1.) Most media outlets are huge corporations (newspapers, television, radio, advertising, magazines) and THEY decide what we see and what we don't see.
2.) The age of unbiased news is long gone.
3.) Just because something is printed in the newspaper, doesn't make it true.
4.) Sporting events like football and baseball are generally classified as entertainment.
5.) If the owner of a sports team (often times a large corporation) wants to have a "good" year with ticket sales, television contracts for advertising, etc. all they have to do is "purchase" the best players in the league, in a way, purchase a winning team.
6.) A loosing team NEVER generates above average profits.
7.) A winning team ALWAYS generates higher than average profits.
8.) Right now, somewhere there is a meeting where people are deciding what tomorrow's news will be.
9.)News Corp. owns FOX Broadcasting Company, 34 television stations (8 cover the USA's most populous cities) 29 alternative broadcast channels, mostly under the name of "FOX Sports."
In Film:
20th Century FOX Stuidos, FOX Searchlight Pictures, FOX Television Studios
In Print:
One newspaper in the USA, 5 newspapers in the United Kingdom, 20 newspapers in Australia, all of HarperCollins Publishing companies (23 in all) HarperCollins Children's Book Group (6 in all)
In Sports:
Los Angeles Dodgers, National Rugby League, (partial owners) of New York Rangers and New York Knicks, Los Angeles Kings and Los Angeles Lakers
In Music and Media:
News America New Media, Broadsystem, Festival Records, Mushroom Records, NDS, News Interactive, News Outdoor, Nursery World, Staples Center
Viacom owns: CBS -- and 16 television stations (6 of which in top 10 marketshare) UPN 18 television stations, 5 additional television stations
On Cable:
MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Nick at Night, TV Land, VH1, Spike TV, Comedy Central, CMT, Showtime, The Movie Channel, Flix, Sundance Channel Owns King World Productions
On Radio:
Infinity Broadcasting, with 176 radio stations and Westwood One
On Film:
Paramount Pictures In Print: Simon & Schuster (8 publishing companies)
In Retail:
Owns Blockbuster video, Paramount Parks, Famous Players Theater, United Cinemas International, Famous Music
Gannett owns USA Today, USA Weekend, USA Today Sports Weekly, and the USA Today Information Network. Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in the USA; the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.
Gannett also owns:
16 newspapers in the United Kingdom
16 television stations in the USA
Partial interests in the Cincinnati Reds, Classified Ventures Com LLC, (with competitors Knight Ridder, the New York Times Company, Times Mirror, Washington Post Co., and Tribune Co.) Quarter share in BrassRing Inc. (Human Resources services and software) Gannett partners with General Electric (GE) on Space.com and with Kight Ridder and Tribune Media on CareerBuilder.com
And that is just a small sample of the way we are spoon fed our news and entertainment.
10.) If you took the time to read this post, you learned something new and will now understand why some things are the way they are.
Good night, and good luck.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
All this depressing news
Depressing news about the bad economy, our corrupt government, politics, the election, and just about anything you can think of.
How about some entertainment?
How about some entertainment?
File this one under "They Just Don't Get It!"
The government wants to send us all money to stimulate the economy. Again.
I'm thinking if the average American family gets a check from anyone right now, they are going to spend it on the electric bill or groceries and gas, which will not really stimulate the economy. I think to actually stimulate the economy the government would somehow want the average American family to go out and buy "durable goods" like a new washing machine, refrigerator or American automobile or a house or something large and expensive like that, maybe some nice American stocks. If people purchased the large expensive items like a car or a refrigerator it might stimulate the economy, but if they save it for when they loose their jobs and/or buy dumb stuff like food and pay the electric bill I don't think it will stimulate the economy.
Right now the Christmas season is not looking to good for most retail chains, because of the bad economy it looks like the average American family will not spend a lot of money on expensive toys and gifts. Considering that most those expensive toys and gifts are produced in China and covered in lead-based paint which the Chinese are trying to kill us with, in the long term I would consider that a good thing. However, most retail chains would like the government to send everyone money that they can spend on Christmas gifts and useless items that have nothing to do with our day to day needs. So, I'm thinking the current stimulus package is backed by the retail sector, which is really the only one that stands to gain by another round of checks timed to arrive just in time for the Christmas season.
On a side note:
I was talking to a guy that was born in China and lived most of his life outside of the United States. He and his family had just moved here from Canada and we were talking about the political system and process here in the United States. I commented that as the election gets closer if the Republicans are not doing well then gas prices will be go down, but if the Republicans are doing well they will stay at around $4 a gallon, which is where they were when we had the conversation. Well guess what, gas prices are around $3 a gallon. I wonder how the election is going for the Republicans?
I'm thinking if the average American family gets a check from anyone right now, they are going to spend it on the electric bill or groceries and gas, which will not really stimulate the economy. I think to actually stimulate the economy the government would somehow want the average American family to go out and buy "durable goods" like a new washing machine, refrigerator or American automobile or a house or something large and expensive like that, maybe some nice American stocks. If people purchased the large expensive items like a car or a refrigerator it might stimulate the economy, but if they save it for when they loose their jobs and/or buy dumb stuff like food and pay the electric bill I don't think it will stimulate the economy.
Right now the Christmas season is not looking to good for most retail chains, because of the bad economy it looks like the average American family will not spend a lot of money on expensive toys and gifts. Considering that most those expensive toys and gifts are produced in China and covered in lead-based paint which the Chinese are trying to kill us with, in the long term I would consider that a good thing. However, most retail chains would like the government to send everyone money that they can spend on Christmas gifts and useless items that have nothing to do with our day to day needs. So, I'm thinking the current stimulus package is backed by the retail sector, which is really the only one that stands to gain by another round of checks timed to arrive just in time for the Christmas season.
On a side note:
I was talking to a guy that was born in China and lived most of his life outside of the United States. He and his family had just moved here from Canada and we were talking about the political system and process here in the United States. I commented that as the election gets closer if the Republicans are not doing well then gas prices will be go down, but if the Republicans are doing well they will stay at around $4 a gallon, which is where they were when we had the conversation. Well guess what, gas prices are around $3 a gallon. I wonder how the election is going for the Republicans?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Another story about greed
I was driving around the other day and noticed yet another parcel of land that was plowed to make way for expensive new homes, high-end retail shops, condo's and up-scale apartments.
In most cases this would be seen as growth, but in a down, or even slumping housing market who will be able to afford these expensive new homes that the developers are building?
I understand that if a developer purchases land and builds a commercial building and it sits empty for a few years, the developer can do alright with the tax deductions and losses from the empty building. I don't think the same tax deductions apply with residential property.
The theory seems sound, build a big building for business' and the business' will come and hire lots of workers and pay them lots of money and those people will buy the expensive homes, right?
The problem is that the business just aren't there, in fact the states largest employers are big retail, and everybody knows retail doesn't pay squat.
So, the land gets plowed, the commercial buildings get built but the business don't show up, and the buildings sit empty. The developers are doing alright because of the tax thing, but John Q. Public doesn't see an increase in high-paying professional jobs.
These same developers and other developers build retail malls hoping all the workers from all the jobs created by filling up the empty commercial buildings who got high-paying jobs from the business' and purchased expensive homes will need a place to shop for high-end goods and services. So they move forward and build the big retail mall.
Building the big retail mall has created jobs! That's a good thing right? Well, no the jobs created are retail jobs and those low-paying retail workers can't afford to purchase the expensive homes and condos the developer built. So the highly payed business workers don't exist and the retail business' suffer. Now the retail sales are down so the retail hires less workers and that means the high-end retail mall looks like a ghost town.
So because the business didn't come, the state didn't get that business tax revenue.
Because the business didn't hire workers, the state doesn't get that worker income tax revenue.
Because the workers didn't purchase the expensive homes, the states doesn't get the property tax revenue.
Because the workers that didn't purchase the expensive homes aren't there to shop at the retail mall, the state doesn't get that sales tax revenue.
Because of slumping sales, the retail mall needs less low-payed workers and the state gets even less of an already small income tax revenue chunk.
The low-payed retail workers put additional strain the states already stressed "low cost medical care" budget.
I'm not sure I like where all this is going to lead our state and it's budget?
Unless you have a good, secure well paying job, and you can keep it, this is going to suck for a lot of people.
In most cases this would be seen as growth, but in a down, or even slumping housing market who will be able to afford these expensive new homes that the developers are building?
I understand that if a developer purchases land and builds a commercial building and it sits empty for a few years, the developer can do alright with the tax deductions and losses from the empty building. I don't think the same tax deductions apply with residential property.
The theory seems sound, build a big building for business' and the business' will come and hire lots of workers and pay them lots of money and those people will buy the expensive homes, right?
The problem is that the business just aren't there, in fact the states largest employers are big retail, and everybody knows retail doesn't pay squat.
So, the land gets plowed, the commercial buildings get built but the business don't show up, and the buildings sit empty. The developers are doing alright because of the tax thing, but John Q. Public doesn't see an increase in high-paying professional jobs.
These same developers and other developers build retail malls hoping all the workers from all the jobs created by filling up the empty commercial buildings who got high-paying jobs from the business' and purchased expensive homes will need a place to shop for high-end goods and services. So they move forward and build the big retail mall.
Building the big retail mall has created jobs! That's a good thing right? Well, no the jobs created are retail jobs and those low-paying retail workers can't afford to purchase the expensive homes and condos the developer built. So the highly payed business workers don't exist and the retail business' suffer. Now the retail sales are down so the retail hires less workers and that means the high-end retail mall looks like a ghost town.
So because the business didn't come, the state didn't get that business tax revenue.
Because the business didn't hire workers, the state doesn't get that worker income tax revenue.
Because the workers didn't purchase the expensive homes, the states doesn't get the property tax revenue.
Because the workers that didn't purchase the expensive homes aren't there to shop at the retail mall, the state doesn't get that sales tax revenue.
Because of slumping sales, the retail mall needs less low-payed workers and the state gets even less of an already small income tax revenue chunk.
The low-payed retail workers put additional strain the states already stressed "low cost medical care" budget.
I'm not sure I like where all this is going to lead our state and it's budget?
Unless you have a good, secure well paying job, and you can keep it, this is going to suck for a lot of people.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
I can't help it, this is just funny
So I will post it.
The Associated Press is a well respected news source, and because of that I'm guessing they wouldn't "just make stuff up" or post something to the Internet that was edited or taken out of context. Based on those facts or "given truths" I figure this is not part of some "punked" or hidden camera "joke" and is the real deal.
Matt Damion is an actor, you know one of those Hollywood liberal types that wants to give clean needles to heroin babies and save the world by kissing spotted owls while hugging trees or some such thing. At any rate, he does have a point. Have a listen.
The Associated Press is a well respected news source, and because of that I'm guessing they wouldn't "just make stuff up" or post something to the Internet that was edited or taken out of context. Based on those facts or "given truths" I figure this is not part of some "punked" or hidden camera "joke" and is the real deal.
Matt Damion is an actor, you know one of those Hollywood liberal types that wants to give clean needles to heroin babies and save the world by kissing spotted owls while hugging trees or some such thing. At any rate, he does have a point. Have a listen.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A brief history of how we got here
Let's start sometime around 1978.
Prior to 1978 and for as long as I can remember, the United States were "doing things to stop the spread of communists values" either by outward means or "behind the scenes." Conversely, the Soviet Union had been "doing things to spread communists values," either outright or "behind the scenes."
This is the case with Afghanistan, the Soviet Union had been trying to help "foster" communists values, and support a pro-communists government in Afghanistan. But when the puppet government they had installed "behind the scenes" lost the fight against civil unrest and rebellion the Soviet's went in and took over.
Under the guise of "stopping the spread of communist values" the United States sold, gave and helped train the "other side" more commonly know as the "mojahedin" (Islamic holy warriors).
Most of these Islamic holy warriors were happy to fight against the foreign atheists and their Afghan puppets although they didn't have very good weapons. The United States was happy to step in and assist them in their efforts to repel these foreign atheists with stinger missiles and other helpful toys.
By 1989 the Soviet Union realized their efforts in Afghanistan would never be successful and would evidently bankrupt the entire Soviet Union both financially and from the public outcry against the war/invasion.
The story I have told so far is fact and history, it is reality and can not be denied.
Now switch the United States for the Soviet Union and Iraq for Afghanistan and you can see where this whole "Iraq War" will get us.
I'm guessing by 2011 the United States will withdraw due to costs and lack of public support, no mater who our President is at the time.
Prior to 1978 and for as long as I can remember, the United States were "doing things to stop the spread of communists values" either by outward means or "behind the scenes." Conversely, the Soviet Union had been "doing things to spread communists values," either outright or "behind the scenes."
This is the case with Afghanistan, the Soviet Union had been trying to help "foster" communists values, and support a pro-communists government in Afghanistan. But when the puppet government they had installed "behind the scenes" lost the fight against civil unrest and rebellion the Soviet's went in and took over.
Under the guise of "stopping the spread of communist values" the United States sold, gave and helped train the "other side" more commonly know as the "mojahedin" (Islamic holy warriors).
Most of these Islamic holy warriors were happy to fight against the foreign atheists and their Afghan puppets although they didn't have very good weapons. The United States was happy to step in and assist them in their efforts to repel these foreign atheists with stinger missiles and other helpful toys.
By 1989 the Soviet Union realized their efforts in Afghanistan would never be successful and would evidently bankrupt the entire Soviet Union both financially and from the public outcry against the war/invasion.
The story I have told so far is fact and history, it is reality and can not be denied.
Now switch the United States for the Soviet Union and Iraq for Afghanistan and you can see where this whole "Iraq War" will get us.
I'm guessing by 2011 the United States will withdraw due to costs and lack of public support, no mater who our President is at the time.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Today's Hot 100
Well maybe not 100, but a lot of things going on in the world to feel disenfranchised about.
The Vice Presidential debate sucked, yea it was lame. I wonder if there is a leader out there somewhere that can think on their feet and speak intelligently about almost anything related to our economy and the United States foreign policy without the "he said," "she said" blame game.
A bunch of rich fat cats screwed up and now they want the United States government to give them money so their kids can live like Paris Hilton.
Our current economic mess is very much like the Enron saga.
Let us review: a bunch of guys got together to form a company that would bet on energy prices (that was Enron) in effect they were speculating that energy prices would go up and if they purchased "energy futures" at a lower price betting the price would go up when they sell the "energy" then bada bing, bada boom, were all rich! There were a few major flaws with this idea, the first flaw was they were greedy and the second was that they were manipulating the energy prices and they got caught. How does all this related to our current mess, you ask?
A bunch of people that lend money to other people got together and decided, "hey, lets lend money to people who have no chance of paying it back." and then what we will have is what is commonly called "bad paper."
Another group of people got together and decided that, "hey, lets buy a bunch of loans and resell them to someone else for a profit." (this is the part I think is like the Enron deal, buy something for $2 and sell it to the next guy for $4, all the while manipulating the value of the original item)
So, all these people (banks, and financial institutions) are buying all these loans (a lot of them are "bad paper") just betting that they can sell them to some other bank or financial institution like some game of "hot potato" and the bank that get stuck with all the bad paper in the end loses!
Guess who got stuck with all the "bad paper," in the end?
Give up, well it's you and me the tax paying public citizens of the United States.
And that is just a small sampling of the "Crap-tastic" things that have been going down lately.
The Vice Presidential debate sucked, yea it was lame. I wonder if there is a leader out there somewhere that can think on their feet and speak intelligently about almost anything related to our economy and the United States foreign policy without the "he said," "she said" blame game.
A bunch of rich fat cats screwed up and now they want the United States government to give them money so their kids can live like Paris Hilton.
Our current economic mess is very much like the Enron saga.
Let us review: a bunch of guys got together to form a company that would bet on energy prices (that was Enron) in effect they were speculating that energy prices would go up and if they purchased "energy futures" at a lower price betting the price would go up when they sell the "energy" then bada bing, bada boom, were all rich! There were a few major flaws with this idea, the first flaw was they were greedy and the second was that they were manipulating the energy prices and they got caught. How does all this related to our current mess, you ask?
A bunch of people that lend money to other people got together and decided, "hey, lets lend money to people who have no chance of paying it back." and then what we will have is what is commonly called "bad paper."
Another group of people got together and decided that, "hey, lets buy a bunch of loans and resell them to someone else for a profit." (this is the part I think is like the Enron deal, buy something for $2 and sell it to the next guy for $4, all the while manipulating the value of the original item)
So, all these people (banks, and financial institutions) are buying all these loans (a lot of them are "bad paper") just betting that they can sell them to some other bank or financial institution like some game of "hot potato" and the bank that get stuck with all the bad paper in the end loses!
Guess who got stuck with all the "bad paper," in the end?
Give up, well it's you and me the tax paying public citizens of the United States.
And that is just a small sampling of the "Crap-tastic" things that have been going down lately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)