Green Government Waste

Here's an example of government "investing" your money into failure.

As many as 50 Obama-backed green energy companies bankrupt or troubled
By Michael Bastasch
3:24 PM 10/30/2012

The October bankruptcy of solar company Satcon Technology Corp. puts the number of bankrupt or troubled green energy companies as high as 50, according to one estimate. During the first presidential debate, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said the Obama administration had doled out $90 billion to green energy companies, half of which he said had failed, which sparked a media-wide debate over the accuracy of the claim. Read the Story
  Copyright ©2012 Daily Caller.
        All rights reserved.

Now,  probably as most anybody,  I am all for green energy and a clean environment.

I am no economist nor investing expert, (not even a betting man) but I would bet that private investors would NOT invest in these ventures.  Or, at least, private financers "go all in" like the government.

Now, after squandering billions of tax dollars, our governments are asking for more taxes!

It's like if I blew my whole paycheck buying a truckload of fake dog feces.  Now there's no money left to pay the rent and bills so my solution is to ask my  benefactors to pay me even more money because my children need a place to live.... They'd not only say "no" but probably laugh in my face.

So why should we say yes to our government at federal, state or any level -whatever the sob story is.  Or, that "we're just asking the rich to help out a little more...." because they can "afford" it (Mr. Buffet).

I say pay the bills  first, Mr. or Ms.Elected Government Official and don't ever ask me to chip in on a truckload of feces!

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.9

Journalists or Propagandists?

This blog shares the title of an article by writer and political analyst for THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Dick Polman, subtitled Too many reporters today shed their ethics and become complicit in sources' spin.  (30 september 2012 edition of the Press Enterprise, PERSPECTIVE section -p.A24)

Centering around an article done for  Vanity Fair by journalist  Michael Lewis where he "hung out" with President Obama for 6 months and wrote about it.

Mr. Lewis was allowed to do this only after agreeing to submit all his quotes to the White House for approval before publication.

Mr. Polman's point seems to be that there is this move from journalism toward propagandism - a shift he calls "Orwellian" and he starts the article with a quote from YouGeorge Orwell, "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed:  every thing else is public relations."

I was sorry to be unable to find a link to the article online, so I snapped a couple of photos of the article in the paper to post along with this blog.

Though I am unfamiliar with Mr. Polman's writings, I sense that I differ vastly in most of our political views, I absolutely agree with what he is illustrating in this article and couldn't have painted a better picture myself!

Freedom of speech and the press are of the utmost importance, but journalistic integrity is paramount.  Bias is understandable, but fabrication or omission to present a reality that is untrue is unacceptable where a journalist has a duty to report factually to his/her audience.  It's especially dubious when government or politicians are allowed to dictate what truth is.  (Talk about abridging a constitutional right!)

Mr. Polman points out that some candor remains citing the example of cameras recording Romney's "dismissive contempt" for us commoners. (while my viewpoint is probably closer to that of Romney than Obama's, these comments stir-up my suspicions that political elites are out of touch with the overwhelming majority of everyday Americans and causes me to question whether they really represent me or anybody else in most of the U.S. populace! ....  Guess I'll just have to  "throw-away" my vote on a "third party" candidate our something!)

Mr. Polman also pointed out that the Romney Campaign is also guilty of employing the censorship policy of requiring "quote approval" before journalists are allowed access.

One last thing:  I love what Mr. Polman says about gettimg reporters to "just say no" rather than exchanging independence for access; "... Journalists are tougher to herd than cats in a rainstorm!"

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.9

How About: "Investing In The Capital of U.S. Citizens" ?

Investing in the Human Capital of Immigrants | Ideas Lab

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.9

Why Does a Man in the USA Have To Go Into Hiding?

A Coptic

Christian

man from the Cerritos, CA area went into hiding with sheriff department aid.  He produced a film that depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a fraud,  philanderer, and child molester.  (according to an AP article from 18   Sep 2012 see:  Coptic Christians, Muslims Denounce Film, Violence - ABC News).

This (the U.S.) is the one country on the planet where one is able to freely practice a religion of one's choosing while having to speak out (or make a film) expressing his or her views and opinions.

In this same article, it talks about how the bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Southern California met with a "Muslim Leader" in Los Angeles:  Bishop Serapion and  Sr. Advisor/ Muslim  Public Affairs Council, Maher Hathout, held a press conference on the steps of L.A. City Hall.  The Bishop distanced his church from the issue:  "a few ignorant individuals do not represent the views of many Coptic Christians," and the Muslim Leader called the film-makers "psychologically diseased with hearts full of hate."  (Wow!  That's a lot of name-calling!  Makes me start to think maybe the "film-makers" are onto something.)

That's all fine, and perhaps we'd see simular outrage from certain Christian leaders if a "film-maker" produced a movie depicting Jesus in a homosexual relationship with the "disciple he loved"  or maybe telling the story of him as a free-love-communal-living-transient-revolutionary.

However, the artist who makes a provocative statement about the founder of the Christian Faith probably wouldn't have to go into hiding.  And, I'm also guessing that riots and uprisings wouldn't be breaking out in countries in some predominately Christian region of the globe.  (I think you can see the pattern I'm highlighting!)

Okay - so, in the USA, why should a man - Coptic or otherwise - have to go into hiding for making a movie that mocks Mohammed?  The respective religious leaders making stately announcements outlining their objections to the film, even uniting to do so, is at least understandable.  But.... Hiding?  ...really? (think:  Salman Rushdie!)

Now, I'm sure that if our fine young Islamic artists here in the U.S. made a film that conveys controversial views of the Christian Faith -EVEN MOCKING CHRIST HIMSELF- they would not find it necessary to go into hiding!  Surely it would draw the ire of the aforementioned Christian leaders, but endanger the producer of such a film?   ....probably not.  I'm again guessing, in fact it would probably be lauded for it's creativity in the popular press!

Oh, on a side note:  having the sheik-leader of Hezbollah speak out against the film on behalf of Islam is sort-of like having the Grand-Master-Dude of the KKK speak on behalf of Christians everywhere!  (just say'n!)

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.9