Monday, February 27, 2017

FAKE MEDIA...MUCH WORSE THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE

This is by far the most important blog we have written in the six years of the existence of our site.

There is no such thing as the free press and media.  There are however less than a dozen large companies that control practically all of the TV stations, radio stations, Internet access, newspapers, etc.

They are Disney, Viacom, Comcast, CBS, Fox and half a dozen others.

These are companies whose sole objective is to increase the value of their shares by attention getting words and pictures.

ALL OF THE PEOPLE WE SEE ON TV ARE ACTORS AND EMPLOYEES OF THESE LARGE CORPORATIONS.  THEY ALL WORK FOR A HIERARCHY OF MANAGERS AND MUST ADHERE TO THE CORPORATE POLICIES AS SET FORTH BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDERS.

In addition, almost all the so-called media are reading from teleprompters words that are produced and written by people in the back room probably with an average age of less than 40.

A small group of executives control the media so when President Trump says fake media he is not too far off base.

I will close with one example. In the New York Times Sunday Magazine section dated February 26, 2017 there was an article about the increase in private school enrollment..  If you look at the statistics in the enrollment in private schools you will  find the left wing writer made up the story based on completely inaccurate facts. Private school enrollment is down.  A perfect example of completely fake news.

So when you are watching TV or reading the news,  it is not free speech it is entertainment.

If you really want to get confused, remember that CNBC really should not be in the business of giving investment advice to the public.  What an abomination.  

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

TRUMP-DOES HE REALLY HAVE IT CORRECT? RUSIA & UKRAINE - A COUNTRY THAT WAS ONCE ONE...(ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 9/11/14)

Sometimes common wisdom is way off the mark.  Over the last few years we have pointed out that the PC wasn't going to disappear, the price of gold  was overblown, the pundits of gloom were mostly not worth listening to, the occupiers had little case, the deficit was substantially media hype, and the appeasement of enemies is generally not a winning strategy.

What I am going to say now seems absurd on its face, even to me who is writing it, but here I go.

My parents were born in Russia. Their citizenship papers say they were born in Russia.  Specifically they were born in Ukraine, Russia.  In my family it was taken as a statement of fact that they were from Russia. I took a look at Wikipedia and it was obvious, for several hundred years, Ukraine was considered Russia.

Somehow or other the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the name Russia was called by, ceded Ukraine to its own independence.  Now there is man by the name of Mr. Putin who thinks that breaking up the union was a very negative development for his country.

The Civil War in the United States was initially about maintaining the union between the North and the South, it was not initially fought over slavery.  I'm not sure that maintaining the Russian union is not as important to them as it was to us during the Civil War.

What am I missing?

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

OBAMA, CLINTON & SOROS - THEIR ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW AMERICA (ORIG. PUBLISHED JUNE 2012)




Saul Alinsky pontificated in his Rules for Radicals that to destroy the American system that a realistic radical is completely unconcerned about the verification of facts and that they are only interested in their agenda. He states that the purpose of radicals is to sew discontent and to seek to create an environment so they can influence the generally ignorant population to support political goals that would otherwise be unsupportable in the face of the facts

Sunday, February 12, 2017

"CUT THE BULL" MOST OF THE MEDIA IS OUT FOR RATINGS NOT AMERICA...(ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 8/2011)

It's time to cut the bullshit. People like Paul Krugman win Nobel prizes and generally don't know what they are talking about. The Tom Friedmans of the world, write books forever, make tons of money and make no contribution to peace in the Middle East, just a bunch of words and high fluting explanations that lead to nowhere constructive.

Who in their right mind would give good G'D what the S & P says considering their historic track record. Who are the people in S&P who pontificated this one notch reduction in the rating of U.S. government debt? How many jobs have they had in their lifetime, how much money have they made individually, who is this committee, S&P is nothing but a company.

The atrocity that we have created of the journalistic talking heads on the TV that if a compilation was ever made of what they have said, they would be the laughing stock of the worlds.

Why doesn't our government inform the populous that the talking heads are just trying to get you to listen to them so they can get ratings and advertising and line their pockets with the total inaccuracies of a lot of what they say.

We have become a hodge podge of radicals on both sides of the political equation. That might have worked 100 years ago but we've given away our leadership under  President Obama in many respects.

The country's supposed to not require great leaders because the strength is its ability is to function within the diversity of problems and opinions. But when a NY Times Editorial Writer and Nobel Prize Winner, by the name of Paul Krugman, can spew one incomplete sentence after another the question has to be asked again, "What if Stocks become like Houses?" Even low interest rates, which probably have done more harm than good, show you the depth of the problem.

President Obama has been a destroyer of confidence, a creator of class warfare, and instituting his important "change, change change" in anything.  God willing, whether you believe in God or not, (I do) a Leader will emerge that believes America has to be the Leader not in nation building, but in raising the standard of education and living among our own citizens.

I close with the following; I attended PS73 in the Bronx. I am now 74 years old. The same crummy old building is educating a bunch of black and Hispanic children and according to public releases they are failing on almost all levels. I call that a failure. It has to change...instead of fighting about abortion, gun control, gay rights and Don't ask don't tell.

A lot of you may hate me for writing this but it's like cancer, you got to get it right or you die. 

Saturday, February 11, 2017

UNION DESTRUCTION STARTS AGAIN...(ORIG. PUBLISHED 9/17/12)

We are reprinting our blog of January 11, 2011. It was titled "Are Votes Worth It?" It should have been titled "Are Destructive Union Votes Worth It?"
Tuesday, January 11, 2011ARE VOTES WORTH IT?
On August 27, 2010, we said in a blog that "Almost every significant unionized industry in America has failed. Now the largest unionized segment in America is government."

In the January 8, 2011 issue of the Economist magazine the lead story is titled "The battle ahead - Confronting the public-sector unions."
If you accept the thesis that I'm even partially correct about the negative effect of unions and their inflexible total compensation costs being responsible for destroying the competitive condition of significant industries, you will be well advised to ask "Are unions likely to destroy the government?"
Isn't it only a matter of time before some union representing the fire department, police department or the post office, goes on strike? Obviously it will happen. It's tough to change people. Note carefully the behavior of certain union members during the recent New York City snowfall.
During the ongoing turmoil in Wisconsin, a prominent Democrat exhorted the public to "stick by their friends." This may have been true a few decades ago when people took government jobs based on their security, retirement benefits and often a lack of complexity.
Today we have evolved a system where the unionized government sector indirectly threatens to strike and withhold their votes from the government politicians who don't give them what they want.
Government gets its money from taxes; so what these unions are saying to their so called "friends" is give us more of your tax dollars or we will take away your services.
During the formative years of our republic, there was serious debate about what functions the central governments would serve, both at the local and the federal levels. After Hamilton's persuasive arguments for a collective defense among the states, it was also agreed that government would stay close to the people by providing all types of services, and thereby make it easier for existing members to get reelected.
Think carefully about what some of the things the government does for us. We go to a post office, they hand you your mail. You go to a motor vehicle office, they hand you a license. You apply for a passport, they mail you a passport. They send you social security checks. These are simplistic functions that can just as easily be done by the private sector, for profit, save money, and reduce the deficit significantly.
Functions that don't have to be done by government should be taken out of the hands of government. It's time for a more introspective America, especially in some of our big cities where people think that the sharing of ideas around water coolers actually adds merit to the city.




Wednesday, February 8, 2017

"LEAVE IVANKA ALONE"...

When individual companies start targeting a child of the President it hard to imagine the panic that they feel by being uncovered as ignorant.

Go buy an Ivanka accessory - say no to corporate executives abusing their power  by not representing all their shareholders.  

Monday, February 6, 2017

TRUMP IS PROBABLY RIGHT BUT NO ONE WANTS TO FACE THE MUSIC...

Consider the following very carefully.  Here is the real reason many tech companies are upset over  Trump's immigration policies.  Tech companies have saved hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, by importing labor at cheaper prices than American workers.

Conversely, the amount of money made by tech executives is generally out of proportion to their real individual contributions to the firms. These top corporate executives could have stood the test of greatness by allocating larger amounts of monies to training American workers.  
 

Shepard Osherow. All Rights Reserved