This weeks Tuesday newsday asks if we think there is too much bad news reported and do the news programs exaggerate the bad news for the purpose of higher ratings.
While the news media may get higher ratings with the bad news than with reporting good news, I don't think all the blame can be put on them.
I have long felt the news media was controlled by the government and whatever propaganda the government wanted told would be told. We not longer have brave news journalists who will go out and get the real story. They are handcuffed, blindfolded, and gagged by a media controlling government. And what does this government want? They want us to be afraid so they can scare us even more and control us with that fear. Using the fear one by one our rights are being infringed upon and taken away for our own safety, per the government spin.
I remember once a bland faced reporter made a statement that good news is boring. He made some references to we didn't get a storm today, or Mrs. Jones wasn't mugged today. In other words, he trivialized the news in general. By good news we mean report good things people do for others or happy events. Mix the good with the bad to buffer it a bit. But this is not what our government wants, so the media is bound and gagged if they want to keep their jobs. Keep the public in fear and they are better controlled. Just my ever so humble opinion.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Duh! why I say not to rush with changes
My big complaint with Obama is he is pushing so hard to make everyone do what he wants that he isn't looking at the big picture. He said he wouldn't do anything that would hurt the poor or middle class, but dang...check this out!
STIMULUS WATCH: $25 check may cost you food stamps A must read!
STIMULUS WATCH: $25 check may cost you food stamps A must read!
Friday, June 12, 2009
Obladi - Female expiration date
This weeks Obladi post talks about how women are no longer considered sexy after they reach that "certain age", yet men consider themselves sexy long after they've gone to pot. Sadly, so does the media. Here's the post.
Female: Best if used prior to age 50!
Have you noticed how when a female actor turns 50 she is suddenly no longer considered a leading lady! She is no longer considered sexy or sexual, yet a male actor remains the leading man far into his 70’s and his female leads get younger and younger and younger. Sometimes the female lead is young enough to be his daughter and the older female, probably even younger than him plays the part of HIS mother!
Look at the news reporters. All the women must be under 50 and probably even under 40 and once past that age they are gone! But the men stick around long after their in their graves because it’s okay for a man to age, but not a woman.
You see ads for beauty products to keep you looking younger and who are they aimed at? The female audience! After all we certainly want to keep ourselves looking young and beautiful for our male counterparts who are getting fat and bald and still thinking they deserve that sexy twenty year old who can fit into a size 3 bikini.
Okay, end of rant! Anyone have any views on this topic?
I first noticed this long before I reached that "certain age" when Jane Pauley had to leave the today show, because she had become too old! Yet, there was Willard Scott, old, fat, and balding, but still considered able to do his job. Why is that when women reach 40 or 50 suddenly they aren't qualified to do the same job they'd been doing for the past 20 years? Do we lose brain cells with every new wrinkle, every gray hair, every extra pound? And do men's brain cells increase with every wrinkle, gray hair, etc? I think not! Yet, women are cast aside like yesterdays garbage when they reach that magic age.
It always makes me chuckle to overhear fat old men talk about how their wives have gone to pot, after having born their children, nurtured and nourished them, and stood by them faithfully through years of trials and tribulations. They either didn't have a mirror or saw something totally different when they looked in it! Do men seriously think they are still sexy with that extra roll around their middle, sagging jowls, and gray hair or bald heads? They can have huge pouches hanging over their belts, that get lost in the fat, and still make fun of a woman with a few extra pounds on her. They sit there ogling the young girls, who are laughing at them, and thinking those girls want them.
Someone once said something I totally agree with... the difference between a 50 year old man with a 19 year old girl and a 50 year old woman with a 19 year old boy is the 50 year old woman KNOWS she looks like a fool. Think about it.
Female: Best if used prior to age 50!
Have you noticed how when a female actor turns 50 she is suddenly no longer considered a leading lady! She is no longer considered sexy or sexual, yet a male actor remains the leading man far into his 70’s and his female leads get younger and younger and younger. Sometimes the female lead is young enough to be his daughter and the older female, probably even younger than him plays the part of HIS mother!
Look at the news reporters. All the women must be under 50 and probably even under 40 and once past that age they are gone! But the men stick around long after their in their graves because it’s okay for a man to age, but not a woman.
You see ads for beauty products to keep you looking younger and who are they aimed at? The female audience! After all we certainly want to keep ourselves looking young and beautiful for our male counterparts who are getting fat and bald and still thinking they deserve that sexy twenty year old who can fit into a size 3 bikini.
Okay, end of rant! Anyone have any views on this topic?
I first noticed this long before I reached that "certain age" when Jane Pauley had to leave the today show, because she had become too old! Yet, there was Willard Scott, old, fat, and balding, but still considered able to do his job. Why is that when women reach 40 or 50 suddenly they aren't qualified to do the same job they'd been doing for the past 20 years? Do we lose brain cells with every new wrinkle, every gray hair, every extra pound? And do men's brain cells increase with every wrinkle, gray hair, etc? I think not! Yet, women are cast aside like yesterdays garbage when they reach that magic age.
It always makes me chuckle to overhear fat old men talk about how their wives have gone to pot, after having born their children, nurtured and nourished them, and stood by them faithfully through years of trials and tribulations. They either didn't have a mirror or saw something totally different when they looked in it! Do men seriously think they are still sexy with that extra roll around their middle, sagging jowls, and gray hair or bald heads? They can have huge pouches hanging over their belts, that get lost in the fat, and still make fun of a woman with a few extra pounds on her. They sit there ogling the young girls, who are laughing at them, and thinking those girls want them.
Someone once said something I totally agree with... the difference between a 50 year old man with a 19 year old girl and a 50 year old woman with a 19 year old boy is the 50 year old woman KNOWS she looks like a fool. Think about it.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Tuesday Newday - Health care question.
This weeks tuesday newsday is "Taking care of healthcare" and asks....
During the second Presidential debate the candidates were asked if they thought health care was a privilege, a right or an obligation. What do you think? Any of those, or something else?
I'm in between the right and obligation line. I think everyone should have access to health care insurance, but are we obligated to get it? If someone can afford to pay their health care bills and want to avoid the middle then why should they have to get health care insurance? Right now every medical procedure, through any health care plan, has to be approved by someone who isn't even in the health care business! And it's their job to try to save the insurance company money by denying as many procedures as possible. I heard that Obama wants to pass a law that actually penalizes people who don't have health care plans, but why, if they can afford to pay their own bills should they be forced to go into a controlled plan?
And if that isn't enough for you, how important is it to pass something quickly? And how do you think it should be implemented and financed?
Should something be passed quickly? No, I think if we go too fast we get something that isn't thoroughly thought out and will end up a mess. I don't like the idea of the VAT to pay for it either. If the govt. doesn't have available funds, then like the rest of us, they need to rethink their budget and put this on the back burner until they come up with a valid plan to pay for it, or decide to scrap the idea of socialized health care and leave things as they are for now.
During the second Presidential debate the candidates were asked if they thought health care was a privilege, a right or an obligation. What do you think? Any of those, or something else?
I'm in between the right and obligation line. I think everyone should have access to health care insurance, but are we obligated to get it? If someone can afford to pay their health care bills and want to avoid the middle then why should they have to get health care insurance? Right now every medical procedure, through any health care plan, has to be approved by someone who isn't even in the health care business! And it's their job to try to save the insurance company money by denying as many procedures as possible. I heard that Obama wants to pass a law that actually penalizes people who don't have health care plans, but why, if they can afford to pay their own bills should they be forced to go into a controlled plan?
And if that isn't enough for you, how important is it to pass something quickly? And how do you think it should be implemented and financed?
Should something be passed quickly? No, I think if we go too fast we get something that isn't thoroughly thought out and will end up a mess. I don't like the idea of the VAT to pay for it either. If the govt. doesn't have available funds, then like the rest of us, they need to rethink their budget and put this on the back burner until they come up with a valid plan to pay for it, or decide to scrap the idea of socialized health care and leave things as they are for now.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Working cats
Our cats may live well with food readily available, warm beds to sleep on, water bowls filled, and litter boxes cleaned regularly. But they also work for their living.
Delia is a self appointed guide. Wherever I go, especially to the bathroom in the middle of the night, she is there to lead the way and make sure I don't get lost.
Ginger's job is to sit on top of Keith, in the morning, to make sure he doesn't float up out of his bed.
Marmalade's job is to keep our feet warm. Whether we want him to or not!
They all share in one job, that I really wish they would quit. Keeping the laundry warm! When I bring in the laundry, warm and fresh from the laundromat, they take it upon themselves to lay on it to make sure it stays nice and warm.
So, as you can see it may appear they are pampered pets, but they do make sure they work for the services provided them.
Delia is a self appointed guide. Wherever I go, especially to the bathroom in the middle of the night, she is there to lead the way and make sure I don't get lost.
Ginger's job is to sit on top of Keith, in the morning, to make sure he doesn't float up out of his bed.
Marmalade's job is to keep our feet warm. Whether we want him to or not!
They all share in one job, that I really wish they would quit. Keeping the laundry warm! When I bring in the laundry, warm and fresh from the laundromat, they take it upon themselves to lay on it to make sure it stays nice and warm.
So, as you can see it may appear they are pampered pets, but they do make sure they work for the services provided them.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Obladi - Identification Please
This weeks Obladi post asks about how our ideas, opinions, etc have changed as we grow older.
I heard an interview on NPR where the person talked about watching plays he had loved since he was a young man. He said that the first time he watched "Death of a Salesman" he identified with the son, Buddy, but now he was Willy Loman.
As well as which character I identify with in a novel, my perspective has changed on other things too. Movies and books that I thought were incredibly wonderful when I was younger, now seem to be... well... somewhere between wretched and stupid.
As you've gotten older, has your perspective changed on media you watch, hear or read?
This is something my husband and I discuss from time to time. How a movie we thought was so earth shattering when younger, seems a bit stupid now. I kept telling how wonderful the movie Soldier Blue was - I saw it in my early 20's - and in truth the movie itself was still pretty good, or would have been. See, when I first saw the movie I identified strongly with the heroine, Cresta Maribel Lee, played by Candice Bergen. Thank goodness she did become a good actor later in life, but when I got my husband to watch this movie, her portrayal was so overdone, overacted, and just plain silly that it detracted from the important issue of the movie. In 1970, when this movie came out, I was 22 and much more impressionable.
Other things I see differently are politics and religion. But I won't get too deep into that here. From a yellow dog democrat, when I was young, I have grown more into an independent voter and tend to look more at the issues and realize everyone who says they are persecuted, aren't. That there are groups who take advantage of the liberal democratic way for self gain. I am more open to both sides of the argument. The same for religion. I have gone from a total Jesus freak to an atheist who believes everyone has the right to believe or not believe as they choose.
I think we all grow and change and see things differently as we age. I know I never thought I'd say things my mother said, but find myself saying things like...you call that music? Things irritate me more as I get older. While I am tolerant of differing opinions, I am not tolerant of rude behavior and obnoxious children. Things when I was younger I didn't even notice.
Well, I guess all that to say yes, I have changed my opinions and ideas as I age. I think it's called maturing.
I heard an interview on NPR where the person talked about watching plays he had loved since he was a young man. He said that the first time he watched "Death of a Salesman" he identified with the son, Buddy, but now he was Willy Loman.
As well as which character I identify with in a novel, my perspective has changed on other things too. Movies and books that I thought were incredibly wonderful when I was younger, now seem to be... well... somewhere between wretched and stupid.
As you've gotten older, has your perspective changed on media you watch, hear or read?
This is something my husband and I discuss from time to time. How a movie we thought was so earth shattering when younger, seems a bit stupid now. I kept telling how wonderful the movie Soldier Blue was - I saw it in my early 20's - and in truth the movie itself was still pretty good, or would have been. See, when I first saw the movie I identified strongly with the heroine, Cresta Maribel Lee, played by Candice Bergen. Thank goodness she did become a good actor later in life, but when I got my husband to watch this movie, her portrayal was so overdone, overacted, and just plain silly that it detracted from the important issue of the movie. In 1970, when this movie came out, I was 22 and much more impressionable.
Other things I see differently are politics and religion. But I won't get too deep into that here. From a yellow dog democrat, when I was young, I have grown more into an independent voter and tend to look more at the issues and realize everyone who says they are persecuted, aren't. That there are groups who take advantage of the liberal democratic way for self gain. I am more open to both sides of the argument. The same for religion. I have gone from a total Jesus freak to an atheist who believes everyone has the right to believe or not believe as they choose.
I think we all grow and change and see things differently as we age. I know I never thought I'd say things my mother said, but find myself saying things like...you call that music? Things irritate me more as I get older. While I am tolerant of differing opinions, I am not tolerant of rude behavior and obnoxious children. Things when I was younger I didn't even notice.
Well, I guess all that to say yes, I have changed my opinions and ideas as I age. I think it's called maturing.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Tuesday Newsday value added tax
The Tuesday Newsday question for this week is about the value added tax. Our current policy makers are seriously discussing VAT, so I thought it would be timely post and hopefully will generate some discussion.
In my humble opinion this is a form of double taxation and a tax that will hit the poor harder than any other group. When studying American History I learned that double taxation was illegal. Now policy makers are debating on whether to add a value added tax to our daily purchases, on which we already pay taxes. This is how they plan on paying for the health care that wasn’t supposed to cost us anymore in taxes. The taxes on the poor were not supposed to be increased, but this is sneaking it in the back door.
So, do the benefits outweigh the impact it will have on the poor? I doubt it. The idea of providing health care for the poor was so they would not be hurt financially to pay for medical services. But, since this tax will affect all purchases in effect the poor will be paying one way or another.
We are already paying so much tax out of our paychecks sometimes it doesn't seem worth the effort. Adding one more tax will just tax us to death and put more people in a position where they are unable to purchase the necessities of life let alone do things like go to a movie or just out for dinner once in awhile. The government needs to come with a better plan than tax, tax, tax. In fact, didn't this president promise he wouldn't raise taxes on the poor?
In my humble opinion this is a form of double taxation and a tax that will hit the poor harder than any other group. When studying American History I learned that double taxation was illegal. Now policy makers are debating on whether to add a value added tax to our daily purchases, on which we already pay taxes. This is how they plan on paying for the health care that wasn’t supposed to cost us anymore in taxes. The taxes on the poor were not supposed to be increased, but this is sneaking it in the back door.
So, do the benefits outweigh the impact it will have on the poor? I doubt it. The idea of providing health care for the poor was so they would not be hurt financially to pay for medical services. But, since this tax will affect all purchases in effect the poor will be paying one way or another.
We are already paying so much tax out of our paychecks sometimes it doesn't seem worth the effort. Adding one more tax will just tax us to death and put more people in a position where they are unable to purchase the necessities of life let alone do things like go to a movie or just out for dinner once in awhile. The government needs to come with a better plan than tax, tax, tax. In fact, didn't this president promise he wouldn't raise taxes on the poor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
