China issues media rules for stories on Google

This is the kind of thing that makes me long for the old days - when we stood up for and only did business with entities supportive of American ideals. To wit, why are we sending billions upon billions of dollars to China in trade when this is how China treats their people? It's not only disgraceful of China to do this, but extra disgraceful of us here in America to enrichen them with huge business contracts. But not so for Google.

Having gotten a taste of China's information policies firsthand, Google pulled the plug.  Mucho kudos to them; Now, there's an American international company  that behaves as it should.

Google is in the minority. Despite China's distasteful practices regarding individual freedom, business is booming. I recently needed to make a purchase of an audio mixing console. I decided to "buy American,"or at least European, and was sad to discover that all of the companies who have manufactured in western countries for the last few decades have moved all of their manufacturing operations to China. This includes venerable American companies such as Peavey, located in Meridian Mississippi, but also sound equipment staples such as Soundcraft in the UK.

The companies hide behind the "realities of modern business" (one company posted that on their web site), but even so, do the realities of business trump the broader economic values of supporting the home economy? Only to the short-sighted.

More on this, including a solution, in an upcoming rant.

China issues media rules for stories on Google | Relevant Results - CNET News

The list of instructions, obtained by China Digital Times and published by The Washington Post, underscores the degree to which the Chinese government attempts to control the spread of information more than anything Google has ever said about search censorship. The list contains specific details on which types of stories can be published and asks media outlets in China to purge reader discussions from their pages that attack the government's view.

Obama Treats Allies Like he Should Treat Iran

I think the pressure from the healtcare debacle has gotten to Obama. he seems a little detached from reality.

FOXNews.com - Reports: Netanyahu 'Humiliated' by Obama Snub

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Benjamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

Is National Healthcare A Model for Internet Access?

This government seems to have the intent of giving everything to everyone for free. This time, at question is the internet - should access to it be free for everyone in their homes? And further, should the government fund a build-out of a competing system to the currently private enterprise?

Let's take a moment to note that everyone can already access the internet for free at their public library.

But even beyond that, it just goes to show how out of touch the government really is. For example, while the government is arguing for public construction of an internet that is about 10 times faster than what exists - and is satisfactory today- the hottest computer item these days are netbooks - small, inexpensive computers which are suited primarily for e-mail and internet browsing - tasks not at all reliant on super-fast internet. In other words, not needed.

This is typical of bureaucrats without a clue: let's throw technology at it. In this case, a solution which creates problems rather than solves them.

Why is it bad? For one, it places a requirement on businesses to relinquish bandwidth for which they have already paid (to the government, I might add) in order to provide unnecessary service (ultra high speed internet where modem speeds are adequate). For another, it takes away valuable bandwidth from spaces which need more already (the DOD, for example). For a third, why should people spend money to internet and phone companies when the government is giving this away for free? Fourth, there is no reason for the existing companies to maintain, much less improve, their services when others are flocking to the government's free service. Fifth, when the government system gets rolling (with the huge number of people certain to use it), the commercial system is sure to sag in performance. Sixth, the government is yet again meddling in a private market.

These are all excellent reasons to scrap the plan, all sure to fall on deaf progressive ears. The hallmark of the Democrats: let's see how much we can muck up a profitable competitive market. Shameless, they are. Power-hungry, too.

Who Hates the National Broadband Plan? - Reviews by PC Magazine

Are you ready for more Internet? That's the question that U.S. regulators will soon be asking, as Reuters is reporting that the Federal Communications Commission is set to reveal the National Broadband Plan on March 16.

While some details of the plan remain to be seen, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has already mentioned a few of the key highlights that the FCC will be recommending to Congress. These include a goal to connect 100 million Americans to 100 Mbps Internet within 10 years and the desire for television stations to give up unused spectrum to assist a growing market for wireless services, amongst others.

What is new, or perhaps unexpected, is some of the backlash that's coming back at the FCC from affected parties, including the very consumers that the National Broadband Plan is, in theory, designed to help.

...The FCC's National Broadband Plan isn't a complete boon for wireless companies--the FCC is also allegedly proposing a free (or low-cost) nationwide wireless network. The details of this plan haven't been released beyond that generalized description. However, the hint of it has been enough to rile up various mobile providers.

Not only would the government suddenly jump into the business of competing against established carriers, but--worse for consumers--said competition could dissuade mobile providers from caring as much about the general upkeep of their networks. For carriers, the question is this: Why invest in a paid-for network if everyone's flocking to the free solution just around the corner?

 ... A smattering of Internet responses from consumers reacting to some of the talked-about ideas in the National Broadband Plan reveals a fear that government regulation could stifle competition or otherwise enjoin U.S. policy with network performance. Here are a few examples of the general Web response to the FCC's thoughts:

"This will result in government takeover of the industry. It won't happen overnight, but incrementally. They already have the name for it: National Broadband, like National Health Care. They'll build infrastructure, increase access, give free access to "the underprivileged", and work with the big providers to squeeze out competition (corporate fascism)." --ebystrom

The Huge Scandal that probably won't be

There is a real problem with something done by the White House concerning upcoming elections that going very much under-reported: they tried to manipulate the elections. Many would say that this is just politics as usual, and therefore not a scandal at all. Except for the fact that what the White House did is a felony.

I think people have become too jaded, too accustomed to corruption such that we think it's business as usual.  But stop and think: do you really want your vote to count? Or do you prefer the thinking of Stalin: "It's not who gets the most votes, but who does the counting."

I'm talking about the White House's attempt to buy off Representative Joe Sestak.  The Democrats are so concerned about the midterm elections that they didn't want him running against the far-from-a-shoe-in Senator Arlen Spector. The White House, according to Sestak, offered him a high position in the government in exchange for his promise not to run against Spector.

In a normal sort of world, the outcome wouldn't matter, the two of them being in the same party.  However, Sestak has been critical of the Obama Administration and is opposed to the Obama-backed health care bill.

Wow, this is really HUGE stuff; maybe normal for Chicago, but not so for the free society we believe America to be.

Stay on top of this, and keep urging others to do the same. Keep on your elected officials, too, so it doesn't get buried in all the other trash put out by what now passes for "government."

FOXNews.com - GOP Lawmaker: White House Job Offer to Sestak Would Have Been a 'Crime'

A GOP lawmaker says that the White House committed a "crime" if it offered Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak a federal job in exchange for dropping his primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.

"That would be a crime to offer anybody a federal job," Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News on Friday.

For example, the California Republican said it would be a crime if he offered a staff job to anyone to help him win an election.
"It's the same for the executive branch," he said. "You can't promise ambassadorships to contributors and even worse, you cannot manipulate the races by saying we'll give you something else if you drop out. You can't do it."

Sestak, who is aggravating Democratic leaders by challenging Specter for the Senate nomination in Pennsylvania, said last month that the White House dangled a federal job in front of him last summer in an attempt to entice him to drop out of the state's Democratic primary.

Chock Full O' Nuts

The White House seriously wants to be judged in the upcoming election on on its performance relating to healthcare. Seriously, read below. Hubris has always been known to be a bad thing, but I say bring it on!

FOXNews.com - White House Challenges Republicans to Use Health Care for 2010 Election

Expressing an increasing confidence that a massive health care overhaul will pass Congress -- despite dire warnings from Republicans about its impact on Democrats in November -- White House officials on Sunday dared the GOP to bring it on during this fall's 2010 midterm election.

Pelosi: We Know Best

So the lead democrat in the house is saying: "Disregard the people's will." Unbelievable, and that is un-American.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue's massive role in this election year.

source: FOXNews.com - Pelosi: Lawmakers Should Sacrifice Jobs for Health Care

Frank: Partisanship is out of control in Congress - wtop.com

This is unbelievable - Frank says partisanship is out of control, then lambasts Bayh for not staying to change a rule that will ensure strengthened partisanship.

Frank: Partisanship is out of control in Congress - wtop.com

AMHERST, Mass. (AP) - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts said Tuesday that Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is right that partisan politics on Capitol Hill are getting out of control, but Frank said his fellow Democrat could do more to change that by staying in Congress than by stepping out of politics.

"I don't understand how you make things better from the outside. I share the frustration, but I would have hoped he would have stayed around and voted to change the filibuster rule," Frank said

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1889885

Public Policy Polling: Fox leads for trust

When I was studying journalism, one the professors said a valuable thing: that no one can report a story without editing it.

I think all media outlets all have an agenda, but in my own experience, Fox does less of the "gatekeeping" than the other major news outlets.

With that said, one of the worst things I believe any news outlet can have is a political agenda. I am against any enterprise which holds the public trust - particularly those involved in dissemination of information - in taking any position. It leads to people developing a skewed perception and therefore inaccurate way of thinking about the world. Some call this "wrong-headed."

We saw it happen with the 2008 election: if one relied solely on the major broadcast news sources, he'd come away with the sense that Obama offered the greatest hope for the future, and would change everything for the good.

One year after he was elected, Obama has demonstrated nothing of the sort. He is really just another politician looking to control things the way he wants to. His actions have alienated young voters. Youthful political particpants are vulnerable to this sort of thing because they have virtually no experience with the workings of the world, and therefore haven't learned what liars and ideologs polticians can be. In Obama and the Democrats, they learned.

Had these voters watched Fox (rather than derided them as harshly as they did), they would have had a different perspective: one that was not entirely negative, but raised serous questions into Obama's readiness and comport for the office. Wisdom is the key.

The point is, when a news outlet doesn't ask hard questions and take an oppositional stance - whether they support a candidate or not - they will never learn the truth about anything. Intellectuals like to talk about the postmodern idea of deconstruction, in which oppositional stances are taken particularly for the sake of critical analysis, but in Obama, they didn't do this. I guess they were too busy enjoying that shiver up their leg.


Public Policy Polling: Fox leads for trust

Liars.

The other night I was watching an NBC News "expose" regarding the state of the health insurance industry.  The show was part of the dateline franchise and was called "Critical Condition." One of the reports involved a young girl, Nataline Sarkisyan, diagnosed with and treated for leukemia, but who ultimately died because, as NBC's Ann Curry wanted us to believe, because she didn't receive a liver transplant.

Several things were just so outrageously wrong, they had to be lies.  They involve the claimed costs, and the reasoning for the liver transplant.

First off were the cited costs. CBS said the treatment, a bone marrow transplant which is the usual course for leukemia, can cost $700,000.00. I have done video work regarding leukemia, and have been close to those treating the disease. I know how involved the procedure can be.  But, Wow, I thought, that's expensive.   So I checked.  The actual numbers for a bone marrow transplant range from $50,000 to $200,000 for the really complex ones. So how can CBS be so wrong? Because they wanted to be.

First off, journalism isn't rocket science.  Meaning, no one's life is at stake if a few numbers are wrong.  They think that the important thing is to make your point.  However, with the backdrop of Obama's healthcare reform initiative, which specifically addresses costs, don't these numbers have a special meaning? And isn't accuracy especially important because of it?

It looks like NBC News was trying to fire up viewers to feel as though costs are completely out of control.  If one accepts $700K for a BMT, than that assumption would be true.  But if a BMT (a pretty involved procedure, by the way), is correctly marked at $50K, the whole issue looks different. And I haven't addressed the liver transplant yet.

The girl's family insisted that she receive the liver transplant recommended by her physician.  Note that the discussion didn't go into issues such as why her liver had failed.  Point-of-fact, the poor girl was dying, and her organs began to fail. A liver transplant might have extended her life for a few weeks, but no more. In the end, her insurer approved the new liver, but Natalione dies before the procedure could be performed.

I'm not discussing whether or not she deserved it.   But I will say, had she received a new liver then died a few weeks later, that the liver she used would have been unavailable to someone who was less ill, someone whose life could have been saved for years. It's not like we send out to WalMart for a liver; they are hard to come by. This mode of thinking is called triage, and is, at best, difficult. It's life and death. But it has to be done to favor the greater good over the lesser.

So, what should we think about NBC? They munged up all the facts, bending  them to suit. The story was very compelling, and made the health insurer look mean and evil. But the bottom line is that they did everything reasonable to save the girl's life. At no additional cost to the family.

People die. But family members need to accept that it's seldom someone else's fault. The mother of the girl and the tone of the story definitely went that way.

The clarion call of the media used to be Accuracy, but no more. I am reminded on a line from the film, 12 Monkeys - "there's no right, there's no wrong, there's only public opinion."

The moral of the story: Distrust the media.

Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

Corporate rivals of Checchi were reluctant to speak on the record about the no-bid contract awarded to his firm because they feared possible retribution by the Obama administration in the awarding of future contracts.

"We don't want to be blackballed," said the managing partner of a consulting firm that has won similar contracts. "You've got to be careful. We're dealing here with people and offices that we depend on for our business."

Still, the rival executive confirmed that open bidding on USAID's lucrative Afghanistan "rule of law" contract was abruptly revoked by the agency earlier this year.

"It's a mystery to us," the managing partner said. "We were going to bid on it. The solicitation (for bids) got pulled back, and we do not know why. We may never know why. These are things that we, as companies doing business with the government, have to put up with."

As a candidate for president in 2008, then-Sen. Obama frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.

"I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all," the senator told a Grand Rapids audience on Oct. 2. "The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I'm in the White House."

FOXNews.com - Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

Health Care Countdown: Young People Could Bear Brunt of Insurance Mandate

So you kids wanted change, and voted for it and got it. How does it feel? Perhaps you feel a bit "lighter;" you should.

Winston Churchill said that anyone who is young and not liberal has no heart, but anyone who is older and not conservative has no brains. Something to that.

Now, chillun, what have we learned?

FOXNews.com - Health Care Countdown: Young People Could Bear Brunt of Insurance Mandate:

"Young adults are in for a wake-up call if health care reform passes.

For the first time ever, the federal government is going to require that everybody obtain health insurance coverage. For those who have insurance through their employers, the so-called individual mandate may have very little impact. But for young adults, many of whom are not currently covered, the health care bill will add a new and costly expense to their budgets.

'The Census Bureau tells us there are 18 million people between the ages of 18 and 35 who are uninsured -- roughly half of the uninsured population are younger people in that age group,' said Anne Kim, with the non-profit think tank Third Way.

The individual mandate has teeth to it, and anyone who refuses to get coverage will be fined under the health care package."

Obamacare summed up beautifully

FOXNews.com - Lieberman Will Vote Against Health Care Bill:

"Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell gave no indication of backing down.
'With the American people as overwhelmingly opposed to this bill as they are, for the Democrats to basically, arrogantly take the position that we're going to ignore public opinion and jam this through before Christmas, I think that's really a stretch,'
said McConnell, R-Ky."