American Citizens News Network

July 17, 2008

The Facts

CNBC is our recognized business channel. Although I am not an investor anymore, I like to watch CNBC off and on during the day in order to stay abreast of what’s going on in the business world. In this effort, I’ve noticed a trend on CNBC that is troubling; many of their anchors and reporters are openly disclosing their personal biases, and have started “arguing” with those who disagree with them.

My View

When I first started hearing and seeing what at the time were just little innuendoes of these biases on CNBC, I dismissed it. However, over the past year or so it seems they have become more blatant, so I asked a couple of friends who also watch CNBC what they thought. I was a little surprised with what they said, especially since they both lean toward supply-side politics, but that was the very reason I asked them rather than some other friends. My surprise was that they agreed with me.

Not all the CNBC anchors and reporters fit into the category of “open biases”. Mark Hanes, Joe Kernen, Steve Liesman, Sue Herera, and a couple of others don’t let their biases come out, and they occasionally take issue with those who do. David Faber, Suze Orman, and Bob Pisani occasionally show theirs, but not often. But Erin Burnett, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, Jim Cramer, Melissa Francis, Larry Kudlow (although you expect that from his own show), Becky Quick, Trish Regan, Rick Santelli, and a few others leave no doubt who they support. Melissa Lee and Jane Wells occasionally do also.

I don’t know; maybe I have a different idea of what anchors and reporters are suppose to do. When I was a young man, reporters reported just the news and the facts, and often challenged interviewees when it was obvious they weren’t being totally honest or moral. But it seems in today’s news world it’s a competition of who can better sale their personal beliefs and convictions. You expect these biased views from politicians and people who have something to loose or gain by pushing a certain agenda, but that is not what I expect from news reporters. I do expect them to report opposing views when applicable, but I don’t expect them to attempt to impose their personal biases. We all know there’s enough of that in the news media already. That is the unpublished “mission statement” of some news organizations, and I accept that although I don’t approve of it. But when you watch those news outlets, that’s what you’re watching them for.

It’s not just that there are those on CNBC who show their biases; they aggressively argue with another anchor, reporter, or guests who have differing views and opinions. They try to intimidate or force them to change their minds. Take this week for example. During the second day of the Bernanke Q & A in front of the House Financial Services Committee, in an attempt to quite a couple of those biased anchors and reporters, Mark Hanes said “ the Federal Reserve and others is for a free market—————until they aren’t”. He was obviously referring to the Feds bailing out failing big private businesses with taxpayer money, but think individuals and small businesses that made bad financial decisions should be “allowed to fail or succeed”. But it was obvious the others weren’t overjoyed with Hanes comment. Relative to this recession we’re in, many of the anchors and reporters are now mimicking their favorite “experts” who are saying the only problem with our economy is a “lack of confidence”. Even during the House Financial Services Committee hearing with Bernanke, one member even referred to that phrase as a bunch of bunk, and an excuse to avoid the real problem. (He, the committee member, and others refer to the term as “Voodoo Economics”) A day or two ago, there was a bit of positive news in the stock market, something that hasn’t exist for a while. Erin Burnett seemed to be a bit upset that a big deal wasn’t being made over this. Her comment was “Nobody seems to care about good news; what’s going on with that?” I guess she forgot about the recession (almost depression), the failing financial industry, the millions of lost jobs, the soaring price of oil and gasoline, the deteriorating dollar, our skyrocketing debt, etc., etc., etc. Then today Michelle Caruso-Cabrera even tried to “justify” tax evaders who were hiding their money overseas when she and Sue Herera were interviewing Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Coleman is the Chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Caruso-Cabrera interrupted Coleman by trying to compare the US to other overseas countries who are tax havens. She seemed to be insisting that if we were going to stop Americans who were evading taxes, we should also be stopping foreigners who invest in the US and don’t pay taxes. In other words, at least in my view, in part she was trying to defend US tax evaders by saying they should be left alone if we aren’t going to go after those foreigners who were doing the same thing. And she insisted on arguing the point, but Coleman stood his ground with her.

The most popular tactic these anchors use to win over their argument and/or make their point is to rudely “step on” the guest. By this, I mean as soon as they realize the opponent is disagreeing with them or saying what they don’t want to hear, they very quickly interrupt them. Then, if they are not completely successful with that tactic, time for the segment seems to “suddenly expire”. Maybe it’s just my imagination, but time seems to expire for the segment more often with opponents than with allies. As a reporter, you expect them to interrupt if the guest is avoiding the question; however, just because they are disagreeable is no cause for interruption.

“Privatized profits and socialized looses”, something I wrote about a few months ago, is a phrase that is starting to be used a lot in the face of our government bailing out big private business such as Bear Stearns and others, and now, possibly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You should be watching CNBC when that phrase is used by a co-worker or a guest. You can see the disdain in the faces of those I speak of. It’s as though they don’t care anymore that you know of their biases. The bottom line for me here is that if these “reporters” want to enter an arena of voicing their personal biases, they should find another venue, such as a commentator or an “opinion” forum. There is no place for that in reporting the business news of the day. Then again, maybe CNBC is just afraid of Rupert Murdoch, and is promoting this kind of “reporting”. You may remember Murdoch claimed the reason he was starting his business channel was because CNBC is too “business unfriendly”.

July 14, 2008

The Facts

In a highly unusual move the Federal Reserve invited camera’s into their meeting today while they approved some new rules for mortgage lenders. Supposedly the new rules will prevent the kind of predatory lending that has taken place over the past several years which resulted in the financial meltdown we are currently in. However, the new rules do not take affect until October 2009, over a year from now.

My View

Dozens of things ran through my mind when I learned of this, and none of them are good. The first thing I asked was why must we wait over a year before the new rules are implemented? There is but one answer; “grab & run”. Every sensible person in the country knows those rules could be implemented immediately if the Federal Reserve wanted to. But politics and the old “buddy system” must take first priority. According to the report, the Feds had to “make some concessions to industry executives”, because they, the executives, “fear” too much oversight. Now does that surprise anyone? The reason we are in this mess now is because they didn’t have enough oversight as it was. And, of course, to put some icing on the cake, the Feds left some very nice loopholes in the new rules for future abuse. How many more hundreds of billions of dollars will be stolen from the American taxpayer over the next year and through the loopholes? Another thing the Feds bowed down to was removing a proposal that would have prevented banks from paying brokers for “steering homeowners into higher priced loans”. Now your broker will make more money if he can cheat you, the buyer, out of more money. Finally, the Mortgage Bankers Association got the Feds to be “open” to more possible changes before the rules go into affect. Aaaaahhhhhh! Now we know why it’s going to be 15 months before the rules are changed. I suspect that by the time the new rules take affect, they will look nothing like they are now. Isn’t it great to have friends in high places!?

One other thing that came into my mind was the dozens of news organizations, and their “unbiased” guest, who were defending the lenders when the news first broke earlier this year. All you could hear out of these people was how it wasn’t the lenders fault; it was “those greedy, worthless borrowers who knew they couldn’t afford the loan”. Well, there’s a certain amount of truth in that, but as mortgage companies confidential emails, memo’s, and ex-employees come out and exposed the lenders conscious intent to make those bad loans, you don’t hear so much defending going on. But that doesn’t matter now; those trickle down economic advocates obtained their objective, which was to deflect the real cause of the disaster and garner up support from those who think they, the advocates, are gods. It’s the old adage of “if I can deflect the attention away from me, I’m free to continue my misdeeds”.

July 9, 2008

The Facts

On CNBC this morning Nouriel Roubini of RGE Monitor said the financial markets credit looses will go beyond $300 billion and reach $1 trillion. (RGE Monitor is a global economic and financial analysis firm based in New York City with additional offices in Asia and Europe, and ranked as one of the world’s best economic web sites.) Roubini teaches economics at NYU, and has an excellent record in his economic forecasting (even Becky Quick of CNBC admitted that, which was surprising). He’s very pessimistic about the future of our economy, and expects the current recession to get worse and “be long & protracted”. Relative to the financial crisis, Roubini predicts it will be the worst one since the great depression of 1929, that hundreds of banks will go bankrupt, and a government bailout will be of little help. Roubini also pointed to the 62,000 jobs that were lost in June as further evidence of an impending bad recession when coupled with the fact that we now have had six straight months of job looses.

My View

Democratic Governor Joe Corzine of New Jersey was also a guest on CNBC this morning talking about the economy, and the differences of how Barak Obama and Joe McCain propose to handle the economic situation. Corzine was pointing out how the Republicans want to spend & spend and not come up with a way to pay for the spending (this use to be the Democrats). It seems the Republicans want to spend the money, but don’t want the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. They seem to figure if they just “charge it”, the middle class and lower class taxes can pay for it later; if it gets paid at all.

Joe Corzine is a very well experienced economic politician. He is low keyed and doesn’t get rattled by the aggressors. Becky Quick and Joe Kernen of CNBC tried a couple of times to trick him up, but it didn’t work. When Corzine mentioned that incomers of $250 thousand and more weren’t paying their fair share of taxes, Quick said “$250 thousand doesn’t go as far in New Jersey as it does in the mid-west”, implying most people in New Jersey shouldn’t have to pay their fair share of taxes because it cost more to live there than in other places. Corzine shot back immediately saying 90% of the people in New Jersey made $100 thousand or less. Speaking directly to Quick, he went on to say “I hate this trickle down stuff, and that’s what you are talking about, under McCain and the last 7 or 8 years of Bush”. Quick quickly shut up (no pun intended). To support the trickle down economics flaw, Corzine pointed out that in the 1990’s (under Clinton) we had a 22 million job increase, while under Bush we have had only a 6 million job increase. He finished off that portion of his comments by saying “maybe the people who watch your show are not being bothered with the economy, but the vast majority is getting crushed”. The entire interview with Joe Corzine was extremely enlightening. You should go here and watch it. It’s 10 1/2 minutes long, but worth it.

Right after Corzine, CNBC had Mitt Romney on. This seemed to make the host smile with pleasure and delight. Romney was introduced with great fanfare and music. Joe Kernen started the interview by saying “I tried to ask Corzine some questions, but he was so smooth I couldn’t lay a glove on him”, and said to Romney “maybe you could counteract what Corzine said”. And, of course, Romney did, but it was with very flawed facts and disinformation. But to be fair, Kernen did ask Mitt Romney some tough questions, to which Romney answered in typical political fashion, which was really no answer at all. However, he didn’t miss out on the opportunity to mention “reigning in spending”, which was immediately followed up with that dirty word “entitlements”, which means Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; all those things middle and lower class people eventually come to rely on. But he conveniently ignored the fact that tax breaks and other “goodies” given to the wealthy & corporations is also “spending”; which now is also considered an “entitlement” by those recipients. If you like, you can watch Romney’s interview.

Both politicians, Corzine and Romney, were basically promoting their respective Presidential candidates and throwing rocks at their opponents. But when it comes to the proposed tax plan each candidate has officially filed, the facts speak for themselves. I wrote a post on this last month, and once you read that and all the supporting documentation, you to will know the facts, whether you want to accept them or not.

As for CNBC host, with the rare exception of one or two, they certainly come across as supporting the political right. (And to think Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, started his business channel because he thinks “CNBC is too anti-business”.) Any guest who speaks too negatively about the economy, growth, or the market while under a Republican President, they (the host) try to get them to reword their comments or change what they are saying. If they can’t, they just wait until the interview is over and then try to debunk them when the guest is no longer around to defend. And you certainly can’t take the word of the many investment managers CNBC has as guest. They are never going to give the market or the economy a bad report card. If investors stop investing, those managers are loosing big money. Even while the “Bullish” market is at 27.4%, the lowest it has been since 1994, the investment managers are saying the Bear market is over. Most say all will be well in “XX” months, so “now is the time to invest”. Naturally, since no one has a crystal ball to refute them, they have nothing to loose; and if they are wrong, no one will remember what they said.

CNBC often cites the result of their on-line and television polls on these issues. Sure, their polls are going to be positive about the economy and the markets; as I said before, the vast majority of the people who watch CNBC are in that upper 5%, and not only will that 5% not be bothered by the bad economy, they have much to loose if they support the idea the economy is severely damaged. So I put little credence in CNBC polls.

My bottom line on this post is that we are in a recession by its basic definition, regardless of the arguments, and it is going to get much worse. We can thank the Bush administration and the changes in laws he has insisted on for the markets and big businesses. However, if you are part of that 5% who has become wealthy, or wealthier, by those changes, you are happy and not bothered by the recession.

June 29, 2008

The Facts

On CNN’s Reliable Sources today host Howard Kurtz was discussing the latest sex scandal involving Lara Logan with Jonah Goldberg, National Review’s Editor-at-Large. Logan is CBS’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent. It seems that Logan had an affair with Joe Burkett, a State Department contractor for the US in Iraq. Joe and his wife Kimberly Burkett are divorcing, presumably over the affair. But this isn’t the entire story; evidently Logan was also having an affair with CNN’s Michael Ware at the same time. Ware is CNN’s International Correspondent.

During the discussion Kurtz asked Jonah Goldberg about the scandal. Goldberg replied, in effect, “when news organizations insist on making their news people celebrities, this sort of thing is going to happen”. He went on to say that celebrity magazines and others, including “this station” (meaning CNN), are making celebrities out of news people when they should be nothing more than reporters.

My View

And herein lies the truth and the problem; news reporters want to be nothing but celebrities, and they are encouraged to do so by management in an effort to improve ratings. That is the very reason we the public can not get the facts and nothing but the facts about a news story. I use to say the reason I watched CNN’s Headline News was because they reported only the news and didn’t try to “explain” to me what the news meant, what I was suppose to think, and which political party was responsible for bad news. However, now that their anchors have joined the fray of CNN, Fox, and others in competing as celebrities, their news reporting has “gone to hell” right along with the rest.

During the interview, I noticed that Howard Kurtz conveniently “skipped over” Goldberg’s comment about news people being celebrities. Kurtz obviously wasn’t interested in addressing that remark. Until the business side of the news media decides that it is more important to report the news as it is instead of becoming a celebrity organization, we can expect no more than we are getting.

June 23, 2008

The Facts

Oil prices are now a huge part of every daily news show and many discussion segments. It seems that anyone who is given the opportunity to be on television is offering their reason(s) as to why oil has doubled within the past year. Those reasons range from a basic supply & demand issue to a conspiracy issue. There is any number of explanations, with many variations, depending upon who you are listening to.

My View

On CNBC’s Power Lunch today there was a segment entitled Saudi Arabia Oil Summit. Kyle Cooper with IAF Advisors and Arthur Gelber of Gelber & Associates were the guest. CNBC’s Melissa Francis, who has just returned from the summit, participated in the discussion. Nothing unusual about this segment by today’s standards except for one thing Arthur Gelber said. While addressing what part speculators had played in the current price of oil, Gelber said (in reference to speculators) “a different word should be used”. My mind immediate turned to how the term “trickle down economics” has been changed not once but twice over the past decade or so. This latter term was changed because Wall Street & politicians realized the average American worker had become too savvy to what it meant, which was putting more of our tax dollars in the pockets of large businesses without any real return. So I wondered if there was an attempt to apply this same strategy to speculators. I didn’t have to wait long to realize my suspicion was right. In the very next segment, CNBC host were picking up on this. One even said maybe someone could come forward with a new word and definition. So here we go. If you are familiar with any of my stuff, you will already know my point of view on this; “if the definition of a word or phrase is uncomfortable to you, just change the definition or apply a different word”. One last thought on Gelber’s comment. On Gelber & Associates web site under “About Us & Our Work”, you will find the following; “Gelber & Associates is a nationally recognized energy consulting and advisory firm specializing in energy trading practices (bold added) and protocols”. So why do you suppose Gelber would like to use a different word for “speculator” in reference to what part speculators are playing in the price of oil. This bears repeating for this case: “If you are uncomfortable with the definition of a word, just change the word”.

 One other thing was discussed several times on CNBC today, and that was how production volumes would, or could, affect oil prices. Now we all know that under a true “supply & demand” scenario, as production increases to offset shortages, prices go lower. We have certainly been bombarded with that “fact” by the many politicians and oil industry leaders who are telling us that if oil companies are allowed to drill in restricted areas, oil prices will come down. Although I am in favor of opening up certain restricted areas, it’s very hard to believe them. All we have to do is look back over the past twelve months. Oil prices have doubled during that time. Are we to believe that the demand for oil has increased to such a level in just twelve months it justifies doubling the price? We have also been told by these same people that the price of oil will come down just on the news that we are going to open up these restricted areas. I have to certainly question that. With the news today that the Saudis has agreed to increase production by another 200,000 barrels a day, that brings the total production increase by the Saudis to 700,000 barrels over the past three months. And during that time oil has gone up about $30 per barrel. Added to that, gasoline usage has dropped by nearly 2% during that time in this country alone. Oh, sure, there could be all kinds of “reasons” argued for that. But there is only one real reason; the producers now know that, overall, most of their customers are willing to pay the current prices for gas. So it is no longer a supply & demand issue; it is an issue of “what people will pay”.

June 11, 2008

The Facts

CNN’s Ali Velshi was giving another report this morning on oil, just as all news outlets are doing now on a daily basis’s. Ali was dressed in a black three-piece suit today and had been wearing a sheriff’s “badge”, but taken it off for this report. He was giving his usual justifications for the current price of crude oil, but the major point in this particular piece was the bill that was put down in the Senate yesterday. That bill, among other things, would have place a windfall profit tax on several oil companies. In his support of the bill being defeated, Velshi said, among other things, that if we put this tax on the profits, oil companies would “just take their business elsewhere”.

My View

Before you start screaming at me, I am not in favor of a windfall profit tax. It’s not that I don’t think the oil companies (and others) need to be yanked out of the world of greed & corruption and back into the world of morality; it’s that I know this won’t work. The very least that would happen is that we’d all be paying higher prices for gasoline and all other consumer products. For that reason alone, it’s a stupid idea. It’s just another way for the idiot Democrats to get more tax money to spend foolishly. But there were some other things in that bill that I am in favor of and those should go forward, but that’s another story.

Ali Velshi’s comment that the oil companies would “just take their business elsewhere” was a huge mistake on his part if he’s going to insist he’s not just another big business spokesperson. Take their business elsewhere? Yea, right! That’s just what they’d do! Abandon the only real market in the entire world that gives them the kind of profits they are enjoying? Abandon the daily 5 million plus barrels of oil production in the US? Abandon the protection that the United States offers them? For crying out loud; how idiotic can you get; or better yet, just how idiotic does he think we the public are. Ali Velshi just needs to put a name tag on his suit that says “Oil Company Public Relations”.

In that same segment, Velshi and his co-defendants were making fun of the “conspiracy theorist” who were saying the oil companies and others were propagating this current oil crisis just to scare the public into opening up drilling in protected areas. I can assure you I am no conspiracy theorist, but you can bet that those in favor of opening those areas are going to take advantage of this, even if there some small chance that it’s not part of the reason for this “crisis”.

June 6, 2008

The Facts

During the two day period of June 3rd and June 4th, crude oil prices dropped more than $6. Then over the last two days prices jumped about $16, to more than $138 per barrel. Every news source in the country is talking about this today. On top of all this, the jobs report for last week came out this morning with 49,000 jobs lost last week. That contributed mightily to the Dow dropping nearly 400 points today.

My View

So much for the “supply & demand” excuses for rising oil prices. But that hasn’t stopped the propaganda experts; they know there are still millions out here that are still their puppets and gladly mimic the notion that supply & demand is driving the prices up. Then there’s the scare tactics. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel made some off-handed comment today that “bombing Iran’s nuclear sites was unavoidable” and the disinformation experts grabbed onto that as an excuse of rising oil prices. Next I expect to hear the night cleaning lady in the UN building being quoted on the shortage of petroleum related cleaning products as the reason for a huge price increase.

There are a few in the media that is starting to question these excuses. However, some are being careful. One female reporter on CNBC today had a slip of the tongue when she used the word “accelerated” in reference to the price increases, but very quickly corrected herself and substituted the word “upsurge”. Not a whole lot of difference in the definitions of the words, but “accelerated” has more of a sinister sound. And she made it even more suspicious by being so quick to change the words (sure, then there’s the teleprompter). But other reporters such as Mark Haines of CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” is becoming even more skeptical. He doesn’t seem to buy all this “justification” crap. He’s always been one to raise an eyebrow at many of the questionable reports, and he seems to be the only one on that network that isn’t a big business puppet. He often questions some of the things businesses are reporting, and challenges many of the other CNBC reporters.

One CNBC guest this morning, Thomas Higgins of Payden & Rygel, said that for the first time in several years the demand for oil imports have fallen. That doesn’t support the supply & demand theory. He also said that he certainly believes we are in a recession, which doesn’t set too well with the current administration. (Of course, if the Democrats win the White House in November, I fully expect to see the Republican machine come out within the first month or so of 2009 and declare that we are in a recession.)

Another report today put the capacity of oil refineries at only 87%. That can be viewed two ways; either there is not enough oil to refine or there is not a big enough demand for gasoline. I’m sure those who support the supply & demand theory will use the first, and those who say that supply & demand is not the problem will use the latter. But with the nearly 5% drop in the demand for gasoline in the past two to three months, it is easier to believe the latter.

Right along with the increase in the price of oil today, and as mentioned earlier, the Dow dropped nearly 400 points. There were lots of folks willing to offer there opinion today on why that happened. The most popular opinion was the jobs lost report that came out this morning. With the 49,000 jobs lost last week, that brought the total job looses for 2008 to 325,000. With this latest report, this means we have lost jobs every single month for the past two years. And when you take into account that just about all the jobs experts tell us that we need an increase of 100,000 jobs each month just to break even, some might say we have “lost” over 800,000 jobs this year. This brought the unemployment up to 5.5%, which is the highest since 1987. Let’s see now, who had been in the White House for several years in 1987?

I think it’s time to change the “official” definition of recession (and maybe even depression) if we are going to continue to rely on the current definition to determine if we are in a recession or not. Of course, even if that did happen, I wouldn’t expect the Bush White House to acknowledge it. No President, Republican or Democrat, likes to admit to a recession during their watch. But it seems this current Republican President and his diehard supporters are worse than any before.

May 22, 2008

The Facts

Crude oil hit $135 per barrel overnight and that’s the major topic on most news outlets this morning. Oil prices have now doubled over the past year. A gallon of regular gasoline is expected to hit $5 within the next 2-3 weeks, and diesel fuel will reach $6 a gallon before then.

My View

P.T. Barnum of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus is credited by many for the following famous quote; “there’s a sucker born every minute”. I have come to realize that that quote has never been more accurate than it is today. Not only is there a sucker born every minute, but those who were born without that disease most definitely have it now, and it is incurable. Although not fatal, it’s been successful in turning us all into complete idiots.

Without exception, when the experts are pressed, they acknowledge that the price for a barrel of oil should be between $55 and $70 based on today’s supply and demand. This is not some big, earth-shattering, revelation. They have been telling us this fact since oil reached $100. Even Shell Oil’s president of US operations made a direct reference to that on a CNBC program. But we don’t listen. Why? Because we’ve been brainwashed. And why are we letting ourselves be brainwashed? Because we are too busy arguing over whose political party is evil and whose party is our savior.

When the price of oil is discussed by those who support the current prices, they always point to our need to become independent on foreign oil. That’s always followed up by a declaration that we must drill for more oil in our own country and build more refineries. Then that is immediately followed up by pointing out that it’s the “tree huggers” who are preventing us from drilling and building. That results in the general public quoting those “experts”. Objection accomplished; BRAINWASHED!

So if it’s not supply & demand that’s causing the high price of oil, why should we believe that once drilling limits are lifted the price of oil will come into line? Because we are brainwashed. When all areas are opened up for drilling and the price of oil is still rising, or at best, not coming back in line with supply & demand, more excuses will be made and the brainwashed public will once again blindly accept the “justification” for high prices.

This supply and demand disinformation is being splattered all over the news this morning. And not one single news outlet is challenging these “non-tree huggers” when they point to supply & demand as the cause of high oil prices. Yet these same news people have the supply and demand experts on their programs telling them it’s not supply & demand. There was a time when the news media could be relied on to keep these disinformation machines in check. However, the news media has been assimilated and is now part of that machine.

Not long after the 1972 oil embargo, Playboy magazine published an article which addressed the sudden increase of crude oil prices. In that article Playboy said that beginning in 1918 the oil industry had, on four occasions, manipulated the oil market in order to increase the price of oil. While finding that hard to believe back then, it is very believable today.

Let’s face the facts; the oil companies want no limits placed on where they drill for oil and they are going to get their wish, regardless of the cost to the public or the economy. In the meantime, they are enjoying huge increased profits from this fleecing. Unlike earlier years, the oil industry and their “bought & paid-off” lackeys are not even trying to seriously defend themselves because they know there is nothing that can be done about it. So why bother. I liken it to a bank robber; if you know there is nothing anyone can do about it, rob a bank everyday.

May 16, 2008

The Facts

In February of this year Turkish troops stormed across the Iraqi border for a three-day battle with guerrilla forces. The price of crude oil rose over $2 from that skirmish. Three weeks ago on April 25th a cargo ship working for the United States fired warning shots at approaching Iranian boats in the Gulf. This resulted in a $3 increase in the price of crude oil. Earlier this week a devastating earthquake hit China. Oil has now increased about $5 because of that tragedy. The official explanation for this latest price increase is that there will be a big increase in demand for oil because of the earthquake.

My View

What’s my point? Simple; no excuse is so trivial that it can not be used to raise the price of oil. So don’t be surprised to hear of a huge oil price increase on news that President Bush got laryngitis (or something) and can no longer “negotiate” with OPEC to bring the price down. What this all amounts to is the price of oil is not where the oil companies and the traders want it to be, so they will resort to more of these trivial and insulting excuses. But they don’t have to worry about explaining it to the American public and those who are being destroyed by these prices; The news media is more than happy to justify it for them. Ali Velshi & others of CNN, CNBC, and Fox News is all they need to “explain” things.

In case you didn’t hear about it, the school that was destroyed in the earthquake in China was a very new building. Already the Chinese government is saying that the builders used sub-standard building materials and the builders may be executed. That is exactly why corporations and business have to be regulated. Without being regulated with force, there is no limit on how low businesses will stoop for money. And don’t think for one second that just because we are “Americans” our business leaders wouldn’t do the same thing as those Chinese school builders did just for a bigger profit.

April 21, 2008

The Facts

CNN announced today that former Fox News commentator and White House press secretary Tony Snow will be joining CNN as a conservative commentator. Snow has bounced around over the past two decades between being a politician and a news man/commentator. The CNN web page announcing Snow’s hiring allowed reader comments. The comments vary widely. Snow is praised, accused of being far right, far left, and an outright liar.

My View

There is no question that Tony Snow is very conservative. While I don’t think he fits into the category of radical extremist far right, he certainly got close to that while employed by Fox News. But of course anyone without a biased view knows that Snow had no choice at Fox News whose politics is dictated by Rupert Murdoch, a person who has broken US laws in his efforts to promote his belief that only the extremely wealthy and wealthy corporations should rule the world.

The real problem with Tony Snow and so many other “news people” and “commentators” today is best expressed in a report by Robert Greenslade entitled “Have Conservative Talk Show Hosts Sold Out the Constitution for the Republican Party?” They have become so political and party-biased that they no longer serve the public interest. And we the people have become so party-biased that we can not see the real truth. We are too busy hyping our party and damning the other party. Even when we do hear a news person who doesn’t play favorites to either party, we seem to only hear those reports where he is not saying something good about “my” party. I often find it interesting that unless a person is continually damning a particular party that person is always accused of belonging to the other party. We just seem to have a real problem accepting that someone can see some good things AND some bad things in both parties. And we also seem to have a problem seeing that neither of the two major political parties serves the average working American. Until we the voters stop fighting each other and come together to stand against the status quo of our elected officials pandering to the wealthy and wealthy corporations, the only that that will change is that we voters will continue our downward spiral. Of course, if you are one of those gullible fools who still think pouring our tax dollars into the pockets of the wealthy so that some of that money will “trickle down” to us, then I am sure you are damning me right now.

April 15, 2008

The Facts

Rupert Murdoch shows he has power over our elected officials. In 2003 Congress was on the verge of limiting any company from owning local television stations that reached more than 35 percent of American homes. Mr. Murdoch’s Fox stations reached nearly 39 percent, meaning he would have to sell some. A strike force of Rupert Murdoch’s lobbyists joined other media companies in working on the issue. The White House backed the industry, and in a late-night meeting just before Thanksgiving, Congressional leaders agreed to raise the limit to 39 percent.

My View

Although about ten months old, this report by the New York Times gives some interesting insight into Murdoch’s agenda and his methods of accomplishing his goals. Now this should give some comfort to those right-wing extremist who are in the minority, but for the good of this country, dedicated American citizens should be very concerned. We’ve always know that our politicians are for sale, and this is just another of thousands of examples.

In November of last year I wrote a post on Rupert Murdoch relative to his new business channel. In that post I pointed out just how ruthless Murdoch is in his agenda to control the world’s news. In this New York Times report, they point that out even better. So even if you are a diehard Murdoch supporter, i.e., Fox News, you should be one of the first to read it. One could even compare Rupert Murdoch to Ivan The Terrible or Adolf Hitler in his agenda.

April 9, 2008

The Facts

CNN’s Ali Velshi confirmed to us all this morning that there is no recession or slow down of the economy. During one of his reports today on American Morning, Velshi quoted the higher-than-expected sale prices for some art sold at Sotheby’s yesterday, citing this as a sign that there was no slow down in the economy. He went on to talk about what items were sold and how much people spent on those items.

My View

I don’t know about you, but I am certainly relieved to learn there is no recession, or even a slow down. And I’m so upset that I was not aware of the auction because there were a couple of pieces that I really wanted.

What the heck is Velshi thinking? Naturally he was trying to be funny, but I am sure the average American is really interested in what a bunch of multi-millionaires/billionaires are spending their money on when the average person is trying to figure out how to pay their bills. This is the kind of report that belongs on E! TV. So who’s surprised that these people are throwing their money at these sorts of things? The word “recession” isn’t even in their vocabulary. They got so much money they could care less if a gallon of milk cost five dollars, or even ten dollars for that matter. This country is in a financial mess, and if this is the only thing he can find for his business reports relative to the economy, then CNN can save some money by eliminating Velshi and his job. However, the news media has fallen in line with our politicians; it’s not about the average American, it’s all about the wealthy and powerful.

April 4, 2008

The Facts

During the congressional committee hearings this week about the high price of oil and the record profits associated with that, the committee was questioning whether or not big oil should be getting those $18 billion in tax breaks they are getting. As expected, most of the news media were talking about the hearings, and most of them had their resident experts commenting on the matter. CNN’s Ali Velshi was one of those offering his opinion.

My View

Often I have said that big oil didn’t need to waste their hard earned money on a public relations department because the news media was doing an excellent job at taking care of their public relations for them. Now it seems that Ali Velshi has joined the fray. In one of his reports, he seemed to be saying the oil companies have several different pots of money that needed to be considered. Relative to the $18 billion tax breaks, Velshi said “it was a little more complicated than that” in reference to why the tax breaks should be allowed despite the record profits being earned. Supposedly the tax breaks are so big oil will be enticed to look for more oil reserves and also look for alternative renewable fuels, as if the oil companies are just going to sit on their duffs and do nothing while their source of income is drying up.

So if we have to bribe oil companies to do their job, why don’t we bribe everyone else to do their job? Oh, yea, I forgot; we’re already doing that. We all know our elected official’s job is to do what big business bribes them to do.

March 22, 2008  

The Facts 

Chris Wallace, who works for Fox News, has chastised the trio of the morning Fox News show ‘Fox & Friends’. He said he watch the show for two hours on Friday morning and the trio spent nearly the entire time bashing Barack Obama for Obama’s comment “typical white woman”. Wallace said they completely ignored the real news of the day about Bill Richardson endorsing Obama and the State Departments scandal over employees illegally accessing presidential candidate’s passport records.  

My View 

I guess you could say I am shocked in two ways; first that a high profile Fox News reporter would say anything negative about Fox News bashing a Democrat, and second that the main stream news media has not picked up this story. This has got to be one of the top news stories of the year about a news outlet.  

Although almost every single employee at Fox News, nor their fanatical supporters, would ever admit that bashing Democrats and the Democratic Party was the sole purpose of Fox News, it was inevitable this would happen sooner or later. There are a couple of reporters that work for Fox News that does have some sort of morals deep down in side. I have been saying for several years now that some day someone was going to get fed up with Fox as an employer, leave them, then expose the inner workings of the network. And that time just may be getting close. If Chris Wallace does not leave Fox News now, or asked to leave, I suspect it won’t be too long before he does leave. Genuine, sincere, honest-to-goodness reporters don’t really like them regardless of how much money they are paid. Sooner or later they are going to start thinking about their personal legacy, and, if not their morals, that will eventually get to them. So I want to give a big old thanks to the “three stooges” of the morning “Fox & Friends” show; I always figured you three would be the bullet, although Hannity, O’Rielly, and Sheppard Smith were my close second,  third, & fourth, in that order.  

Read the article about this outing here.

March 18, 2008  

The Facts 

During their Power Lunch segment today, CNBC had a discussion with three guests on the backlash from the Bear Sterns Bailout. The guest included Republican Strategist Jack Berkman, Andrew Jakobovics from the Center for American Progress, and CNBC’s own John Harwood. Each of them was ask to express their sentiments on the government bailout.  

My View 

Andrew Jakobovics and John Hardwood supported the government bailout, but what surprised me was that Jack Berkman, a Republican, was completely against it. When was the last time you heard that from a Republican? He left no doubt he was squarely against our government saving banking institutions and Wall Street. Typically, Berkman is a very far right Republican in his views.  

Beckman said that what happened was a bunch of gamblers at Bear Sterns took advantage of cheap money. Then they doubled down, doubled down, and doubled down until they got to the odds of a blackjack table. He went on to say that instead of the feds letting the market work, they come in and encourage this gambling habit to continue. It was at this point that Beckman was basically cut off by CNBC host Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. She didn’t appear to want Berkman to finish his comments, although she had allowed the other two to complete theirs. She cut Beckman off twice in an effort to get him to agree with what she was saying. And when Jakobovics injected that this bailout was good for the street, Beckman intervened and said let me translated who “the street” is. He said the street was the feds taking care of their buddies on Wall Street. He ended by saying this was some of the worst corporate welfare ever generated in this country.  

Until our news media wakes up and, as an industry, start insisting that our government quit supporting only the wealthy and powerful, the American public is going to be divided on these issues, and nothing will ever be done. But, then again, the main stream news media is part of the wealthy and powerful, so I don’t expect that to happen.  

Watch the video of the interview.