Yahoo News pushing biased stories in support of Obama

Yahoo News is running stories in support of Obama's agenda as well as stories that downplay any opposition and portray it as a fringe minority. Headlining September 14 and 15 newslinks were articles like "GOP 'cranks' dominating debate." Such articles which try to connect the "GOP" with words like "wince", "gasp", "worried", "crackpots" etc. One must not treat Yahoo as a neutral source. Of all the news reports out there, the ones that are given a visible prominence in the www.yahoo.com website invariably include many pro-Obama spinned ones and anti-Republican ones. Another article highlighted in the 14th spoke of healthcare-debate devolving to "rehashing" supposedly already discussed and dismissed as useless ideas like tort reform or other items that the Republicans are supporting.

In contrast to the spin Yahoo News' choice of article headlines presents, look at recent polls. Many key provisions of the Obama health care plan are opposed by over 70 percent of Americans polled. The supposedly old worn-out idea items (according to Yahoo linked articles) are actually strongly supported by the American public if the polls are accurate.

the cost of environmentalism

2008 Experiencing Cooler Temperatures -- Despite Continued CO2 increases ---

Here is some hard data -- about cooler temperatures.

Notice how the accu weather meteorologist has to be extremely careful in how he frames things lest his report and its implications cause him to get into trouble because the data point away from the politically correct accepted ideas about alleged man-made climate change.

Notice also how in a separate article in the New York Times, since the data does not confirm "global warming" people hold on to their agenda but try to change the language used to describe it. It is spin.

More from the Vancouver Sun

Cap and Trade...

On the House Cap and Trade bill that passed in the dead of night.

Yahoo's news link title with subtle unfounded accusations of racism

Yahoo today (June 1, 2009) has a link to an article about Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. The title of the Associated Press Article is "GOP senators sidestep harsh criticism of Sotomayor". But the link title from the front page of Yahoo, the link title everyone will see who visits Yahoo, is "GOP senators tone down racially charged criticism of Sotomayor." Notice that the link title implies that the GOP senators are being racially prejudiced towards Sotomayor who is Hispanic. Yahoo has deliberately created the association -- GOP senators = bad racists; Sotomayor = victim of racism. But the reality is just the opposite. Criticism of Sotomayor emerged because of her seemingly racist comments. If yahoo had left the AP title in their link, or simply rewritten their own title to be "GOP senators tone down criticism of Sotomayor's perceived racial prejudice," it would have been more accurate. But the editors at Yahoo News show their bias and score a major propaganda victory against the GOP in the minds of unwary readers.

International Distortions in News Reports about Taiwan

Here is an excellent analysis by Michael Turton, a blogger in Taiwan, on how the international Western media distorted their reports on the large May 17th protest in Taiwan.

Obama -- not "science first" as he claimed

Obama's campaign promise was "science first" in a thinly veiled dig at his predecessor's consideration of religious communities. But now that he is in power, we begin to see evidence that his policies are politics over science. Progressives routinely characterize themselves as environmentalists as compared with conservatives supposed pro-oil, pro-war, anti-environment positions. But it seems clear that the Democrats in power are now pro-political power at the expense of anything else -- whether the environment or the economy.

Note what the Obama administration has done against plans for sustainable fish populations in the North Atlantic.

A so-called "Equitable" and "Balanced" Obama tax code

[Obama's] Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner argued that the Obama proposal would reduce taxes for most Americans. Any increases, he said, wouldn't occur until 2011, when the economy is "safely into recovery."

Geithner said Obama's plan would cut income taxes for 95 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses. Raising taxes on couples that make more than $250,000 would make the tax system more equitable, restoring the balance that existed before a series of tax cuts were enacted under former President George W. Bush, he said. -- AP 2009-3-4

"Restoring the balance" is completely deceitful rhetoric. He actually means restoring an unfair inequitable system. Even if there were a flat tax of 10 percent, that would mean rich people pay more taxes since 10 percent of $250,000 is $25,000 whereas 10 percent of $30,000 is $3000. Who is paying more taxes with a flat 10 percent tax rate? One pays $25,000; another pays $3000.

The Bush tax cuts do not even go to a flat tax. Our tax system is unfair in that the more income you earn, the greater percentage of that income in taxes you have to pay. For instance if you were a person who made $100,000 per year, and then were offered a job with higher stress, but higher compensation of $250,000 per year, you might not take it. If taxes are raised on the rich, and they have to pay 40 or 50 percent of their income, then that person making $250,000 per year will only be allowed to keep $125,000 or $150,000 of his $250,000 earnings and the government would be confiscating the rest. That kind of thing is considered "fair," "balanced," and "equitable" in the Obama administration.

In a communist system, no matter how hard you work, or what intellectual property you have put into things, your money will be taken away and given to someone else so everyone makes the same amount. Perhaps this is more of what Geithner really means by "equitable."

The reason communist systems fail is that they are truly not fair. People will not work hard anymore -- what is the point? There is no reward for innovation or hard work.

When taxes are raised unfairly on the rich (the ones with capital), they invariable have a disincentive to work. Why invest in starting a new company that would provide a lot of jobs when any extra money you make will be confiscated by the government? The rich then simply begin sitting back and collecting art, etc. No new companies are started. No new jobs are created. The skills and abilities that helped make that high-income earner able to earn money stagnate and that person does not any longer contribute to the GDP of the nation.

What is more, as the economy is harmed by a tax penalty on success and hard work, actual government revenue falls. There are fewer people working at their maximum potential; there is less money earned; there is less productivity; there is less capital being invested in new technology and fewer pushes into new and uncharted industries which carry a higher risk and potential of failure; there are fewer jobs.

Levels of genetic defects: support Intelligent Design or Evolutionary Theories?

A leading American scholar of biology, Prof Francisco Ayala, plans to tell the conference that the so-called theory of intelligent design, proposed by Creationists, is flawed.
"The design of organisms is not what would be expected from an intelligent engineer, but imperfect and worse," he said.
"Defects, dysfunctions, oddities, waste and cruelty pervade the living world". -- BBC 3/3/2009

Here is another example of begging the question. If you asked Intelligent Design theorists, they would have a perfectly reasonable answer as to how their theory fits the current level of "defects, dysfunctions [sic], oddities, waste and cruelty". An original design that has degraded over time is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or put another way about 1800 years before the Second Law of Thermodynamics was formulated by Rudolf Clausius in 1850: in Romans 8:20-21 Paul writes "the creation was subject to bondage to decay"; or as was written down by Moses over 3000 years before Clausius, "dying you shall die... cursed is the ground because of you."

So to the contrary of what Francisco Ayala asserts, Intelligent Design theory accounts for that evidence that Darwinian and modern evolutionary theory cannot account for: information rich systems. Add to that the Biblical account of both Creation and the Fall where the universe is under a curse because of sin, the ensuing genetic defects and entropy, and the defects are perfectly accounted for.

For evolutionary theory, random mutation plus natural selection must be able to account for a gain of useful genetic information, but it statistically cannot. Mutations are almost always detrimental; these do not create new genetic information, but instead degraded information, that is, information loss. The robustness of the original design means that the creature can still function even with the degraded level of their genetic information.

The evidence in the world shows original designs that have degenerated, not a gradual development of new species. For example, even on a micro-evolutionary scale, different types of dogs are due to a loss of genetic information among distinct population groups rather than a gain by those isolated groups. The same can be said for Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Yet again -- bald assertion on "climate change" proves unsubstantiated

Yahoo Headline: "Climate Change Even worse than predicted" in the article: regarding increased CO₂. Not one bit of evidence present specifically related to actual climate change -- just an increase in CO₂. This is a logic fallacy called begging the question. The underlying assumption is that CO₂ causes climate change. But then to point to an increase in CO₂ and say climate change is worse begs the question -- what about actual evidence of climate change. Also, it is circular reasoning -- to say CO₂ causes climate change, and then say Climate change is getting worse based solely on the evidence that CO₂ emission has increased has not really proved any point. Does CO₂ actually have any measurable impact on climate? What about the sun in comparison? Actually it should make them doubt CO₂ as a cause of climate change because the increased CO₂ is not having any noticeable effect. There is evidence for either cooling or a stabilizing of temperature. But people will read the headline, and simply believe with not one piece of solid climate evidence presented in the article.

In contrast, note the prevalence of information about actual climate in the following article in Newsmax.

Stimulus/Recovery/Bailout, Global Warming/Climate Change

Developing Story --- the "Stimulus" Bill was at one time a "Recovery" Bill that was at one time a "Bailout" Bill. Get the picture. At any other time in the nation, the same bill would have been called simply a "Spending" bill that would increase the deficit and increase government intrusion into people's lives. But because the current situation is framed as a national or even global emergency, people are asked to look the other way -- just trust us. A similar argument on a smaller scale has come from the claimed global emergence of what used to be called "global warming" but now is called "Climate change."

Here is an article that reviews the historical reality of the failures in the use of government "stimulus" in faltering economies. Either willful ignorance or a thinly veiled power-grab motivation could bring an administration to push this kind of bill.

Here is an example of the power grab and government encroachment from the excuse of the latter - climate issue.


People need to realize that freedom is not a means to an end. When it is treated as such, it will be lost.

Here is a comment from writer Camille Paglia, in Salon.Com, a liberal online magazine. Rather than being swept up in the spin of the moment, she seems to be standing on her principles -- whether you agree with her or not, it is good to have clearly defined principles for the world to see and debate with instead of just having the "will to power."

"Surely common sense would dictate that when Congress is doling out fat dollops of taxpayers' money, due time should be delegated for sober consideration and debate. The administration's coercive rush toward instant action, accompanied by apocalyptic pronouncements of imminent catastrophe, has put its own credibility on the line."

More from the same writer --

"Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism."

More on the "Fairness" Doctrine...
============

Also with regard to the "Fairness Doctrine" issue, Democrats in elected office need to realize that even in floating trial balloons and talking about these kinds of policies will have an impact around the world. Right now in Taiwan, perhaps emboldened or in imitation of the talk in the United States, the KMT government of Ma Ying-jeou and the Legislature that the party controls has begun moving swiftly to silence political dissent by using similar language to excuse suppression of any opposition voices on television talk shows. Last week, they used the same words -- that these shows are not "balanced" or "fair" and so should be fined or eliminated from television. The only shows they singled out were the ones critical of the current government policy.

Of Pickpockets and Con Artists

In a recent press conference, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stood in a dignified-looking pose next to ranks of America flags in front of a portrait of one of America's founders and beside a Hollywood-size check that supposedly means that every America will receive "free of charge" over US$1800 of money. Excellent theater.

The reality? It is like a pick pocket's accomplice distracting you in the front while someone takes your wallet out of your back pocket.

Americans do on the whole seem to be so mesmerized by the historicity of Obama's presidency that they are not looking to their own wallets.



This piece of satire by Fred Thompson illustrates the absurdity of what the "stimulus" package that Obama and the Democrats are pushing represents.