On Portfolio.com, there is a story about CNNs ratings. Apparently, they are plummeting and Headline News and CNBC is beating them at times.
The statement released from CNN shows how Liberal news distorts the truth, even when it is about themselves, to meet their template of reality, even if it is completely wrong and detrimental to them. They claim their ratings are the best ever, but they are using “CUME,” which is not what advertisers use to determine rankings.
Here is a thought…try to employ real journalist ethics, try to be balanced, try the “truth.” This strategy would at least put you above MSNBC.
CNN's March Ratings So Far: More Lamb than Lion
More evidence that CNN is going to have to find a new strategy fast or risk becoming a cable news also-ran: In the month of March so far, the Time Warner-owned network has come in fourth place in prime time among adults 25 to 54, the key demographic for advertisers, more often than not.
Through March 17, CNN trailed not only Fox News and MSNBC but also its own sister network, Headline News, on nine out of 17 days. On one day, March 13, CNN even drew fewer 25-to-54 viewers than CNBC -- the first time that's happened since November 2007. And of the eight days it finished higher than fourth in the demo, five were either Saturdays or Sundays, typically the lowest rated nights for the news networks.
Asked about the trend, a CNN spokeswoman offered a statement that emphasized the network's long-term ratings growth -- while ignoring the even sharper gains made by Fox News and MSNBC -- and its claim to being No. 1 in total reach. (As I've noted before, that claim is based on CNN's "cume," or cumulative audience, a measure generally considered less important to advertisers.)
“CNN is having its best March in prime time among total viewers since 2003 (Iraq war) and its second best March in adults 25-54 (also since 2003/first best 2008). CNN is not blowing with the political winds, but is continuing to grow by providing reliable, respected journalism and we will continue to offer straight forward reporting that includes a broad range of information, opinion and fact. On TV, CNN reaches the most viewers every month, averaging 75.7 million compared to FOX's 61.3 million and MSNBC's 55.8 million. CNN.com averages more than 30 million unique users each month and HLN averages another 52.8 million viewers.”
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Green jobs are another Liberal Lie
We have been hearing how the government is going to create all these “green” jobs. They are going to take our tax dollars and subsidize these new industries.
Now, I heard that this technology wasn’t close enough to fruition for this to be viable. I, also, had heard that the major companies, such as Shell, was backing out of green technologies, because it was not profitable, efficient, and convenient. I, also, heard that environmentalists are suing to stop this technology, because this “green” technology was harmful to the environment.
So, I was wondering if all the hype of the “green” jobs and technology we real. Is it too good too be true? According to this post on The Foundary, “The Green Job Myth Exposed,” it is.
“Late last year we called into question the credibility of a Center for American Progress “study” purporting to show how how many “green collar jobs” $100 billion in government spending on “green investments” would create. CAP did not take kindly to our criticism.
Now four academics have taken a closer look at that CAP study as well as reports from three other organizations including the American Solar Energy Society, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the United Nations Environmental Programme. York College of Pennsylvania Dean Dr. William Bogart describes their findings:
Economic analysis is not a matter of justifying policy goals by making optimistic assumptions and ignoring those realities that fail to support your objectives. Our work here clearly shows that the foundations of these “green” jobs claims do not measure up to the kind of research standards we should demand when evaluating change in direction for our economy.
Their report goes on to identify Seven Myths of Green Jobs, including:
Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.
Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.
Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.
Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.
Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.
Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.
Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.
Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.
Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society.
Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.
Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.
Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.
Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality. “
Thank goodness that the government is here to help and fix this, so it will work. Yes, they are going to “change” everything, because that is what we voted for.
Now, I heard that this technology wasn’t close enough to fruition for this to be viable. I, also, had heard that the major companies, such as Shell, was backing out of green technologies, because it was not profitable, efficient, and convenient. I, also, heard that environmentalists are suing to stop this technology, because this “green” technology was harmful to the environment.
So, I was wondering if all the hype of the “green” jobs and technology we real. Is it too good too be true? According to this post on The Foundary, “The Green Job Myth Exposed,” it is.
“Late last year we called into question the credibility of a Center for American Progress “study” purporting to show how how many “green collar jobs” $100 billion in government spending on “green investments” would create. CAP did not take kindly to our criticism.
Now four academics have taken a closer look at that CAP study as well as reports from three other organizations including the American Solar Energy Society, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the United Nations Environmental Programme. York College of Pennsylvania Dean Dr. William Bogart describes their findings:
Economic analysis is not a matter of justifying policy goals by making optimistic assumptions and ignoring those realities that fail to support your objectives. Our work here clearly shows that the foundations of these “green” jobs claims do not measure up to the kind of research standards we should demand when evaluating change in direction for our economy.
Their report goes on to identify Seven Myths of Green Jobs, including:
Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.
Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.
Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.
Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.
Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.
Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.
Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.
Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.
Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society.
Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.
Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.
Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.
Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality. “
Thank goodness that the government is here to help and fix this, so it will work. Yes, they are going to “change” everything, because that is what we voted for.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Cap and Trade will Increase Prices of Everything
I found this great story on the Heritage Foundation blog, The Foundry. In Obama Will Shock Consumers with Higher Electric Bills, they have some information that will make even more upset at Cap and Trade and the farce of Global Climate Change.
Cap and Trade will tax energy producers and any company that emits “greenhouse gases” (which do not exist). These companies will then pass these additional costs of these taxes on to their customers.
However, what this post does not mention how these taxes will affect businesses. Businesses use energy. Their energy costs will going up as well. Businesses will do what they do and pass their additional costs on to their customers, us.
So, not only will our energy costs go up but products and services costs will increase, as well. We will see prices for everything increase due to Cap and Trade.
The Foundary story is below:
The White House admits low-balling the cost in Obama’s official budget, which claimed that his plan would add $646 billion to energy costs over 8 years.
The new price tag is three times as high, close to $2 trillion in 8 years, according to Jason Furman, deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council. That’s $250-billion each year to be passed along to consumers, equivalent to adding an extra 50% to what the U.S. Department of Energy estimates we spend on energy each year.
A 50% increase on home utilities would average about $150 per month–$1,800 per year–since the average bill is $297 a month according to the White Fence Index. The White House claims it would offset this with an $800 per year household tax credit (and 42% of it would go to those who don’t even pay income taxes. Even with an $800 rebate, the net loss is $1,000 per family per year.
Obama claims it’s necessary to halt global warming even though the Earth is actually cooling. Americans are about to pay dearly for global warming hysteria. The planet may not be getting hotter, but people will be as they learn about this.
Details are found here at Human Events online.”
Cap and Trade will tax energy producers and any company that emits “greenhouse gases” (which do not exist). These companies will then pass these additional costs of these taxes on to their customers.
However, what this post does not mention how these taxes will affect businesses. Businesses use energy. Their energy costs will going up as well. Businesses will do what they do and pass their additional costs on to their customers, us.
So, not only will our energy costs go up but products and services costs will increase, as well. We will see prices for everything increase due to Cap and Trade.
The Foundary story is below:
“Hold onto your thermostat as well as your wallet! Annual utility bills may rise $1,800 under President Obama’s “cap and trade” energy tax plan. That wipes out his pledge of a $800 a year tax cut for 95% of Americans.
The White House admits low-balling the cost in Obama’s official budget, which claimed that his plan would add $646 billion to energy costs over 8 years.
The new price tag is three times as high, close to $2 trillion in 8 years, according to Jason Furman, deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council. That’s $250-billion each year to be passed along to consumers, equivalent to adding an extra 50% to what the U.S. Department of Energy estimates we spend on energy each year.
A 50% increase on home utilities would average about $150 per month–$1,800 per year–since the average bill is $297 a month according to the White Fence Index. The White House claims it would offset this with an $800 per year household tax credit (and 42% of it would go to those who don’t even pay income taxes. Even with an $800 rebate, the net loss is $1,000 per family per year.
Obama claims it’s necessary to halt global warming even though the Earth is actually cooling. Americans are about to pay dearly for global warming hysteria. The planet may not be getting hotter, but people will be as they learn about this.
Details are found here at Human Events online.”
Democrats are Supporting Gun Rights
As I have shown in recent posts, the Democrat Party is fracturing under the pressure from their constituents. The moderate Democrats cannot follow the radical agenda of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid.
Recently, Democrats have split due to Cap and Trade (Democrats Revolt Expands) and healthcare reform (Nationalization). The moderates want these issues properly debated and not rammed through Congress. Now, there is another issue that has the moderates splitting from their leadership. Gun rights.
On NewsMax, “Pro-Gun Democrats Oppose New Assault Weapon Ban” explains how 65 House Democrats won’t support to revive an assault weapons ban.
“The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder that they would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban, or to pass any similar law.
They urged the administration to avoid a "long and divisive fight over a gun control issue" at a time when Washington needs to concentrate on the economic crisis.”
So, Conservatives can thank Democrats for trying to save our right own and bear arms. Yes, that is right. Democrats. The Republicans have limited power in the House. With the moderate Democrats, Republicans are finding allies who are fiscal conservatives and now supporting gun rights.
So, if you live in these pro-gun Democrats’ districts, be sure to write them and support them, because they are going to get battered from the Democrat leadership.
The right to bear arms is an essential right. The Second Amendment is for us to protect all of rights and freedoms and to protect ourselves.
As Thomas Jefferson said,
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
The government fears a well-armed citizenry and it should. We have this right in order to keep our government in check.
The other reason we have the right is to protect ourselves. The United States Supreme Court said the government is not directly responsible to protect the citizens in such a way that they are liable for harm done to you.
In other words, if someone breaks into your house and you call the police. By the time, they arrive you are shot. You cannot sue the police for liability, since they did not protect you. The Court said the citizens are responsible for protecting themselves, not the government.
How else can we do this with such heavily armed criminals but with our own firearms.
Again, as Thomas Jefferson said,
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” —Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
So, support those Democrats fighting for our rights to own firearms and keep vigilant on the rights they are trying to take from us. There are reasons we have them and reasons why they are trying to take them.
Recently, Democrats have split due to Cap and Trade (Democrats Revolt Expands) and healthcare reform (Nationalization). The moderates want these issues properly debated and not rammed through Congress. Now, there is another issue that has the moderates splitting from their leadership. Gun rights.
On NewsMax, “Pro-Gun Democrats Oppose New Assault Weapon Ban” explains how 65 House Democrats won’t support to revive an assault weapons ban.
“The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder that they would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban, or to pass any similar law.
They urged the administration to avoid a "long and divisive fight over a gun control issue" at a time when Washington needs to concentrate on the economic crisis.”
So, Conservatives can thank Democrats for trying to save our right own and bear arms. Yes, that is right. Democrats. The Republicans have limited power in the House. With the moderate Democrats, Republicans are finding allies who are fiscal conservatives and now supporting gun rights.
So, if you live in these pro-gun Democrats’ districts, be sure to write them and support them, because they are going to get battered from the Democrat leadership.
The right to bear arms is an essential right. The Second Amendment is for us to protect all of rights and freedoms and to protect ourselves.
As Thomas Jefferson said,
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
The government fears a well-armed citizenry and it should. We have this right in order to keep our government in check.
The other reason we have the right is to protect ourselves. The United States Supreme Court said the government is not directly responsible to protect the citizens in such a way that they are liable for harm done to you.
In other words, if someone breaks into your house and you call the police. By the time, they arrive you are shot. You cannot sue the police for liability, since they did not protect you. The Court said the citizens are responsible for protecting themselves, not the government.
How else can we do this with such heavily armed criminals but with our own firearms.
Again, as Thomas Jefferson said,
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” —Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
So, support those Democrats fighting for our rights to own firearms and keep vigilant on the rights they are trying to take from us. There are reasons we have them and reasons why they are trying to take them.
The "Obama Youth" Bill Passes the House
Obama’s transformation of America continues. As the media is following the dog and pony show of AIG, Dodd, Frank, and Geinther, the House has passed a bill that will launch Obama's national service programs. By the request at Atlas Shurgs, I am passing on this story (spread the word on this) and its “disturbing” language, mainly the word “MANDATORY.”
From Atlas Shrugs:
House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill Infowars (hat tip Joan)
The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”
“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.
The Senate is also considering a similar piece of legislation known as the “Serve America Act,” which also includes language about “Youth Engagement Zones”.
From Atlas Shrugs:
House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill Infowars (hat tip Joan)
The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”
“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.
The Senate is also considering a similar piece of legislation known as the “Serve America Act,” which also includes language about “Youth Engagement Zones”.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Liberals Have Plenty of Radio Voices, Just No Ratings
On American Thinker, there is a great report, “Megaphone Envy and the Fairness Doctrine,” with a lot of great information comparing Conservative and Liberal radio.
After reading this, you will see that there is more than enough fairness with radio coverage for Liberal stations compared to Conservative ones. The argument that the Left makes that they do not have access or a voice on radio is a “straw man” argument. Even the diversity of ownership argument (Durbin Doctrine) is meaningless with this information. There are plenty of Liberal radio stations. This information shatters their arguments.
The ratings are a complete different story. This story shows that in major markets all over the country, people have a choice between Liberal stations and Conservative. They overwhelmingly chose Conservative, though. This has nothing to do with fairness or lack of accessibility. It has everything to do with freedom of choice.
I have said this so many times. No one wants to see, read, or watch the Liberal agenda day after day or hour after hour, not even Liberals. That is why their ratings are so low on radio and TV.
So, why are they attacking Conservative radio with these “straw man” arguments? The Left cannot stand that the Conservative message is getting out and that the “truth” is getting to millions of Americans. Remember, the truth always defeats lies.
So, instead of coming up with better ideas or telling the truth, the Left just wants to shut off our freedom of speech. This is the exact reason why we have this freedom, to express opposing ideas for better or worse.
After reading this, you will see that there is more than enough fairness with radio coverage for Liberal stations compared to Conservative ones. The argument that the Left makes that they do not have access or a voice on radio is a “straw man” argument. Even the diversity of ownership argument (Durbin Doctrine) is meaningless with this information. There are plenty of Liberal radio stations. This information shatters their arguments.
The ratings are a complete different story. This story shows that in major markets all over the country, people have a choice between Liberal stations and Conservative. They overwhelmingly chose Conservative, though. This has nothing to do with fairness or lack of accessibility. It has everything to do with freedom of choice.
I have said this so many times. No one wants to see, read, or watch the Liberal agenda day after day or hour after hour, not even Liberals. That is why their ratings are so low on radio and TV.
So, why are they attacking Conservative radio with these “straw man” arguments? The Left cannot stand that the Conservative message is getting out and that the “truth” is getting to millions of Americans. Remember, the truth always defeats lies.
So, instead of coming up with better ideas or telling the truth, the Left just wants to shut off our freedom of speech. This is the exact reason why we have this freedom, to express opposing ideas for better or worse.
Obama's Teleprompter on the Blogoshere
It is true. Obama's teleprompter is blogging at http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
This is great post. It is absolutely hilarious. You must visit and support them.
This is great post. It is absolutely hilarious. You must visit and support them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)