seemed to have nothing to do with the stack market crash. Reporters have come up with "other" reasons why the stocks plummetted, but no where is Obama mentioned either here or here, to cite just a few. If you noticed the chart from the second article, the stocks started descending when Obama and Clinton were in the lead for the dem nomination, just as the media were picking thier condidate for the white house.
But this isn't the only place that concludes Geithner's name is responsible for the stock increase. From this MSNBC story: "*** UPDATE *** Msnbc.com's Al Olson reports that immediately after NBC News' report on Tim Geithner likely to be named Treasury Secretary, stocks rebounded sharply." Funny how we DIDN'T see a story that said: "Immediately after Barack Obama was elected president, the stock market dropped 400 points..."
Bias?
But the NYT story continues on its bias path talking about Mr. Geithner: "But his association with the current administration’s policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin." Let's see, current financial policies must be far right, and the democrat policies are centrist? That is the way I am understanding the conclusions of Jackie Calmes, the author of this "objective" piece.
This is just one example of the majority of articles throughout the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and other liberal newspapers. Am I being fair? Am I right? Ms. Howell, do you care? Do you truly want objective, nonbiased reporting? I think it would certainly bring back readers. However, I believe the liberal agenda is a greater force than profit, and newspapers will fail due to the lack of objective reporting.
Her "remedies"???
"More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two."
Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said:
"There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism."
Bob Steele, 'an ethics scholar at Poynter Institute (which trains journalists)' "recommends "prosecutorial editing" as one way to "minimize the ideological bias and beliefs that all journalists have."
Hey Bob, where are these journalists your instituion is training? And, Tom and Bob, why aren' these things happening NOW!? It ocmes down to the agenda of the owners and editors of these newspapers. There is a reason why reporters are liberal. People hire likeminded people. The idea that a newspaper is fair, balanced and objective is GONE. The Hew York TImes can call David Brooks a conservative, but that doesn't mean that he is, and true conservatives see this.
I believe the REAL problem, besides the agenda-driven articles, is the lack of true objective journalism. I am not just picking on the Post, but all liberal media outlets.
For example, this article was on the front page of the online edition of the New York Times today, Fed Official Is Said to Be Choice for Treasury.
Let's take a close look at OBJECTIVITY: "...quavering financial markets are looking for reassurance about the direction of economic policy." I didn't know financial markets had human attributes... And the source(s) for this??? "...people briefed about the decision said..."
How about this deduction: "Word of Mr. Geithner’s selection helped drive stocks sharply higher on Friday afternoon as investors concluded that Mr. Obama was taking steps to fill a leadership vacuum at a time when the economy and financial markets are showing new signs of strain." It's interesting to note the mention of this man's name drives stocks up, yet the election of Obama seemed to have nothing to do with the stack market crash. Reporters have come up with "other" reasons why the stocks plummetted, but no where is Obama mentioned either here or here, to cite just a few. If you noticed the chart from the second article, the stocks started descending when Obama and Clinton were in the lead for the dem nomination, just as the media were picking thier condidate for the white house.
But this isn't the only place that concludes Geithner's name is responsible for the stock increase. From this MSNBC story: "*** UPDATE *** Msnbc.com's Al Olson reports that immediately after NBC News' report on Tim Geithner likely to be named Treasury Secretary, stocks rebounded sharply." Funny how we DIDN'T see a story that said: "Immediately after Barack Obama was elected president, the stock market dropped 400 points..."
Bias?
But the NYT story continues on its bias path talking about Mr. Geithner: "But his association with the current administration’s policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin." Let's see, current financial policies must be far right, and the democrat policies are centrist? That is the way I am understanding the conclusions of Jackie Calmes, the author of this "objective" piece.
This is just one example of the majority of articles throughout the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and other liberal newspapers. Am I being fair? Am I right? Ms. Howell, do you care? Do you truly want objective, nonbiased reporting? I think it would certainly bring back readers. However, I believe the liberal agenda is a greater force than profit, and newspapers will fail due to the lack of objective reporting.
Labels: media bias
