What’s faster the spine-tailed swift — a.k.a the white throated needletail — or the peregrine falcon? Well, the falcon may win in a dive hitting 200 m.p.h. but the swift is almost twice as fast in horizontal flight reaching 106 m.p.h. versus the falcon’s 56 m.p.h.
Spine-tailed swift William Lawrence Sr Omnibit 5-30-20
Population and immigration-reduction activists (and everyone else) have a right – under ETHICAL journalism – to expect other than: news blackouts of critical topics, like immigration and population; deliberate misrepresentation of those and other issues; no focus on overpopulation as causal to most social, economic, environmental and, well, pandemic problems; blatant omission or distortion of immigration history (such as ignoring reports from the Jordan Commission and Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development) or libelous characterizations, by reporters, of those concerned about over-immigration as xenophobes, racists or white supremacists.
We have, thanks to deregulation and “leaders” – a term I use advisedly – who refuse to fix the problem, media disturbingly like Pravda, the propaganda tool of the old Soviet Union. We’re indoctrinated, not informed.
We need media regulated, or more accurately, regulated AGAIN, since major media, not long ago, were heavily regulated!
“News media” – another term I use advisedly – are limiting what we hear and see, are putting forth unimportant stories and divisive stories to keep us distracted from the real issues, like the danger of a deregulated media. They are ignoring critical-issues reporting, such as legislation before Congress or why our political system is failing. And sometimes they are even lying – if population and immigration are examples – when it serves their ends, or perhaps more accurately, the ends of those who, again thanks to deregulation, own media.
Even though 11,000 of the world’s scientists – as they recently declared a climate emergency – insisted that we MUST deal with population, media did not give them – likely exactly because of that population reference – the lead-story, run-it-into-the-ground focus far lesser stories get, even as media are, seemingly, gearing up to mislead about the current census. After the last census, they headlined trivia – like Americans own more cats than dogs – but mostly ignored reporting on the real purpose of the census: population.
Media consistently ignore that ours is the world’s third most populated nation, or that our high per-capita carbon footprint makes us the equivalent in “carbon population” to China or India, even as they excoriate and vilify Donald Trump on climate – I’m not a huge fan of his, but fair is fair – and, an increasingly dangerous trend, use their power to vilify him and others. It is such actions by media that have reduced us to the equivalent of a national gutter fight.
Media almost universally depict that falling birthrates, both domestic and global, mean population decreases. They ignore a likely global increase from near 8 billion now to 10 billion by 2050 and even higher late century, and likely increases from 330 million to 430 million Americans – 100 million more – by the 2060s, as they put out “low growth” or even “negative growth” propaganda.
For example, CBS in the Morning featured an author predicting “under” population, with nary a mention that 92 percent of our, in fact, exploding population – increases of 28 million to 30 million a decade – is immigration driven. Meanwhile, every few months, as though carefully choreographed among networks, media headline falling birthrates, even as immigration reporting studiously ignores its impact on population.
Nor do media mention carrying-capacity crises, such as population’s part in the fact that iconic Lake Mead, the second largest reservoir in North America, might run dry and where, due to climate change, the Colorado River, upon which 50 million people depend, might have flows half of normal by 2050 as the region’s population doubles – again, immigration-driven.
Instead, media give us:
– The oxymoron of “news” stories rerun for days!
– Endless political-correctness indoctrination.
– Sensationalized coronavirus coverage, to the point of spawning hysteria, but without mention that our healthcare system, already strained by overpopulation, is not ready for even a bad flu season.
– Adversarial, hostile interviews unfairly forcing interviewees to endlessly defend themselves, absent any premise or exploration of innocence.
– Double standards. If the Trump administration loses an immigration court case, it’s headlined. When it wins, nothing, a double-standard common to many topics.
– Trivia, crimes of only local importance packaged as national news, endless political-correctness stories and celebrity news substituted for that which a democracy MUST have, the critical-issues coverage of the type that used to be the core of ALL news reporting.
– Accusations by advocacy groups like #MeToo absent media responsibility to INVESTIGATE before reporting them, as media instead lead what some call the “Indianapolis 500 Rush to Judgment.”
– Strictly “advocacy” or biased reporting that forgets journalistic ETHICS requiring that news must be separate from opinion. Once, reporters strove to report objectively.
– Consistently seek comment only from those confirming views journalists want advanced. Comments from objective news sources are a thing of the past.
– “Junk news,” like junk food, devoid of substance, and long-term, very dangerous.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
The public loath media, although for the wrong reasons. The left loath Fox News on the right. The right loath “liberal” media, both wrong and dangerous conclusions.
Lost on everyone is that media formerly was trusted, that media used to adhere to ETHICS in journalism and didn’t used to be about left or right – except on the editorial page – but about all views and information presented fully, inclusively, without an agenda, the type of reporting that builds common ground and stills the waters of division! Today’s reporting merely confirms our prejudices and assumptions – incites, rather than informs.
In the dawning days of broadcasting, leaders – back when we had leaders – saw huge potential for those who own media to misuse broadcasting. They also saw the public airways as a public resource that should serve the public good, so they heavily regulated broadcasting, a condition that prevailed for half a century, but that was lost when:
In 1987, Ronald Reagan pushed for and got revocation of the 1940s Fairness Doctrine which had banned bias in broadcasting, forbade broadcasters from blacking out or ignoring entire topics – like population – and mandated ethics in reporting, regulations with teeth because the public had the right to protest broadcast license renewals. One television station, for example, lost its license for consistently one-sided, pro-segregation reporting. The Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court which stated it didn’t violate press freedom, so the “problem” was solved legislatively by Reagan, et al.
The Zapple Doctrine, a lingering part of the Fairness Doctrine, was revokedin 2014. The equal-time rule (not part of the Fairness Doctrine) survived, but was so watered down by the courts that it has been described as a “courtesy” granted by broadcasters. Both regulations required broadcasters to give candidates or others “with standing” equal time for rebuttal, including rebuttal of network or station commentaries or “unfair” stories. As an example of how egregious things are, a district court ruled – in a suit brought, and lost, in the 1980s by the League of Women Voters concerned about media overstep – that a station could give airtime to one candidate, but not another.
Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which removed laws that had kept media under diverse ownership – and extremely competitive and, thus, effective – and had banned conflicts-of-interest. Major media were owned by more than 50 entities. Today, Big Media are owned by just six tightly interwoven titans controlling movies, television, radio, publishing, much of the internet and, by extension, much of our perception of “reality” and our thinking. Most of what we hear, see and read passes through the narrow, dangerous bottleneck they control.
It should scare the bejesus out of us that the same entities may also own Big Medicine, pharmaceuticals, insurance, investing, transportation, weapons manufacturing and Big Ag, in contrast to when laws prohibited those owning media from owning ANY other enterprises. Should we be concerned, for example, that those owning media might also own companies making weapons, perhaps using their media power to encourage going to war? Has that already happened? Should we be concerned that the internet – as in China – might be, now or eventually, limited in what is there, that the great pool of “everything” might be gradually limited, censored or restricted, something that also falls in the “scare the bejesus out of you” category.
While most deregulation was about broadcasting, dysfunction has spread to print media. Hundreds of papers have ceased publishing, meaning diverse wire-service coverage from thousands of towns and news sources has shrunk appallingly. Surviving newspapers are often, like broadcasting, owned by Big Media – or the richest man in the world (The Washington Post) – with the same selectively picked news, junk news, bias and, perhaps, dangerous agenda as broadcasting. Appallingly, many newspapers have even ceased publishing letters or commentaries from the public, gagging a key part of the conversation that democracies require!
The irony of media deregulation is that it was justified under claims that regulation, especially the Fairness Doctrine, inhibited the free exchange of information. Yet, deregulation has had the opposite effect, proving that putting a fox in charge of any henhouse never works – except for the fox!
Teddy Roosevelt said it was government’s job to “control the excesses of business,” and nowhere are excesses worse than in media. Yet, the silence from “leaders” who should be speaking out and addressing the problem is deafening. Or is it that, thanks to media “censorship,” they are speaking out, but it isn’t being reported?
It’s profoundly disturbing that media are broken and dangerous as we confront crises like the coronavirus, a broken political system in Washington, D.C. – how many have even heard of the effort to pass a 28th Amendment to fix it? – two political parties unrecognizable from not long ago and a world environment in crisis.
That we have media so broken at a time of overwhelming global events, whether a pandemic or climate change – and all that we must do (personally, nationally and globally) to accurately understand and address them – is a situation that speaks of an urgent need for media re-regulation.
Kathleene Parker, of Los Alamos, New Mexico, spent decades in publishing and journalism, including 13 years as a correspondent covering Los Alamos National Laboratory for two major New Mexico dailies. She writes about population, immigration, water issues and “broken” media.
Ed Note: For the record we don’t agree with this a bit. OK, maybe somewhere in there a tiny bit, but only a teeny tiny bit. Most of this we say is very wrong.
Shutdown The Shutdown Montco Reps Being Told — Sorry Bob Small. We were going through old emails and saw this one about the “Shutdown the Shutdown” event being hosted today (May 30) by the Montgomery County Libertarians with Ken Krawchuk as guest emcee.
It consists of nine rallies being hosted at the homes of Montco’s State House contingent which started at 9 a.m. for Christopher Rabb (D-200) and was followed by one at 10 a.m. for Steven McCarter (D-154). As of this writing (11:49 a.m.) a demonstration aimed at Ben Sanchez (D-153) at Jenkingtown and Meetinghouse roads.
The remaining schedule is:
State Rep Thomas Murt (R-152)
Park and meet in Boileau Park on Byberry Road near Orangemans Road
State Rep Todd Stephens (R-151)
Meet at corner of Witmer and Old Witmer
Park on side streets
State Rep Steven R Malagari (D-53)
Meet at Hancock Street Park, Hancock Road and Maple St.
Park on side streets
State Rep Matthew Bradford (D-70)
Meet at corner of Trooper and Spring Hill
Park on side streets
State Rep Tim Briggs (D-149) Meet at Crow Creek on Keebler Road.
Park on side streets
State Rep Mary Jo Daley (D-148)
Park and meet in Sabine Park, Montgomery Ave. and Sabine Ave.
Post-rally Munchies (optional, non-political, just food)
Germantown Pike and Joshua Road
Park on Joshua Road
Nearby is a Wawa, a pizza place, decent Indian take-out, and a grassy park
For information about the Libertarian Party, the public is invited to contact the Montgomery County Libertarian Party at www.MontcoLP.org, the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania at www.LpPa.org or (800) R-RIGHTS, or the National Libertarian Party at www.Lp.org or (202) 333-0008.
Jordan, Dasha Make Cases In Interview — Dasha Pruett’s congressional campaign sent us Walter Ley’s interview with Dasha and Rob Jordan, her opponent in the June 2 Republican Primary for the 5th District Seat. Ley mentions that Jordan backed Hillary Clinton in 2008 and was active in gay causes, but Jordan supported The Donald in 2016 when in counted so we can’t hold that against him.
Dasha is also an outspoken Trump supporter.
Ley’s questions are objective and he gives both candidates a chance to state their views.
We are staying out of the race and not making an endorsement. Whoever wins has our complete backing in the battle with our least favorite Karen, Mary Gay Scanlon, the Democrat incumbent.
One critique for Walter: Until the redistricting travesty in 2018, the 5th District was in north-central Pennsylvania and was solid Republican. Delaware County, where the 5th now mostly resides, has been represented by some rather liberal Democrats. Joe Sestak and the late Bob Edgar both served several terms.
A few years after President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, Rolling Stone sent investigative reporter Dan Baum out to pound the pavement to learn how the globalist-hyped deal was working on both sides of the border. When President Clinton promised during his 1993 signing that NAFTA, an agreement among the United States, Mexico and Canada, would create millions of domestic jobs and reduce illegal immigration within its first few years, skeptical blue-collar Americans couldn’t understand President Clinton’s tortured logic. Reform candidate Ross Perot accurately predicted that when Congress passed NAFTA, Americans would hear a “giant sucking sound” of companies fleeing the U.S. for Mexico where workers would be paid less and be without benefits.
Baum quickly learned that Perot had analyzed NAFTA’s fallout correctly. In his story, “The Man Who Took My Job,” Baum located David Quinn, a unionized Indiana auto parts worker who was one of 455 Breed Technologies employees to lose a job when the factory shut, then relocated to Mexico. Soon thereafter, more than 100 Indiana businesses followed Breed to Mexico – a great deal for cheap labor-addicted employers, but devastating to the U.S. domestic workforce.
By 2000, the $5.5 billion U.S. trade surplus with Mexico metastasized into a $16 billion deficit. Quinn and Baum traveled to Mexico where they eventually found “the man who took the [Indianan’s] job,” toiling longer work weeks for less money, few safety precautions and without union protections. During the next two decades, in part under Bush II, job losses continued to mount and deficits deepened; today the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is $617 billi.
Bush 43 learned nothing from the NAFTA fiasco. Instead, he used the NAFTA template to create the World Trade Organization which opened up the U.S. market with China and led to more than a dozen bilateral trade treaties that have hampered America’s labor force. Congress is considering nearly 25 more agreements that may kill more U.S. jobs. Since 2001, the U.S. has lost 3.7 million jobs to China, and is currently running a $346 billion trade deficit with the Asian superpower.
Yet, Republican and Democratic-led administrations put trade first, above working Americans. President Obama’s 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership would have the opened borders to millions of foreign-born workers in every employment classification. Shortly after President Trump assumed office, he withdrew the U.S. from TPP. Because of COVID-19 concerns and the relatively short time period for businesses to adjust to its new regulations, the president’s NAFTA replacement, the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, may be delayed beyond its June 1 starting date. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed his concern: “Let us not make long-term decisions in the midst of a crisis.”
A COVID-19 delay might be a lucky break for U.S. workers. The Economic Policy Institute is apprehensive that the U.S. International Trade Commission’s projections about higher U.S. wages and increased employment may be based, much like NAFTA, on “questionable assumptions.” Specifically, EPI doubts whether U.S. wages will rise as a direct result of improved labor rights enforcement in Mexico, a conclusion that the ITE model doesn’t validate.
NAFTA and other trade deals have been a disaster for American workers; America needs a better approach that will rebalance trade and level the playing field for U.S. workers and other participating countries. Despite two decades of White House bloviating about American jobs and railing against income inequality, the average worker isn’t as important to leaders as easing corporate trade.
Unregulated global trade consequences have led to worldwide criminal-level labor exploitation. Corporations set up sweatshops in Vietnam, China, South Korea, India, Honduras and Taiwan, all sources of plentiful cheap labor that enhance bottom-line profits.
Like NAFTA before it, USMCA has no real American worker protections. USMCA’s language refers to “temporary” immigrant entry to “supply services.” But as the old adage goes, nothing is more permanent than a temporary immigrant, especially when he supplies labor “services.”
President Trump has talked pro-American about trade and immigration, but he’s fallen far short of delivering the goods he’s so often promised.
Joe Guzzardi is a Progressives for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at email@example.com.
That’s right Miranda, Miranda warnings don’t need a specific wording. They merely must cover the principles that one has the right to silence; that what one says may be used against one in court; that one has a right to an attorney before speaking to police and during any questioning; and that an attorney will be provided if one can’t afford one.