SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (304432)2/22/2011 7:52:44 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Media Gone Mad

By Jeffrey Folks February 21, 2011
americanthinker.com

The battle to reform spending on public employees is underway in a dozen states, and there's little doubt as to which side the mainstream media is taking.

In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker is leading the charge to reform spending on public services. This laudable effort to bring spending under control has been labeled "anti-union" and "union busting" by many in the mainstream media despite efforts by Walker and other governors to work with unions to reduce costs to what taxpayers can afford.

As of Sunday, pro- and anti-reform protesters continued to rally in Madison, and the mainstream media continued its one-sided coverage of the rallies. CNN posted an article by politico and Huffington post blogger Diane Ravitch, who warned of a "simmering rage among the nation's teachers." According to Ms Ravitch, a historian at New York University, reform efforts underway in various states would abolish teachers' rights to "due process, seniority, and-in some states-their collective bargaining rights." The purpose of union lobbying is said to be "to increase education funding and reduce class size." Is this all? Is it not also about salaries, benefits, and the iron-clad guarantee of lifetime employment regardless of performance?

Likewise on Sunday, CBS Sunday Morning reported that "tens of thousands" had "joined the demonstrations" on the side of unionized workers. As for those who support Gov. Walker, CBS called them "conservative activists" who favor "cut at all costs." Also on Sunday, the ABC Evening News reported the day's events from Madison with a story that featured interviews with four pro-union protesters but only one voice for reform-that of Gov. Walker.

That report seems to be following the media playbook of depicting the governor as isolated and outnumbered.

A lengthy article of Feb. 18 posted on abcnews.com characterized the Republican budget initiative as a "controversial bill" and accompanied its report with images of hundreds of passionate union protestors. A linked three-minute article from ABC World News quoted only one person supporting budget reform, Gov. Scott Walker himself. The same article quoted six Democratic lawmakers and their supporters in addition to one professor who seemed intent on undermining the Republican attempt at reform-noting that the attempt would stir up intense opposition and that any reform might passed this term might well be reversed by future legislatures. Any unbiased observer would, I believe, conclude that many in the national media are not reporting the events objectively but are doing so in a partisan manner.

On Saturday, as pro-reform protestors rallied in Madison, they received very different coverage by the national media. Unlike the enthusiastic and extensive coverage of union protestors, that of pro-reformers ranged from polite indifference to snide attack.

Everything from crowd estimates to characterizations of intent was distorted. Unlike the exaggerated estimates of anti-reform crowds (a Feb. 18 crowd of perhaps 10,000, reported as up to 40,000, according to one station), few estimates were given as to the size of pro-reform crowds. Saturday's NBC Nightly News reported that "up to 70,000" protestors had gathered in Madison, but the context of the statement seemed to suggest that the estimate referred only to pro-union protestors. Another source clarified that the estimate of 70,000 included both pro- and anti-reform protestors. No separate estimate of the size of the pro-reform protest was reported on any of the mainstream networks, so far as I could determine.

Not content with interviewing unionized teachers and Democratic politicians, an article of Feb. 17 on the MSNBC website noted that "seven current and former members" of the Green Bay Packers opposed the budget bill. (Are there football players who support it? We may never know.) The article was accompanied by a video with John Nichols of the liberal Nation magazine explaining the "devastating effects" of the Wisconsin budget bill.

The motives of reformers were also brought into question. ABC News was quick to point out that pro-reformers had been "bussed in" and that the protest had been organized by out-of-state conservative groups. The fact that union protesters had also been bussed in and that they had been organized by unions and Organizing for America, a liberal group that is part of the Democratic National Committee, was rarely if ever mentioned in media reports, other than in the Wall Street Journal. Viewers were left with the impression that union protestors, chanting in unison and carrying exactly the same professionally produced signs, had simply awakened in Waukegan and decided to join the protests on their own.

The national media also made an attempt to draw an analogy between union protestors in Madison and pro-democracy demonstrators in Cairo. By implication, those opposing union protests were to be compared with the "thugs" on camels who attacked democracy activists in Cairo. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's comment on MSNBC's Morning Joe program that the Madison protests were "like Cairo" was seized on by the left and immediately distorted. What Ryan meant to say, I believe, is that intimidation by union mobs is not the way democracy works in America. What the media had him saying was that Madison's carefully organized protests by public sector workers to protect their own excessive wages and benefits were somehow heroic. Clearly, they are not.

On Feb. 19 the liberal Ed Schultz Show, covering the pro-reform protests live, depicted union members as "under assault, protesting peacefully, in the greatest of American traditions." In a string of interviews with union supporters, Schultz depicted union protestors as moderates who were willing to compromise on wages and benefits-overlooking the fact that they have not been willing to do so over the past decade at least. "Walker's only target," said Schultz, was destruction of the unions. "Walker doesn't care about these people," he shouted. The Schultz report included a clip with Nancy Pelosi, of all persons, "standing in solidarity" with the union protestors.

The media's reporting of Wisconsin is, of course, a warm-up for larger battles ahead in Congress, and for the 2012 presidential campaign. Whatever media restraint, however miniscule, may have existed in the lull following the tea party victories of November, it has now been cast aside.

Anyone who thinks that the media has cooled off following the November election is madly mistaken. All that has changed is that the tactics of the mainstream media have become more outrageous. From now on, it's back to the playbook of the 2008 campaign, when everyone with a "D" following his name was lauded and everyone with an "R" was vilified.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and article on American culture



To: steve harris who wrote (304432)2/22/2011 7:56:57 PM
From: joseffyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Blind hatred of the ROTC ban

Campus lefties bite the hand that defends them

Tuesday, February 22, 2011
washingtontimes.com

Former U.S. ArmyStaff Sgt. Anthony Maschek last week received an unfitting welcome at a town-hall meeting at Columbia University. The Iraq-War-veteran-turned-college-freshman was heckled, mocked and inexplicably called a “racist” during a forum convened to discuss reinstatement of ROTC on campus 43 years after the program’s expulsion. The university gave Iran‘s Islamic strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a warmer welcome than this young man who shed his blood to serve his country.

Mr. Maschek uses a wheelchair to get around as a result of being shot 11 times in combat. Yet Columbia‘s leftists, blinded by their anti-war fervor, refused this disabled veteran even the most basic of courtesy as they sought to prevent him from exercising his right to free speech.

During the Vietnam conflict, military-leadership training programs were booted from some campuses in protest of the war or the draft or both. After U.S. forces withdrew and the draft was repealed, anti-ROTC schools did not change their stance. They just came up with a new justification. Opposition to the program was then a protest against the military’s ban on homosexuals. As a result of the Obama administration‘s embrace of homosexual conduct in the armed forces, it appears university leftists will need to come up with a new excuse.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called on “all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC.” Though several schools have discussed bringing ROTC back, no college or university has actually done so.

Students at the anti-ROTC schools already have opportunities to drill at colleges where the program is not banned, but there is a principle involved - and a 40-year debt to be paid. The programs that were unceremoniously run off of many of America’s elite campuses need to be reinstated to make the point not only that they have the right to be there but that they belong there.

The most vocal opponents to welcoming ROTC back to school are groups like the Campus Antiwar Network, Students for Justice in Palestine, the International Socialist Organization and the usual collection of leftist sad sacks and misfits. Their ultimate goal is to deny students any opportunity to participate in ROTC on campus and to intimidate those who dare to drill at another school and wear the uniform back on campus. If any of these activists spot them, they will be treated to the same rudeness and hate speech as Mr. Maschek.

Congress has a perfect opportunity to force the issue as part of the budget debate. As Mr. Maschek told the people who were oppressing him, “It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting. There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.” That is why we need a military and why the military needs effective training programs.

It would be interesting to see how mollycoddled undergraduates and administrators might react to being forced to make a sacrifice far less significant than those Mr. Maschek has made. Congress could restrict federal funding, including student loans, from schools that continue to ban ROTC programs from campus. Freedom isn’t free, and it may be time for the anti-military bigots to learn that their position carries a price.



To: steve harris who wrote (304432)2/22/2011 10:03:38 PM
From: Jim McMannisRespond to of 306849
 
Even China has adopted the Pickens plan. While we are cruisin' for a bruisin'.



To: steve harris who wrote (304432)2/23/2011 10:40:40 AM
From: joseffyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
$80,000 fine after theater manager told black patrons to turn off cellphones, be quiet

Delaware Supreme Court overturns cinema ruling
Manager of Dover theater vindicated

Feb. 23, 2011 by SEAN O'SULLIVAN News Journal
delawareonline.com|TOPNEWS|TEXT|HOME

The Delaware Supreme Court overturned a decision by the state Human Relations Commission that the manager of a Dover cinema was racist when he used a "condescending tone" in telling a crowd of largely black patrons viewing a Tyler Perry movie to silence their cell phones and remain quiet.

The commission also ordered the Carmike 14 Theater to pay nearly $80,000 for violating the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law after it determined the October 2007 announcement -- which was not regularly made in that way in other theaters -- "insulted, humiliated and demeaned" patrons in that manager David Stewart had singled out a black audience at a "minority-themed" movie.

Court papers note that extra security also was brought in that night and guards were double-checking ticket stubs as audience members entered, which the plaintiffs said further added to the humiliation.

The Supreme Court, however, tossed out that finding and the fine late last week, ruling there was no racist language in the announcement, no specific group was singled out and the non-racial explanation for the announcement -- that it was part of a since-discontinued company policy at sold-out shows to ensure that all patrons would enjoy the movie -- was reasonable.

The court also noted that the then-director of the state Office of Human Relations was in the crowd that night, announced to the theater that she was offended and organized patrons to file the complaint with the Human Relations Commission.

The incident happened Oct. 12, 2007, at the sold-out 7:15 p.m. showing of the movie "Why Did I Get Married?" where the cinema was showing the picture in three theaters simultaneously.

The warning about cell phones was shown on the screen and then was delivered in person in the largest of the three auditoriums by Stewart, according to court papers. Some patrons later said Stewart's tone "was offensive and condescending, as if he were speaking to children." And because the crowd, which had been well-behaved to that point, was "90 to 95 percent" black, some felt it was racist because it implied that blacks did not know how to behave in a movie theater.

One patron told the commission she had been to hundreds of movies at the theater and never before heard such an announcement. At least two other patrons testified that they were not offended.

The Supreme Court noted that immediately after someone complained to Stewart, he returned to the theater and apologized, explaining the announcement was company policy. Realizing the crowd was upset, he also waited at the exit door after the movie to thank patrons for attending.

Stewart later explained that there was extra security that night because of a recent robbery at the theater, and on that night he asked one of the security officers to check ticket stubs to help direct patrons to the correct theater since the movie was being shown on three screens.

One person in the theater who stood up and announced her opinion that the manager's actions were racist was Juana Fuentes-Bowles, then the director of the state's Human Relations Division, according to the ruling. Fuentes-Bowles, who apparently did not announce her title but said she was "an attorney or someone who worked for an attorney," then collected names and phone numbers of patrons who were offended. A division employee then called patrons and organized a meeting, including Fuentes-Bowles, after which a complaint was drafted.

Fuentes-Bowles also initially signed on to the complaint with 33 others, but later took her name off it so she would not be "a distraction," according to the ruling.

In 2008, a three-member panel of the commission ruled that the announcement violated Delaware's equal access law -- though everyone in the theater was still able to see the film -- because the circumstances were hostile and one that any reasonable person would find objectionable.

The commission then awarded each of the people who complained $1,500 in damages, fined the cinema $5,000 and ordered it to pay more than $20,000 in the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.


Fuentes-Bowles left her position with the state in May 2009 and could not be located for comment this week.

Christopher R. Portante, a spokesman for the Delaware Department of State, which oversees Human Relations, said the department "stands behind" the commission's decision.

While the commission determined that the theater's explanations were "not credible," a three-judge panel of the state Supreme Court ruled the commission failed to adequately explain why it came to that conclusion and added that the commission "legally erred" on several important points.

Justices Randy J. Holland, Carolyn Berger and Jack B. Jacobs ruled the non-racial explanations for the announcement were reasonable and pointed to uncontested evidence that a week earlier Stewart had made the same announcement at a showing of the movie "Halloween" to a largely teenage audience.
.



To: steve harris who wrote (304432)2/25/2011 10:50:53 AM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Labor brute force rules

By Michael Graham Friday, February 25, 2011 -
bostonherald.com

If I were in organized labor, I’d seriously think about starting a P.R. union.
The only person who had worse press coverage this week than organized labor was Moammar Gadhafi — and he had to bomb his own people to get it.
As of this writing, union-owned Democratic state senators are still hiding out in cheap hotels across state lines in Illinois. These Wisconsin “flee-baggers” can’t find the courage to show up for work, but they’re on cable news every hour whining about Gov. Scott Walker.
Meanwhile, our own U.S. Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Somerville) was forced to apologize for his comment that “every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody” — comments he made after pointing out that my fellow Tea Partiers were at the back of the crowd ready to (ahem) donate a few pints.
In Providence, the teachers union president Scott Smith described the arrival of potential layoff notices this way: “Now I know how the U.S. State Department felt on Dec. 7, 1941.”
Layoffs: In the private sector, they’re a part of life. For government workers, they’re another Pearl Harbor.
Do the teachers and their allies have any idea how their threats and tantrums look to the overworked taxpayers who pay their salaries? Taxpayers who can’t retire at 58 and who don’t have guaranteed pensions?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average state government employee makes around $49,000, while the private sector average is $45,000. Meanwhile public sector wages are rising (teachers got an average 4.7 percent raise in 2010) while the rest of our wages were flat.
Not only that, but The Wall Street Journal reported Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers yesterday showing that, in any given year, private sector employees are more than three times as likely to be fired or laid off than government workers.
But what happens when we taxpayers rally in support of what Walker is doing? In Boston, we were shoved and spit on. In Providence, a union member screamed — on camera! — “[Bleep] you, you [bleeping] [bleep] at a Tea Party supporter. In Wisconsin, doctors shamelessly handed out medical leave slips to teachers staging a “sickout” so they could be paid for protesting.
And they wonder why, according to Gallup, union support is near an all-time low.
But do the unions really care? Bullying legislators and abusing taxpayers is nothing new for organized labor. In his 2009 farewell address, former National Education Association general counsel Bob Chanin laid it out on why his union had been so effective:
“It is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. [It is] because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that .??.??.? the union can protect their rights and advance their interests.”
Massachusetts Democrats know Chanin is right, which is why the only question they ever ask a union representative is “How high?”
So what if the Kellogg School of Management finds state and local governments have $3 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities? Why should it matter if that same study found Boston’s pensions will be broke by 2020? As long as the unions have the money and muscle to keep electing pols who keep handing them our money, nothing’s going to change.
Which is why it doesn’t matter how humiliating the optics are out of Wisconsin, or how many F-bombs union thugs throw at passing taxpayers
Who needs good press when you’ve got brute force?



To: steve harris who wrote (304432)2/25/2011 9:13:31 PM
From: joseffyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Does Obama Want $8 Gasoline?
............................................
No, he wants $10 a gallon gasoline.