Examining Media Influence & Their Gullible Readers 

Is It Lack of Thought, or Just Plain Ignorance?

The Associated Press has a [link= http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/assault_weapons]story[/link] out on the gun ban that is set to sunset on Monday. The lack of thought and ignorance become apparent through the use of emotion. Emotion generally clouds rational thought. It's no wonder that most crimes are crimes of passion. When people get emotional they become irrational, and think less. In the case of anti-gun politics, it's no less apparent.

First example in the story is a shooting in San Francisco, Dianne Feinstein is quoted as saying "That building is one of the great economic citadels in the city, and you see this prestigious law firm. And then ? boom. Someone comes in, aggrieved, and goes right through the place." Now it's natural to be emotional and upset of such an incident, but will preventing law-abiding citizens from buying guns help? What if the people in that law firm had guns? Would this still have taken place?

The article then goes on to describe "loopholes," and goes on to quote Feinstein as saying "the bill's not perfect." No, it's not the bill. It's the fact that the emotion, though running at the time was not enough for a complete ban of all weapons. Had it been a ban of all weapons, we could then find ourselves with many new positions opening up in the legislature. You know why? Because, those people would have been voted out of office.

Associated Press also states that Feinstein has accused President Bush of staying silent on the gun ban issue, because he wants the backing of the NRA. Damn right he does. The NRA represent many US voters, who will most likely be voting to keep their rights, and not give them up to an oppresive government.

Reuters quotes John Kerry as saying "President Bush's failure to fight for a renewal of a ban on assualt weapons would make it easier for groups like al Qaeda to get the lethal guns." What a joke. Almost all the guns sold in the US are not of the type in the ban. In fact, most of those guns outlawed in the ban are never used for crime, and account for less than 1% of crimes with a firearm. Sounds like Kerry is trying to tug at your emotional senstivities of the terrorist attacks on this country. It's too bad that so few people realize that all Kerry will do is pull troops out of the Middle East and hope US citizens forget about 9/11, and the threat of future terrorist attacks. What do you think Clinton did after the WTC bombing in the early nineties? He hoped people would forget and it seems most people did until 2001.

"Assault Weapon Ban"

The legislature under Clinton managed to ban some semi-automatic weapons 10 years ago. The sunset on that ban is in the coming weeks. Senator Dianne Feinstein helped drive the ban 10 years ago, and is back on trying to save it. What she doesn't realize is that a lot of senators that initially voted for the bill have since been pushed out of the senate. Her only saving grace is that she lives in California, a state which will tolerate bans on their freedom, not to mention super-high taxes and incredible debt. Their debate always focuses on trying to make these semi-automatic weapons seem like they are the choice weapons of crimes, when in reality less than 1% of all crimes with guns are used by the guns that were banned. Studies have proven that the guns most often used in crimes are those that are most common, like the 380 auto. This makes sense, since crimes with guns are often crimes of passion and the most convienent weapon is the weapon of choice. That is why many people are stabbed to death.

What's more interesting is that Feinstein believes that she will get support from the president. How much more wrong could she be. She doesn't realize the power of the voting public, and the fact that there are millions of gun owners. The vast majority of those gun owners are going to vote for Bush. Why would he slap them in the face just before a major election.

I recent AFP article claims that 50 officers died due to assault weapons in the last 6 years. That's strange, I thought there was a ban? Perhaps we should conclude the ban is meaningless, since it doesn't prevent crime. But no, what does the AFP author write about? He quotes the Brady group saying that it is due to Bush's failure to push for weapons ban. Could it be more absurd? There other thing they always fail to mention is that 68% of all deaths with firearms ae suicides. Yes, that's right suicides. There are also more deaths by drug overdose them homicides with guns. There are more alcohol-induced deaths than homicides. Why the big issue with guns? Why doesn't Feinstein and the rest spend more effort on fighting drugs?

The fact of the matter is that these people want to be sheep. They want to be told what they can and can't do. They don't want to have to save for retirement, or healthcare. They want their government to baby them. I don't! I want my freedoms. I'll side with Ben Franklin. I'd rather live in a dangerous freedom, than a peaceful slavery.

Taxes - Bush Tax Cuts and Kerry's Agenda

Bush talks about giving money back to the people through tax cuts, in an effort to rebuild the economy. Kerry talks about taxing the rich in order to pay for national services like healthcare. Or as Kerry puts it, "make the rich pay their fair share." First, let's look at what has been done by the incumbent.

Bush, has made a some large tax cuts during his 4 years. Most critics claim these tax cuts are aimed at the rich. To understand if this claim is true, you must first understand the tax system. Federal income taxes in the US are paid based on the amount of income you make. The income is then taxed at different percentages for each bracket the IRS has defined. Those taxes can then be offset by tax deductions and tax credits, which are given based on a variety of criteria. The lowest tax brakcet during the Clinton administration was 15%. The Bush tax cuts dropped the lowest tax bracket from 15% to 10%. Since, the lowest tax bracket was changed, this obviously helps all taxpayers. However, the lowest tax bracket accounts for so little of rich wage earner's income that it is insignificant. The top tax bracket, which is the most significant for rich taxpayers moved from 38.6% to 35%. That amount is 3.6%, which is quite the 5% of the lower tax bracket. Also, the lowest tax bracket dropped by 33% overall, where the top tax bracket only changed by 9%. Most people might scoff and say that it equates to a lot less taxes paid for rich wage earners, but then they'd be overlooking the fact that by changing the lower tax brackets by so much has actually removed 7.8 million families from paying any taxes at all. You see, what was overlooked is the fact that the lower wage earners get lots of tax credits like the child tax credit which was doubled from $500 to $1000 by the Bush tax cuts. See here for more information.

Now for the shocking facts. When taxpayers go to file their 2004 taxes before April 14, 2005, 33% of them will have no tax liability. In other words, roughly 44 million taxpayers will have given the federal government no part of their income for the 2004 tax year. Hard to imagine? Then you need to learn more about who really pays taxes, and stop listening to one-liners from the media and politicians. A great site to learn more aout who is paying the taxes is the Tax Foundation.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

At lot has been said over the SBVT, and whether or not Kerry deserved the medals he got. It seems Kerry only served for 4 months in Vietnam. During which time he supposedly earns 5 medals. He later returns the US and begins his anti-war activities. First off, I can see where many vets would be upset over the anti-war activities. Those activities made it unbearable for many veterans to return and live their life. Now to the fact of whether or not John Kerry's boat was underfire and did he deserve the medals. It seems many vets that were there claim he didn't deserve, also a few claim he did. We may never know the truth.

The things that interests me is the media's tactics in trying to claim that Bush is behind the SBVT. Take the following recent article for example: AP article. The article starts ot by noting that two of the vets involved in the SBVT were appointed to a VA advisory board by Bush trying to insinuate the impropriety on the part of Bush. In other words, that he traded an appointment for this favor. This of course couldn't be the case since those appointments happened before anyone know Kerry would be the Democrats nominee. Secondly, Galanti was appointed to the same adivsory panel many years ago under Bush Sr. Next, they find a contributor to SBVT who also contributed to the Bush campaign. Consider the chances of that. Obviously 100%. Most political contributors, contribute to many different political activities, and there are thousands of these people. Finding a match is inevitable and means nothing. They then proceed to note that some of people that belong to the SBVT didn't serve when Kerry did. So what? They never all claimed to. They just stand behind there fellow vets who do. And lastly, they pull a quote from one of the vets that didn't serve when Kerry did "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam." At least they state the obvious that he was referring to Kerry's anti-war activities. Read the quote again, and you will most certainly agree.

NBC Coverage of the Republican Convention

It never ceases to surprise me, but it certainly seemed that Dan Rather was almost upset at having to cover the Republican convention. Last night after Laura Bush's speech, he couldn't help himself. He just had to rant about how he felt things looked (with his liberal bias), rather than sum up the speech highlights. He and his female cohort then proceed to mention the democrats in every other sentence. But if you think about it, when has the news ever not been biased? When the printing presses first started to deliver newspapers, even then they came out with what is known as "yellow journalism" and it continues to this day. Of course today, the goal along with being political is to make money. So, there is no wonder than Dan can't sit there and be objective. He has no intention of being objective. Fortunately, their are other avenues of coverage.

I for one thought that Laura Bush made a strong point that the country of Afghanistan is a better place. We as Americans are so used to our freedoms, that we take them for granted. Many of us have forgotten what it took to get here. The American Revolution was only the start. We had yet to abolish slavery and give women voting rights. In countries like Afghanistan, women weren't even allowed to attend school let alone vote. Now the country is going to hold an election with hundreds of thousands of women voters. How can that be worth nothing? I can't say I agree with Bush on everything, far from it. But, Laura Bush's speech last night deserved better than Dan Rather's shameless attempt at editorializing her content. But with the advent of the Internet, hopefully the days of the Dan are coming to an end.

Michael Moore is a Fat Jackass

It's always surprising to me that the media loves to hear from directors, movie stars, and professional athletes. They always seem fairly detached from the real world, and almost always view everything from a strictly emotional standpoint. Take for instance, Michael Moore. He goes out and creates movies to project his political views. In those movies he pruposeful distorts the facts in order to "hollywoodize" and overdramatize the situation. This way everyone can get the panties in a bunch and make some sniveling, uninformed comment about how we need to do something. And all that does is help overeating windbags like Michael Moore make more money. Do you think he cares that he distorted the facts? Does he realize what real entrepenuers are doing to make value-added technology and services?

For those of you who fell victim to any of his movies, you should consider getting a brain. As far as I know, you cannot buy one, but instead you must actually attend school, read books, and consider everything you hear, see, touch or smell with some critical thinking on occasion. Should you find this hard, please refrain from voting, speaking, or being a general nuisance.

For those of you who unsure if Michael Moore is fat, this image should rejog your apparently no-so-lucid memory.
Michael Moore

  1 - 6 of 6 articles  

On This Site

  • About this site
  • Main Page
  • Most Recent Comments
  • Complete Article List
  • Sponsors

Search This Site

Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy

Free Blog Hosting