October 3rd, 2014
In the real "real World," Obama's consistent attack on Fox News, certain radio personalities, and Right-Wing bloggers, in fact, shows who's actually performing the traditional job of the fourth Estate.
Moreover, It certainly isn't any of the traditional networks, and very few indeed, within the mainstream media...
President Obama is taking heat for mocking Fox News over its coverage of his health care overhaul.
The president took the shot Thursday during a speech at Northwestern University in Illinois, as he defended his six-year record in office on the economy, on health care and on the budget.
He claimed fewer Republicans are "preaching doom on deficits" because deficits are lower.
On ObamaCare, he added: "There's a reason fewer Republicans, you hear them running about ObamaCare --- because while good, affordable health care might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News, it's turns out it's working pretty well in the real world."
But Tim Graham, director of media analysis with the Media Research Center,slammed the president for his remarks.
"Now ask yourself: Did President George W. Bush ever trash a news network like that?" he wrote on NewsBusters. "Did he ever make a major speech and take a whack at Keith Olbermann? Republicans avoid that, because you can upset the entire liberal media with a remark like that.
"But Obama bashing Fox is completely acceptable, apparently."
Graham recalled how Bush was pilloried in the media after being caught on a hot mic calling a New York Times reporter a "major league a-hole."
"ABC and NBC led off their nightly newscasts with that mini-scandal," Graham noted.
The president's comments were picked up widely on media news sites, including MediaBistro.com -- one commenter on their article said: "If only this man hated terrorists as much as he hated FOX News ...."
Trending in Fox Politics
October 2nd, 2014
By Barry Secrest
The simple answer to America's vulnerability to Ebola would be to completely halt all incoming flights from any West Africa country until the danger has passed.
However, the CDC head, Dr. Tom Frieden via the Obama regime, somehow, just doesn't see it that way.
As a matter of fact, the CDC's director believes that allowing flights from infected African nations somehow lowers our risk, while he inversely states that isolating or halting the West African flights to America actually increases our risk.
Since when do the stated medical principles of Quarantine somehow heighten the possibility of infections?
The first actual case of US diagnosed Ebola appeared because of a native Liberian who flew into the US after handling a dead Ebola victim in his native country.
When asked by Fox and Friend's Steve Doocy on whether America should be afraid, Frieden stated "absolutely not."
FRIEDEN: "The impulse might be to isolate these countries. If we do that, we'll actually be increasing our own risk because, really, the simple truth is, by stopping it there and by helping them stop it there, we're helping ourselves."
It would appear that once again, the inverse reasoning of Liberal logic will prevail, however the question becomes how many deaths will occur as a result of the regime's most recent spate of rabid political correctness?
Both Great Britain and France, among others, whose leaders do appear to show at least some modicum of leadership ability, have halted all flights from any West African nations.
If a breakout in America does occur and it's learned that the Obama White House or State Department was directly involved in the extraordinary decision of not halting all flights, there will be yet another hard-hitting congressional investigation.
Assuming, that is, that there is enough Congressional representation remaining alive to conduct the investigation.
October 2nd, 2014
What If? / Antimatter
"What if everything was antimatter, EXCEPT Earth?" Sean Gallagher
This one doesn't end well for us. But—unlike most scenarios involving the word "antimatter"—the end is surprisingly slow and drawn-out.
The whole universe is matter, as far as we can tell. No one is sure why there's more matter than antimatter, since the laws of physics are pretty symmetrical, and so there's no reason to expect there to be more of one than the other.
It's possible that galaxies are made of antimatter, and we just haven't noticed because we haven't tried to touch them. This is a cool idea, but if there are zones of matter and zones of antimatter, we should see a telltale gamma-ray glow from the boundary between the zones. So far, we haven't seen that, although another telescope might help.
If the rest of the universe were swapped out for antimatter, we'd be in trouble. Outer space isn't really "space"; it's full of a thin gas.
The Earth's magnetic field protects us from the solar wind, and would protect us from an anti-solar wind, too. A tiny fraction of the particles from the Sun do reach the Earth, funneled down by our magnetic field, and create the aurora. In this scenario, the aurora would get a lot brighter, but most of the time not bright enough to really cause problems.
Meteorites would be the real problem.
The Earth sweeps up space dust as it travels around its orbit. About 100 tons of dust per day enters the atmosphere in the form of tiny grains, most weighing about 10^-5 grams. An additional similar average per-day amount arrives in giant clumps all at once.
This inflow of antimatter dust would collide with the top of our atmosphere and be annihilated. The interactions between the nuclei and antinuclei and protons and antiprotons would be complex, but the end result would be a lot of gamma rays, which would turn into a lot of heat. This steady flow of material (which would be worst around dawn, when your house was facing in the direction of Earth's motion).
The heat and light added by the antimatter would most likely be enough to tip the Earth into a "runaway greenhouse" scenario, turning the Earth into something resembling Venus.
But the big asteroids would get us first. Even a relatively small object like the Chelyabinsk meteor would deliver as much energy as the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Fairly large asteroids enter the atmosphere every few months—mostly unnoticed. If they were all antimatter, each one would trigger a tremendous pulse of energy in the sky and ignite a massive firestorm.
Right now, it's still an open question whether any significant percentage of the stuff in the sky is made of antimatter. It's probably not, but we'd need to build another orbiting gamma-ray telescope to really be sure.
However, it's easy to use a telescope to rule out one possibility: That everything in the sky is antimatter.
If you have a telescope, maybe you can get that result published.
October 2nd, 2014
The movement to ban the burka has been ongoing in Australia since 2010, largely as a result of the UN mass dumping of Mideast refugees into the nation. But now the movement has intensified prompting a surprising counter-Facebook movement of sympathy from some Australian women.....a thing ultimately laced in irony.
By Barry Secrest
After a Muslim Terrorist plot to mass behead "infidels" was recently uncovered in Autralia, ABC News is now reporting that a backlash against Islamic women has now seeded a new solidarity movement among non-Muslim women.
According to ABC News, "A new social media campaign [has been started] encouraging women to take a photo of themselves wearing a head scarf to show support for Muslim women and religious freedom."
The name of the movement is being called "Women in Solidarity with Hijabs (WISH)" and it has garnered 18,000 "likes" on the social community website, Facebook.
The counter-backlash in support of Muslim women, was triggered as a result of an informal impetus to ban the burka, which is a full body, face-covering, (typically) black garb making Islamic women virtually unidentifiable.
Photo from Kate Leany, ABC News
The founder of the group stated, "Every time we share these images the response that we get from everybody is just amazing."
"Not only do Australian Muslim women appreciate it, everybody is incredibly grateful that this mere gesture of sharing photos has a much broader impact on the community. "It's bringing it back to basics and saying we have a lot more in common than we have differences."
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot, finds the wearing of them by unidentifiable women as confrontational and wishes them not to be worn; however, Abbot further states that the government cannot tell people what to wear, quite obviously.
One Christian woman, who decided to wear the hijab for a week, stated: "People [are] asking if now I was wearing a hijab does that mean I support ISIS as well and really silly connections like that." "I walked into a petrol station and someone asked me if I was Muslim and I said 'no', because I'm wearing it as a show of solidarity, I'm not pretending to be of a faith that I'm not.
"When I answered 'no', they said well what are you wearing that for then? You look like one of them."
Them, in this usage, might be the key word-- in that the religious culture of Islam seems to make it very clear that Muslims often view themselves away and apart from most western culture traditional communities, in essence, they themselves purposefully author their isolation by virtue of willfully cordoning themselves in any given western society.
However, when this isolation collides in a three-way encounter with eastern Islamic terrorism against the self- same western cultural tradition, i.e. "kill the infidels," an explosion of backlash should not only be anticipated but rather even expected, among Westerners.
The ABC News report further indicates "Aicha Marhfour, a freelance journalist from Melbourne, said media attention should be focused on Muslim women actually being attacked or threatened.
"One of the key issues that I had and I think a lot of people also shared is that they're well meaning, but I think it's more important to hear from Muslims as opposed to people trying to feel our pain."
"It's all very well to wear the hijab for a day or to stand with your Muslim friends but really what you're doing is you're taking a nice photo, you're sharing a good intention," she said.
"But you're going to take off that scarf and you're going to move back into your life, which is free from the threats and intimidation that Muslim women regularly do face."
So, should Western women continue to wear the hijabs out of solidarity with Islamic women? Many would put forth that the adaptation of western values towards participating in Islam, via whatever means contrived, could be a sign of what Islam refers to as willful "dhimmitude," which is the Islamic subjugation of non-Muslims in any given society.
The chief irony within all of this is the extraordinary fact that women in virtually every Muslim society are treated as second class citizens at best, and even child-bearing sex slaves, at worst. Stonings, beheadings, rapes, genital mutilation, and then of course, denied individual rights to the point of not even allowing Muslim women to drive, would seem to make this particular movement an extreme hearkening back to the stone age for women.
Maybe women's suffrage isn't all that it's cracked up to be in the modern day --perhaps Western women the world-over will insistently doff their hijabs in a salute to the dark-ages of beastial treatment.
Indeed, the fact that a female Muslim community activist-lawyer from Afghanistan, actually began the movement in Australia could be referred to as sauce for the Western Gander, assuming the stated origination and intent of the movement is valid.
But, the true question becomes whether or not this movement might viral into other nations, as so many other movements have done before.
Will a hijab-Muslim solidarity movement for women arrive and be joyfully greeted and embraced in the US?
Don't count on it.....
October 2nd, 2014
Graph Source: TarheelRed.com
According to the Federal Reserve, the percentage of American families that own a small business is at the lowest level that has ever been recorded. In a report that was just released entitled “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances“, the Federal Reserve revealed that small business ownership in America “fell substantially” between 2010 and 2013.
Even in the midst of this so-called “economic recovery”, small business ownership in America has now fallen to an all-time low. If the economy truly was healthy, this would not be happening. And it isn’t as if Americans are flooding the labor market either. As I detailed yesterday, the labor force participation rate in this country is at a 36 year low. That would not be happening if the economy was actually healthy either. The truth is that the middle class in America is dying, and this new report from the Federal Reserve is more evidence of this very harsh reality.
In order to build wealth, middle class Americans either need to have their own businesses or they need good jobs. Sadly, the percentage of Americans that own a business continues to decline steadily. In the report that I mentioned above, the Federal Reserve says that the proportion of U.S. families that have an ownership interest in a small business fell from 13.3 percent in 2010 to a brand new all-time low of 11.7 percent in 2013.
This is one of the factors that is increasing the gap between the extremely wealthy and the rest of us in this country. And of course another of the major factors is the steady decline in good paying jobs.
The U.S. Competitiveness Project at Harvard Business School is chaired by professors Michael E. Porter and Jan W. Rivkin. It just released a new report entitled “An Economy Doing Half Its Job”, and it addressed the fact that the middle class is deeply struggling even though many large U.S. corporations have been thriving. The following is an excerpt from an article in the Boston Globe about this report…
In a statement, Porter added: “Shortsighted executives may be satisfied with an American economy where firms operating here are winning without lifting US living standards. But leaders with longer perspectives understand that companies can’t thrive for long while their workers and their communities struggle.”
Unfortunately, this is not likely to change any time soon. In fact, that same report discovered that Harvard Business School alumni foresee “falling pay and fewer openings for full-time jobs” for American workers in the years ahead…
U.S. workers face a dim future, with stagnant or falling pay and fewer openings for full-time jobs.
That’s the picture that emerges from a survey of Harvard Business School alumni.
More than 40 percent of the respondents foresee lower pay and benefits for workers. Roughly half favor outsourcing work over hiring staffers. A growing share prefer part-time employees. Nearly half would rather invest in new technology than hire or retain workers.
The Obama administration continues to tell us that the unemployment rate is “going down” and that the economy is recovering, but that does not match the reality of what most Americans are experiencing on a day to day basis.
As David Stockman recently so aptly put it, outside of health and education the U.S. economy has not produced a single job since mid-2000 even though our population has grown greatly since that time…
post code # A-8669