When Squirrels Attack

First thought when I read the title "Squirrels Go On the Attack in California", was that the squirrels were attacking Liberals - for the Nuts that they are. Even squirrels recognize nuts when they see them and there is quite a few nuts in California, so it was a natural assumption.....

All kidding aside, it really is not that funny when you consider that humans encroach on wildlife habitats, we build and expand, and those animals that stay within our cities to try and survive, become somewhat domesticated. I say "somewhat" because they are still wild animals, with instincts that are born to their nature, but for some of them, like squirrels, have gotten used to humans being close to them, and putting out food for them. We tend to forget these things as we think of them like pets.

Now, when humans stop giving them food, close up places and lock them down so these animals cannot get to what they normally got for food, their instincts take over and they again become the wild animals they are, and hunt for food. They will take it from babies, or unsuspecting humans, grab and run. They are quick and use that to their advantage.

Now that some people begin to see that, they are taking measure to trap and kill these squirrels in the park, which have given rise to protest from wildlife advocates.

Many have e-mailed, saying that euthanizing the squirrels is the wrong response.

One viewer wrote, "I come to the parks to watch the wild animals, not the humans. I will no longer visit your parks knowing that any of them have become a killing ground for natural wildlife."

Wildlife advocates also oppose the unusual measure of killing the animals and said it won't solve the problem.

"The squirrels will be back," South Bay wildlife rehabilitator Norma Campbell said. "For every one you take out, two more will come in. It could be a never-ending project that isn't going to accomplish anything."

Officials said the increasingly brazen behavior stems from years of being fed by park visitors.

Now whether or not this is a good idea, wiping out all squirrels in the area, will remain to be seen.

But I do agree there is a danger to public health, unfortunately it was caused by humans feeding and getting the squirrels used to being fed. Cutting off food supplies exacerbated the problem. Now the answer to the problem humans caused, is to wipe out the squirrels....

I find this disturbing for the mindset at least, that for problems that humans cause, that our answer to it is kill off what humans caused to be the problem.

Muela said the city couldn't afford to wait and see if the squirrels' aggressive behavior goes away eventually, because of the threat posed to public health and safety.

Emphasizing his concern for the welfare of park visitors, Muela said, "We will need the public's cooperation on this, because as long as they continue to feed the squirrels it will exacerbate the problem."

Although the squirrels' behavior has led some to fear the animals might be rabid, Muela said that is highly unlikely because incidents of rabid tree squirrels are extremely rare.

Link

Where are you Sanity?

Yes, for those that stop by, there seems to have been a long pause in my posting.

Partially from frustation at seeing idiocy pass as real life, in what lawmakers want to do:

Democrats reject Valid ID requirment for voting

Why do they reject it?

Why wouldn't ALL Americans want the voting for American elections to be American ONLY?

Why do the Democrats block something that would increase the ability to make sure only Americans are voting in an American election process? Not dead Americans, or illegal immigrants.

Why?!?!



Another is the loss of faith in the way the American public seems to have such a short memory - I swear they have ADD:

Disgusting 9/11 Memorial

Cyrus Nowrasteh: My sin was ACCURATELY portraying the Clinton record on terrorism. <- You remember this one, the ABC special that looked at both administrations on how they dealt with the terrorism threat leading up to the attack of 9/11. Was it the Bush adminstration forcing ABC to make changes, or to completely shut down the movie because they didn't like the criticism they would get (and yes they were criticized also)...nope, it was DEMOCRATS that forced changes, threatened a company (ABC) with loss of their license if they did not make changes to the docu-drama or even pull it completely.

This complete and over-stepping of congressional authority by a major party has not even garnered interest. The fact that a political party threatened and tried to squash the free speech and censor when the majority if not 99 percent of those that were blasting ABC did not have any viewing of the movie at all yet, but it was enough to cause them to threaten ABC - something I would consider an abuse of power.

Can you imagine the uproar if the Bush administration tried to do something like this or the Republicans. It would be the next campaign platform against Republicans or the Bush Administration. But for the Democrats to do so, well it just seemingly disappears from the radar and we should just casually forget about it....move along, nothing to see here.




And the reeling from the audacity and corruptive stench that comes out of the UN and wondering why we put up with a body of governments that so despise us, yet we pay so they can continue their charade of "neurality" and "good-will".

Transcript of Chavez's Speech to UN where he comes on to US soil and calls OUR President "El Diablo" (the devil).

Why we didn't have someone forceably pick him up by the shirt collar and seat of his pants and hurl him bodily back into his plane, I don't know. Yes, not the "Sane" thing to do, I suppose, but I am beginning to think sanity and common sense seems to be in the minority at the UN, in our Government, and in the Press.

God Help Us.

But in true UN fashion, this is the UN response to idiocy of Chavez's comments:

His remarks drew applause from many of the delegates.

Why are we a part of a body that so hates everything we are and do, but are the first to call on us for aide and military help?


There does seem to be a bright light, that Americans seem to rally enough to see this dictator for what he is, take umbrage at him insulting our President.

Even the Democrats "get it" as they speak in outrage at his remarks to the UN. Whether they are true outrage or not, I have hope....

Nancy Pelosi (D):

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

Link

Charles Rangel (D):

RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS... 'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'...

video

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any outrage from Republicans. Strange to see Democrats sticking up for the President and not the Republicans. Where are you?

Driving You Crazy?

I have been around - still alive, but not been wanting to blog much lately. Frustrated with the things I see and hear around me, that it is hard to put that frustration to words.

It really is quite sickening.

Let's recap a bit of what is currently going on:

ABC is coming out with "The path to 9/11", which seems to have set the Democrats and former President Clinton into a tizzy.

The trailer can be seen HERE.

Actor Donnie Wahlberg gives an interesting take on the tizzy being thrown by certain individuals:

TVGuide.com: What do you think of the brouhaha that's going on now? You had to know that this project could be a hot potato.

Wahlberg: I didn't think it was a hot potato. I think there's a stink being made because certain people aren't happy with the way they're being portrayed, but the reality is that in most cases, the producers took a gentle hand with this stuff. The writers and the producers and the director tried to use as much integrity as possible.

Hat Tip: NewsBusters

I am not much for Wikipedia as a source, BUT in this case after reading several defintions on Docu-drama, of which "Path to 9/11" is, I think this fit very well:

A docudrama or docu-drama is a type of work (usually a film or television show) that combines elements of documentary and drama, to some extent showing real events and to some extent using actors performing set pieces to take dramatic liberty with events.

So in a Docudrama as this is being stated it is, and dramatic liberties are being taken to some degree to make the scene, while it may not be true to the fullest extent of 100 percent, it does sound like it fits exactly with how it is being billed.

This is also not the first time that it was reported that Clinton had passed on previous chances to nab Bin Laden.

In the middle of all the controversy surrounding ABC’s upcoming docudrama “The Path to 9/11,” something very important has been lost: Regardless of the protestations of the left, there were indeed some missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before our nation was attacked. In fact, on March 16, 2004, the NBC “Nightly News” did a report on one such chance the Clinton administration passed on.

Hat Tip: NewsBusters.

More idiocy HERE from Howard Dean wanting ABC to reveal funding and backers of ABC's "Path to 9/11" Docudrama.

Sister Toldjah is all over Clinton and the Democrats like white on rice with Clinton’s lawyers get in on the act, demand of ABC that Path to 9-11 be pulled (UPDATE VIII). Her posting includes two letters sent by Clinton's Lawyers, the reactions of the moonbats and what they are screeching, quotes from several people linked with the Clinton Administration.

Meanwhile, thinly vieled threats from the Democrats at revoking ABC license and to ABC's editting of "possible" errors, this is what is said:

Former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, whose depictions are at the center of the controversy, asked Thomas Kean, the Republican ex-governor of New Jersey who led the commission looking into the attacks, to use his influence with filmmakers to pull it.

"You can't fix it," Berger said on CNN. "You gotta yank it."

The film's executive producer, Marc Platt, responded that many of the film's most vocal critics haven't yet seen it.

Link

I agree with Michelle Malkin when she says:

TS at Seixon (hat tip: Allah) has helpfully crafted a TV slate for ABC to "insert into every scene the champions of free speech nutroots or poor Bill Clinton objects [to] (because, from the looks of this massive jihad they are waging , it appears ABC will be using this slate quite a bit):"

For the most part I can understand from Former President Clinton's view of things, this will severely "stain" his Legacy. It was all about Clinton during his Presidency, and now it seems all that is about to become another controversy surrounding his administration, especially when Democrats want to hang what happened during 9/11 on President Bush.

I wonder in all this, what Hillary is has to be thinking.

She has to be just LIVID!

Some interesting Clarifications on ABC's Blog:

A chronological story

We have worked hard to make this not a political movie. We show both administrations with an unvarnished truth. Because our show is chronological - if a viewer watches just the first night of the mini series it could be perceived as anti Clinton. If a viewer watches just the second night it could be perceived as anti Bush. It sounds as if you are getting your information from someone who has only seen one night.


D. Cunningham, Director of The Path to 9/11

Clarification

1) This is not a documentary. It is a movie told in two parts with 247 different actors led by Harvey Keitel playing FBI Counterterrorism agent John O’Neil.

2) This is not a right wing agenda movie. The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush.

3) Yes – we do show the PDB report in night two and many other missteps by the Bush administration.


-D. Cunningham (director of The Path to 9/11)

Even Further Clarification

It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors.

The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process. And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.

The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.

Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.


-David Cunningham

I think it should be released and let the public decide.

If Clinton and the Democrats want to sue ABC afterwards then that is their choice, BUT in doing so there should be investigations on what they seem to dispute. After all, I am sure they wish to make sure the world really knows the truth right? So they should have no problem if there was any kind of investigation to prove what they say is either right or wrong.....

There has been multiple cries of defamation from people like Berger, Albright and Clinton. For a bit of clrrification on public figures and defamation, see below:

Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".


Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea

While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

Others blogging this:

Karl at Leaning Straight Up with "Open Post Weekend: The path to 911 edition"

The Media - Fast and Loose with the Facts

It's funny, all the stories that the media seems to exaggerate, especially when it comes to either A) Race or B) President Bush.

But when it finally comes down to getting to the truth of the matter, you normally find things are rarely what the media exaggerated it to be.....

Examples of this can be found in:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Washington Post

Ah the media trying to get Flood victims from New Orleans to bash the President and boy did they try hard to get someone, anyone to bash the President:

Reynolds [ABC]: “Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?”

London: “No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “And they weren't?”

London: “No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “Now, Mary, you were rescued from your house which was basically submerged in your neighborhood. Did you hear something in the President's words that you could glean some hope from?”

Mary: “Yes. He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “You believe you'll be able to return to your home?”

Mary: “Yes, I do.”

Reynold[ABC]s: “Why?”

Mary: “Because I really believe what he said. I believe. I got faith.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “Back here in the corner, we've got Brenda Marshall, right?”

Brenda Marshall: “Yes.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “Now, Brenda, you were, spent, what, several days at the Superdome, correct?”

Marshall: “Yes, I did.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “What did you think of what the President told you tonight?”

Marshall: “Well, I think -- I think the speech was wonderful, you know, him specifying that we will return back and that we will have like mobile homes, you know, rent or whatever. I was listening to that pretty good. But I think it was a well fine speech.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “Was there any particular part of it that stood out in your mind? I mean, I saw you all nod when he said the Crescent City is going to come back one day.”

Marshall: “Well, I think I was more excited about what he said. That's probably why I nodded.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?”

Marshall: “No, I didn't.”

Reynold[ABC]s: “Good. Well, very little skepticism here. Frederick Gould, did you hear something that you could hang on to tonight from the President?”

Frederick Gould: “Well, I just know, you know, he said good things to me, you know, what he said, you know. I was just trying to listen to everything they were saying, you know.”

Reynolds[ABC]: “And Cecilia, did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?”

Cecilia: “Yes, he was.”

Link
Video excerpt can be seen Here.

Did New Orleans blacks die at a higher rate than whites in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? On the evidence so far, the answer is no. Of the 1,100 bodies recovered in Louisiana after Katrina, 836 were found in New Orleans, and the state has released data on 568 of those that were judged to be storm-related. As of last week, blacks, which were 67.2 percent of the pre-storm population of New Orleans, account for 50.9 percent of the city victims so far identified by race. It was New Orleans Caucasians who died way out of proportion to their numbers-28 percent of the population, 45.6 percent of the city’s known Katrina deaths by race.

This is far from the impression that the media have managed to leave, both during the crisis and in the months since. It’s possible, though unlikely, that these percentages may change in the final figures. Louisiana is not releasing any information on the rest of the dead until they are identified and their families notified.

In the chaos of Katrina, the press was hardly in a position to know that whites were dying as fast as blacks. But it was responsible for strumming the racial theme so relentlessly in the absence of actual information. A mix of factors were operating-faces shown on TV were mostly black, quotable black spokesmen kept insisting that racism was at work, and national reporters on the scene may have thought that since this was the south, blacks were probably being victimized in some way. This hardened into a narrative line for New Orleans that stressed race, and to lesser extent, class.

Racial agitators and entertainers played a big role. Randall Robinson, the former head of TransAfrica said, "This is what we have come to. This defining watershed moment in America's racial history." Jesse Jackson said, "Today I saw 5,000 African-Americans desperate, perishing, dehydrated, babies dying." (That would be 5,000 blacks dying out of a total of 1,349 known dead of all races in all Gulf States combined.) The morning show host of a New York City rap station saw the New Orleans situation as "genocide." Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics, said Katrina "disclosed our racism in multiple ways." Comedian and activist Dick Gregory saw an anti-black conspiracy in New Orleans. And rapper Kanye West offered the opinion that "America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well off, as slow as possible," adding his soon to be famous accusation, "George Bush doesn’t care about black people." The media carried all the race chatter without much in the way or caution or evidence.

Even now, mainstream media have done little to set the record straight. The numbers and percentages of death by race are easy to find among bloggers, very hard to find in mainstream reporting. On December 18, three days after the state of Louisiana delivered a breakdown of deaths by race, The New York Times ran a long analysis of Katrina that omitted the racial breakdown from the state report. By contrast, the Los Angeles Times ran an excellent article, also on December 18, that began this way: "The bodies of New Orleans residents killed by Hurricane Katrina were almost as likely to be recovered from middle-class neighborhoods as from the city’s poorer districts, such as the Lower 9th Ward." The paper reported that its own analysis "contradicts what swiftly became conventional wisdom in the days after the storm hit--that it was the city’s poorest African American residents who bore the brunt of the hurricane." Good journalism. Will the rest of the media catch on?

Link

Fast on assumptions, fast on race baiting, fast on calling racism.....slow on corrections, slow if ever admitting they were WRONG!

Or when they become propaganda outlets for terrorist and terror supporting regimes so they can again put the President in a bad light, and his support for Israel.

The recent discovery that the Reuters news agency released a digitally manipulated photograph as an authentic image of the bombing in Beirut has drawn attention to the important topic of bias in the media. But lost in the frenzy over one particular image is an even more devastating fact: that over the last week Reuters has been caught red-handed in an astonishing variety of journalistic frauds in the photo coverage of the war in Lebanon.

This page serves as an overview of the various types of hoaxes, lies and other deceptions perpetrated by Reuters in recent days, since the details of the scandal are getting overwhelmed by a torrent of shallow mainstream media coverage that can easily confuse or mislead the viewer. Almost all of the investigative work has been done by cutting-edge blogs, but the proliferation of exposes might overwhelm the casual Web-surfer, who might be getting the various related scandals mixed up.

Reuter's Photo Scandal <- very good read!


Or the hoax of the Lebanese Red Cross ambulance struck by a Israeli missile:

How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War.


On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

But there's one problem: It never happened.

Link

This includes Gas Prices, in which I believe the media help to keep the price of gas up so high by their constant conjecture and reporting of gas prices soaring to increasingly new heights, kept the prices up.

This was from a 2005 report:

Filling up at the pump is costing less and less each day – 45 cents per gallon less since its post Rita peak of $2.94. Despite that huge drop, all three broadcast networks have reported on rising or high gas prices four times as often as falling prices. Here are some of the key results:

ABC the Worst: ABC mentioned falling gas prices only once out of 11 reports and that was only after three straight weeks of price declines.

Dropping Prices Have Little Impact: Gas prices dropped every business day from October 6 through October 30, but the three networks still mentioned rising or high prices 79 percent of the time.

Record-Breaking Fiction: Gas prices haven't topped inflation-adjusted highs. NBC's Anne Thompson and other journalists continued to claim "American
consumers have suffered through months of record-high gas prices" even as
prices dropped.

October was a month for scares and the broadcast news shows did their part. Even though gas prices fell 45 cents in a little more than three weeks, the media continued to talk about "record-high" or "soaring" prices.

Gas prices dropped every day for 17 straight business days, but the media covered rising or high prices roughly four times as often as falling prices.

Media Myths: Gas Hysteria - From the Business and Media Institute

Happy with the falling prices at the pump? Fuhgeddaboudit!

That's what economic wiseguy Matt Lauer suggested to viewers of the August 30 "Today" show, even though oil analysts predict falling gas prices this fall and his own network erroneously predicted $3.50-a-gallon gasoline just a few weeks ago.

"You're probably feeling a little better these days when you fill up your car at the gas station," Lauer admitted as he teased a story by correspondent Kevin Tibbles. The "Today" host conceded that "analysts say prices could keep falling for months to come," but sought to shoot it down by pointing to the pessimistic projections of an auto executive.

....

What's more, while [Matt] Lauer dismissed the predictions of lower gas prices this fall, the August 30 USA Today devoted a front-page article to emphasize the potential decline.

"The only place they have to go is down," gasoline analyst Fred Rozell told reporter James Healey, adding, "We'll be closer to $2 than $3 come Thanksgiving."

Link

CBS News veteran Harry Smith finally confessed something that the Business & Media Institute (BMI) have reported for a while and his colleagues elsewhere in the media have already picked up on: gas prices are on a downward trend.

"It seems like a month ago we were all screaming with our hair on fire about the price of gas going over $3, no end in sight. And now it looks like it's dropping like a stone," CBS's Harry Smith marveled on the August 31 edition of "The Early Show."

Link


Media plays a big part in guiding public opinion through how it reports the news, or what it decides to omit or outright fake in news reports.

Public opinion sways leadership, since Senators and Congressman are always up for re-election, they get pressure from constituents that don't get all the facts, since the media does not report all the facts, and these same Senators and Congressman go out and publically denounce or vote incorrectly based on public pressures.

This is my opinion on how I believe things have happened, whether it is competely true on how these Congressman and Senators vote, I don't know. But I do imagine that public pressures hold quite a bit of sway with how they vote or when they get in front of a camera.

And I believe those public pressures come from the public that do not get all the facts from the media because of bad reporting, made up facts, fake pictures, or only partial reporting of the facts. Perhaps if the media was to report completely on a subject and not just a portion of what they believe people want to hear about, we would have a more informed Congress and Public.



Previous Sanity post on this subject:

Laughing All the Way to the Bank

Politics & Celebrities


Others blogging on the Media:

Sister Toldjah with "Put the blame on Plame - her husband, that is"

Michelle malkin with "PlameOut: An Emily Litella moment"

Ray Robison with "President Bush is suffering from Plame damage"

Outside the beltway with "Joe Wilson Most to Blame for Ending Valerie Plame’s Career"

Flopping Aces with "The End is in Sight"

The Captain's Quarters with "An Exclamation Point On The Plame Denouement"

FullosseousFlap’s with "CIA Leak Case Watch: Unfortunate That So Many People Took Joseph Wilson Seriously"

Blue Crab Boulevard with "Killing A Zombie"

Just One Minute with "WaPo Whacks Wilson" <- catchiest title so far (grins)

Hoystory with "Still waiting for it"

Kitty Litter with "MOLDY CONCEPTS, LIKE TRUTH & VIRTUE"

Mike's America with "Prosecute Wilson Plame Fraud!"