Kimberly Cates was a 42-year-old nurse with a husband and a precious 11-year-old daughter. They lived in a quaint New England hamlet called Mt. Vernon. On October 3, 2009, with her husband out of town on business, she and her daughter went to bed as they had done every night previously. Tonight, however, would not end up like any other night.
Four teenaged boys are under arrest for one of the most terrifying crimes I have seen in my lifetime. Steven Spader, 17, Christopher Gribble, 19, William Marks, 18, and Quinn Glover, 17 , are accused of breaking into the Cates' home, mutilating Kimberly Cates to death with knives and a machete, and then, in an act that defies any type of human thought or emotion, slashing the throat of a sweet, innocent 11 year-old girl. What makes this horror story so terrifying is this: the four allegedly planned to pick a house at random, and kill whoever was home. They planned to end a life, or lives, at random, for no other reason than, well, because they wanted to.
Callers into talk radio all had ideas about how this was preventable. One caller said if they had only been involved with some other types of activities. Two of the four were members of their schools drama clubs. Another caller chimed in with it would not have happened if the boys were involved with the boy scouts. At least one was an eagle scout, another, a boy scout. Another caller states the fact that a church upbringing would have prevented this. One of the teens was preparing to do his Mormon missionary service. Well, maybe, said yet another caller, if there was more discipline in their lives. One was a military cadet. Another caller blamed the parents. One of the boys was undergoing counseling and on anti-depressants.
The fact of the matter is this; there is no way of telling for sure who is a vicious killer and who is just going through a phase of teen-aged awkwardness. The one thing that is for sure is this simple fact; the people who committed this crime are simply evil. That is the undisputable truth. Evil exists in our world. It always has, and, odds are, always will. Even in the Christian bible, evil existed in the most perfect place on earth. It is inescapable. Humanity has two belief mechanisms to help explain, or maybe just deal, with the existence of evil; fate and faith.
Fate is the belief that all of life’s events are somehow pre-determined. While an individual can make choices, in the end, what was meant to be will be. Nothing is capable of changing fate. That is why, the argument goes, someone can fall out of a 10-story building and not get hurt, yet someone else will die from a paper cut.
Faith is the belief that a god, or whatever the person, place or thing that you have faith in, will help you prevail through all. Faith is the reason why people will do things that even they know are foolish, futile, or downright dangerous; logic ceases to exist, faith will get them through.
Kimberly Cates had faith in her security system. Now she is a victim of murder. Her daughter, as of earlier today, is out of intensive care, but will carry the physical scars around her neck for years to come. She will suffer the emotional scars forever, but I think this little girl will somehow make it. After all, at 4:20 a.m., with her throat slashed and a broken leg, she had the wherewithal to call 911 for help. I hope that if I am ever in a crisis that severe, I will be as brave and mature as that little girl. Now excuse me. I have to go lock my windows and doors.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Assorted thoughts and stuff...
I have to admit that for the last few weeks I just haven't felt good physically. No one problem, just nagging little things that flare up and disappear. As a result, my mood has not been as cheerful as I would like. Lately, the news has not done anything to help my situation any.
I live in Massachusetts.Thanks for your sympathy. Politics in Mass., well, they're tragically laughable at best. This week alone, three fascinating little tidbits that hit the papers.
A State Senator was cited for leaving the scene of an accident on Sunday afternoon. Kinda silly, I thought. Then it's revealed that he has two prior DUI's, and received a Gubernatorial pardon for a third. Might I note, this DUI machine was returning home from the N.E. Patriots game. Is it at all possible that he may have had one too many?
Of course, our RMV (Registry of motor vehicles)won't do anything about it because they are scrambling to find excuses for closing over a dozen offices. They claim it's because of budget cuts, but a little research shows the RMV operating expenses at $40 million a year. Their revenue was $130 million, up $82 million under Govenor "Coupe" Deval Patrick's administration.
Then there is the election to replace Senator Ted Kennedy, who passed away after a fight with brain cancer ended his life-long service to the people of the Commonwealth. Two of the candidates are literally arguing over will be the kindest to the state's criminals. Yes, you read that right. I just can't make crap like that up.
A few miles to the north, 4 teenagers allegedly murdered a 42 year old mom and slashed the throat of her 11 year old daughter during a home invasion. Only thing is, they didn't steal anything. The story is they picked a house out at random and decided anyone home would be murdered.The 4 are between 19-17 years of age.
Lastly, I see the battle in Washington over health care. Latest news: even the Democrats are trying to turn the President into a liar. He promised health care reform with no new taxes, yet the Finance committee is all excited about a bill that would require $224 Billion in new taxes to work. With friends like that, the President doesn't need enemies.
So I'm going to go to bed now. I'll turn on some soothing music. Burn a little incense, and hope that when I wake up, I'm somewhere else.
Unfortunately, I doubt I will be.
Sigh.
I live in Massachusetts.Thanks for your sympathy. Politics in Mass., well, they're tragically laughable at best. This week alone, three fascinating little tidbits that hit the papers.
A State Senator was cited for leaving the scene of an accident on Sunday afternoon. Kinda silly, I thought. Then it's revealed that he has two prior DUI's, and received a Gubernatorial pardon for a third. Might I note, this DUI machine was returning home from the N.E. Patriots game. Is it at all possible that he may have had one too many?
Of course, our RMV (Registry of motor vehicles)won't do anything about it because they are scrambling to find excuses for closing over a dozen offices. They claim it's because of budget cuts, but a little research shows the RMV operating expenses at $40 million a year. Their revenue was $130 million, up $82 million under Govenor "Coupe" Deval Patrick's administration.
Then there is the election to replace Senator Ted Kennedy, who passed away after a fight with brain cancer ended his life-long service to the people of the Commonwealth. Two of the candidates are literally arguing over will be the kindest to the state's criminals. Yes, you read that right. I just can't make crap like that up.
A few miles to the north, 4 teenagers allegedly murdered a 42 year old mom and slashed the throat of her 11 year old daughter during a home invasion. Only thing is, they didn't steal anything. The story is they picked a house out at random and decided anyone home would be murdered.The 4 are between 19-17 years of age.
Lastly, I see the battle in Washington over health care. Latest news: even the Democrats are trying to turn the President into a liar. He promised health care reform with no new taxes, yet the Finance committee is all excited about a bill that would require $224 Billion in new taxes to work. With friends like that, the President doesn't need enemies.
So I'm going to go to bed now. I'll turn on some soothing music. Burn a little incense, and hope that when I wake up, I'm somewhere else.
Unfortunately, I doubt I will be.
Sigh.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Opinion: A tale of two videos
Thus far on this blog, I have posted a few articles encouraging you to research things you see and hear, and not to to just accept things as fact because a friend, employer, reporter, or political party told you to. It's called free thinking. You gather data and form an opinion. Further research will either reinforce the opinion or shed a new light on things. But sometimes, a person just needs to react to the emotion of something that happens. This week, such a story has got me outraged, and so this blog article is going to present more of my opinion than I have expressed yet on this blog.
This is the story of two videos. One features a class of second-graders who sing two songs, although one is done more like a chant, both in praise of, not God, not country, not Mom and Dad, but Barack Hussein Obama. One song that the children sing contains quotes almost directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children,":"He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama.". 7,8 year old children are chanting political slogans in praise of a man using the lyrics of a Christian spiritual song as its basis? But if the chant is disturbing, the song is downright terrifying. Sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", the first line is changed from " Thine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord" to "Hello Mr. President, we honor you today". Watch the video. Here are the complete lyrics for both songs:
Song 1:Altered lyrics of "Jesus loves the little children"-The actual lyrics are parenthesized)
Mm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
He said that all must lend a hand (I will take you by the hand)
To make this country strong again (Lead you to the better land)
Mmm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
He said we must be fair today [See the list of actual lyrics below]
Equal work means equal pay [See the list of actual lyrics below]
Mmm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
He said that we must take a stand [See the list of actual lyrics below]
To make sure everyone gets a chance [See the list of actual lyrics below]
Mmm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
He said red, yellow, black or white(Red and yellow, black and white)
All are equal in his sight (All are precious in His sight)
Mmm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
Here are some of the other lyrics to "Jesus loves the little children"
Jesus calls the children dear,
Come to Me and never fear,
Jesus is the Shepherd true,
And He’ll always stand by you,
He’s a Savior great and strong,
And He’ll shield you from the wrong,
I am coming, Lord, to Thee,
And Your soldier I will be,
And Your cross I’ll always bear,
And for You I’ll do and dare,
Song 2:Sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
I'm sure a large number of service people past and present are thrilled with this.
Charisse Carney-Nunes has been credited as the author of the songs. She is Senior Vice President for Programs at The Jamestown Project. More on them below. Among her many duties, she sets direction for issues and ideas. She is the author of the children's book, "I Am Barack Obama"(2009). She attended, but lists no degrees, from Harvard University. She has spent the last few months visiting schools on the East coast to promote her book. A poster of the book is seen to the side of the children in the video.
According to the author's website, ""I Am Barack Obama" is not a book about Barack Obama. Rather, it allows children to see themselves through the inspirational story of President Obama growing up as an ordinary child asking, “Who will change the world?” Ultimately, he realizes that he will". Did I just read that right? The book is not about Barack Obama, yet in it "he realizes that he will" change the world. Are you as confused by that contradiction as I am?
The Jamestown Project is a group based in Cambridge, Mass. Among the strategies The Jamestown Project uses to achieve their goals are formulating political strategy and public policy, and cultivating new leaders. Could they possibly mean cultivating these very second graders? As much as I hate to do this, I am going to make a reference to Barney the Dinosaur. A large part of Barney's success and effectiveness is the fact that he teaches children via songs. Barney's greatest hits are all familiar tunes with the lyrics changed to teach the lesson du jour, if you will. Is this not the exact same thing we are seeing here?
In the last couple of weeks, I have talked with a 21 year old and two high school seniors who all had one thing in common; none of them knew what happened in 1776. It got me wondering just what the hell are they teaching in schools today. I certainly hope that this is not the curriculum of the future. I mean, if a group of students at a college were to post a video like this on Youtube, it would amount to much ado about nothing. But these are second grade children. They trust adults to teach them right from wrong. They accept what they are taught. They will not be able to intellectually reason for themselves for almost ten years yet. By then, it may be too late.
Yes, I was a vessel of mixed emotions when I saw this video. Anger, bewilderment, outrage, sorrow. I began to think that the future was growing dimmer for the future of our country. Then I saw this video; two of these girls are 6, two are seven, and one is eight. I think that just maybe, America will get through these times. At least I certainly hope so.
While researching this article, I came across two more videos of school children singing praises to President Obama. I did not post them for two reasons. First, because they were in a foreign language and were subtitled. Secondly, because the content was just too upsetting to put on my blog. You see, in both videos, Kenyan Muslim school children were singing about how President Obama would be responsible for the defeat of America. I will not provide the link here; you can search Youtube if you must see it for yourself. Thanks for reading. Take care.-PetePedia
This is the story of two videos. One features a class of second-graders who sing two songs, although one is done more like a chant, both in praise of, not God, not country, not Mom and Dad, but Barack Hussein Obama. One song that the children sing contains quotes almost directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children,":"He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama.". 7,8 year old children are chanting political slogans in praise of a man using the lyrics of a Christian spiritual song as its basis? But if the chant is disturbing, the song is downright terrifying. Sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", the first line is changed from " Thine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord" to "Hello Mr. President, we honor you today". Watch the video. Here are the complete lyrics for both songs:
Song 1:Altered lyrics of "Jesus loves the little children"-The actual lyrics are parenthesized)
Mm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
He said that all must lend a hand (I will take you by the hand)
To make this country strong again (Lead you to the better land)
Mmm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
He said we must be fair today [See the list of actual lyrics below]
Equal work means equal pay [See the list of actual lyrics below]
Mmm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
He said that we must take a stand [See the list of actual lyrics below]
To make sure everyone gets a chance [See the list of actual lyrics below]
Mmm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
He said red, yellow, black or white(Red and yellow, black and white)
All are equal in his sight (All are precious in His sight)
Mmm, mmm, mm! (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm (For I love)
Barack Hussein Obama (the little children of the world)
Here are some of the other lyrics to "Jesus loves the little children"
Jesus calls the children dear,
Come to Me and never fear,
Jesus is the Shepherd true,
And He’ll always stand by you,
He’s a Savior great and strong,
And He’ll shield you from the wrong,
I am coming, Lord, to Thee,
And Your soldier I will be,
And Your cross I’ll always bear,
And for You I’ll do and dare,
Song 2:Sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
I'm sure a large number of service people past and present are thrilled with this.
Charisse Carney-Nunes has been credited as the author of the songs. She is Senior Vice President for Programs at The Jamestown Project. More on them below. Among her many duties, she sets direction for issues and ideas. She is the author of the children's book, "I Am Barack Obama"(2009). She attended, but lists no degrees, from Harvard University. She has spent the last few months visiting schools on the East coast to promote her book. A poster of the book is seen to the side of the children in the video.
According to the author's website, ""I Am Barack Obama" is not a book about Barack Obama. Rather, it allows children to see themselves through the inspirational story of President Obama growing up as an ordinary child asking, “Who will change the world?” Ultimately, he realizes that he will". Did I just read that right? The book is not about Barack Obama, yet in it "he realizes that he will" change the world. Are you as confused by that contradiction as I am?
The Jamestown Project is a group based in Cambridge, Mass. Among the strategies The Jamestown Project uses to achieve their goals are formulating political strategy and public policy, and cultivating new leaders. Could they possibly mean cultivating these very second graders? As much as I hate to do this, I am going to make a reference to Barney the Dinosaur. A large part of Barney's success and effectiveness is the fact that he teaches children via songs. Barney's greatest hits are all familiar tunes with the lyrics changed to teach the lesson du jour, if you will. Is this not the exact same thing we are seeing here?
In the last couple of weeks, I have talked with a 21 year old and two high school seniors who all had one thing in common; none of them knew what happened in 1776. It got me wondering just what the hell are they teaching in schools today. I certainly hope that this is not the curriculum of the future. I mean, if a group of students at a college were to post a video like this on Youtube, it would amount to much ado about nothing. But these are second grade children. They trust adults to teach them right from wrong. They accept what they are taught. They will not be able to intellectually reason for themselves for almost ten years yet. By then, it may be too late.
Yes, I was a vessel of mixed emotions when I saw this video. Anger, bewilderment, outrage, sorrow. I began to think that the future was growing dimmer for the future of our country. Then I saw this video; two of these girls are 6, two are seven, and one is eight. I think that just maybe, America will get through these times. At least I certainly hope so.
While researching this article, I came across two more videos of school children singing praises to President Obama. I did not post them for two reasons. First, because they were in a foreign language and were subtitled. Secondly, because the content was just too upsetting to put on my blog. You see, in both videos, Kenyan Muslim school children were singing about how President Obama would be responsible for the defeat of America. I will not provide the link here; you can search Youtube if you must see it for yourself. Thanks for reading. Take care.-PetePedia
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The media and credibility
The purpose of this blog is to encourage people to think for themselves, and not to accept as fact everything they see and hear. I use the word lemmings to describe these people; they follow blindly without questioning. I see articles, videos, and news items daily that spout alleged facts. I hear, or participate in, conversations where I hear unfounded assertions. This blog’s purpose is not to persuade you one way or another; it is to encourage you to research things for yourself. I sincerely hope you enjoy my blog.-Pete
My Facebook friends run the gamut from right-wing conservatives to left-wing liberals with a few fundamentalist Christians thrown in for good measure. As a result, my news feed page can sometimes look like a battlefield. Of course, this is a treasure trove of inspiration for my blog. Here is the latest subject- Credibility in the media.
One Facebook friend posted this headline with a link to the article: “ Iran: More accomplished in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats”. I clicked on the link and I find myself at a blog. The blog then directs me to the
actual website from which the story originated. I started reading with great interest about all the concessions Iran made to the western diplomats, including President Obama, in this seven and a half hour meeting. Then I noticed something. I noticed that there were not many quotes in the story. There were certainly many statements, but few quotes. As I looked for the quoted parts, I found that one quote came from “… a senior U.S. official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity”. While the meeting took place in Geneva, the article used a quote from President Obama in Washington. The skeptic in me started wondering about how accurate the story was.
It took me all of thirty seconds to find another article with this headline:
"Iran's leader: Obama wrong to say nuke site hidden". I started reading this article, looking for corroboration of the first article. Here is what I found. There were many points in both stories that were very similar. However, I found one glaring difference; cited quotes. The second story had quotes from people actually at the meeting, and named them. One such statement went like this: “But Mehdi Saffare, Iran's ambassador to Britain and a member of the Iranian delegation at the talks, said Iran had not yet agreed to such a plan”. Now there is a problem. We have two articles on the exact same meeting, both talking about an agreement where “Western officials” claim that Iran had made concessions on the matter. However, one article names an Iranian official who was at the meeting that says no such agreement took place. This claim seems to get reinforcement from the quotes from Iran’s President himself blasting President Obama’s mistakes on the matter. Which story should you believe?
Pardon me while I express an opinion here. As I was growing up, I learned that the news was where we were supposed to discover about world events. Journalists were “reporters”; they saw things and reported them. That was all. In today’s world, true journalism no longer exists, at least not in the main stream. How many times have you heard a comment from someone you know who said something like this: I do not watch/listen to that station because it leans to the right/left? I hear it daily. I have had friendly discussions with intelligent people who flat out said that a news channel’s coverage was invalid because of their political leanings. It appears as though there is no such thing as unbiased reporting; news outlets have become marketing tools to promote agendas. That is my opinion. Now back to the blog.
This is a perfect example of my blog’s purpose. This is a tale of two stories. Both are very similar, until you get to the headlines. One story lacks properly cited quotes or references, and the few quotes in the story are unnamed or outdated. The other story names of the sources of the quotes from participants in the event. News reporting is supposed to be about gathering facts. Use the links to read both stories and then decide which you think is more credible. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.
References
Akbar Dareini, A. (2009, October 2). Iran's leader- Obama wrong. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from Yahoo.com: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_nuclear;_ylt=Aq_4yz3T9AU37o8SIbQCirys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ0amtpZjdlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDA0L21sX2lyYW5fbnVjbGVhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2Z1bGxuYnNwc3Rvcg--
Greenwald, G. (2009, October 1). Iran:More accomplished. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from salon.com: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html?source=newsletter>
Strobel, W., & Talev, M. (2009, October 2). Iran agrees . Retrieved October 3, 2009, from mcclatchydc.com: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/76369.html
My Facebook friends run the gamut from right-wing conservatives to left-wing liberals with a few fundamentalist Christians thrown in for good measure. As a result, my news feed page can sometimes look like a battlefield. Of course, this is a treasure trove of inspiration for my blog. Here is the latest subject- Credibility in the media.
One Facebook friend posted this headline with a link to the article: “ Iran: More accomplished in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats”. I clicked on the link and I find myself at a blog. The blog then directs me to the
actual website from which the story originated. I started reading with great interest about all the concessions Iran made to the western diplomats, including President Obama, in this seven and a half hour meeting. Then I noticed something. I noticed that there were not many quotes in the story. There were certainly many statements, but few quotes. As I looked for the quoted parts, I found that one quote came from “… a senior U.S. official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity”. While the meeting took place in Geneva, the article used a quote from President Obama in Washington. The skeptic in me started wondering about how accurate the story was.
It took me all of thirty seconds to find another article with this headline:
"Iran's leader: Obama wrong to say nuke site hidden". I started reading this article, looking for corroboration of the first article. Here is what I found. There were many points in both stories that were very similar. However, I found one glaring difference; cited quotes. The second story had quotes from people actually at the meeting, and named them. One such statement went like this: “But Mehdi Saffare, Iran's ambassador to Britain and a member of the Iranian delegation at the talks, said Iran had not yet agreed to such a plan”. Now there is a problem. We have two articles on the exact same meeting, both talking about an agreement where “Western officials” claim that Iran had made concessions on the matter. However, one article names an Iranian official who was at the meeting that says no such agreement took place. This claim seems to get reinforcement from the quotes from Iran’s President himself blasting President Obama’s mistakes on the matter. Which story should you believe?
Pardon me while I express an opinion here. As I was growing up, I learned that the news was where we were supposed to discover about world events. Journalists were “reporters”; they saw things and reported them. That was all. In today’s world, true journalism no longer exists, at least not in the main stream. How many times have you heard a comment from someone you know who said something like this: I do not watch/listen to that station because it leans to the right/left? I hear it daily. I have had friendly discussions with intelligent people who flat out said that a news channel’s coverage was invalid because of their political leanings. It appears as though there is no such thing as unbiased reporting; news outlets have become marketing tools to promote agendas. That is my opinion. Now back to the blog.
This is a perfect example of my blog’s purpose. This is a tale of two stories. Both are very similar, until you get to the headlines. One story lacks properly cited quotes or references, and the few quotes in the story are unnamed or outdated. The other story names of the sources of the quotes from participants in the event. News reporting is supposed to be about gathering facts. Use the links to read both stories and then decide which you think is more credible. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.
References
Akbar Dareini, A. (2009, October 2). Iran's leader- Obama wrong. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from Yahoo.com: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_nuclear;_ylt=Aq_4yz3T9AU37o8SIbQCirys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ0amtpZjdlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDA0L21sX2lyYW5fbnVjbGVhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2Z1bGxuYnNwc3Rvcg--
Greenwald, G. (2009, October 1). Iran:More accomplished. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from salon.com: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html?source=newsletter>
Strobel, W., & Talev, M. (2009, October 2). Iran agrees . Retrieved October 3, 2009, from mcclatchydc.com: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/76369.html
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Is President Obama the Antichrist?
The purpose of this blog is to encourage people to think for themselves, and not to accept as fact everything they see and hear. I use the word lemmings to describe these people; they follow blindly without questioning. I see articles, videos, and news items daily that spout alleged facts. I hear, or participate in, conversations where I hear unfounded assertions. This blog’s purpose is not to persuade you one way or another; it is to encourage you to research things for yourself. I sincerely hope you enjoy my blog.-Pete.
I was having breakfast at my local diner this morning. The hostess, who, by the way is as close to the perfect woman as I have ever met, remarked that she had a conversation with someone who claimed President Obama was the antichrist. I chuckled at first, but then realized I have heard this statement many times before. It then dawned on me that lemmings may just accept this as fact. I now needed to research the question: Is President Obama the antichrist.
To determine whether President Obama is in fact the antichrist, one has to have a definition. I Googled it and here is what I found: the vast majority of websites, dictionaries and references all define antichrist as the enemy of Christ. That is basic stuff, so I searched for specific qualities the antichrist would possess. Here is what I found.
Bible scholars claim one thing that identifies the antichrist is his ability to bring peace to the Middle East. Their basis for this is a scripture in the book of Daniel 9:27. Has President Obama done this? No. However, his next task is to talk Iran into disarming its nuclear weapons. On it’s website, BBC news reports “The US fears Iran's uranium enrichment programme is a cover to build atomic weapons, a charge Iranian officials deny. Mr Obama, like his predecessor, wants Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme, but is trying to build up diplomatic capital before confronting the issue,” (Marcus, 2009).
Another scripture used to warn of the antichrist is in Revelation 13. It talks of the death, and then resurrection, to even greater power than was previously held. Obviously, President Obama is still alive, so we cannot use this as evidence one way or the other.
I now find a litany of scriptural citations that claim the antichrist will declare himself God, but only after achieving quite a list of areas where he has global control. Specifically, they are: politically, religiously, militarily, and economically. Does President Obama meet the necessary requirements to qualify as the antichrist? Let us examine them one by one.
To be in global control politically, one would have to be in a powerful standing globally. As the recent failure of President Obama’s attempt at bringing the Olympics to Chicago points out, he has little power on the global front. As far as being a religious leader, it is true that there are groups of people who literally pray to President Obama, but, at this time, they are not given much credibility. Militarily, President Obama has not exactly put his job as Commander-in-Chief at the forefront. The Kansas City Star reported “It was Obama and McChrystal’s first meeting in person since the general took over all American and NATO forces on the ground in June… The fact that Obama had not talked with McChrystal since his report was submitted at the end of August generated criticism.” (Baker, 2009). Does this sound like someone who is currently attempting to gain military control of the world? Economically, I do not think I really need to prove the state the USA is in at this time. The Wall Street Journal reported “Job losses moderated in August, but the unemployment rate ticked up 0.1 percentage point to 9.8%, the highest level since June 1983”. Suffice to say, there is no global control there either.
I do think it is necessary to divulge a piece of information here. In the entire sixty-six books that are accepted as the Christian bible, the word antichrist only appears five times; four in singular form and once as a plural. This introduces the possibility that the antichrist may be a group of people, not a single person. All cited references to the actual antichrist come from biblical scripture, yet, outside of Christianity, the bible is merely literature; academically it is not an authoritative source. That is a whole other topic for discussion. One could therefore argue that the antichrist, to quote the bard, is “Much ado about nothing”.
I heard an assertion; President Obama is the antichrist. I found the definition. I examined some of the requirements of being such. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.
References
Baker, P. (2009, October 2). Obama and general discuss Afghanastan. Kansas City Star(reprinted from N.Y. Times) .
Izzo, P. (2009, October 2). Broader Unemployment Rate Hits 17% in September. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from WSJ.com: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/10/02/broader-unemployment-rate-hits-17-in-september/?mod=wsj_share_facebook
Marcus, J. (2009, October 2). Obama offers Iran 'new beginning'. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from BBC.com: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7954211.stm
I was having breakfast at my local diner this morning. The hostess, who, by the way is as close to the perfect woman as I have ever met, remarked that she had a conversation with someone who claimed President Obama was the antichrist. I chuckled at first, but then realized I have heard this statement many times before. It then dawned on me that lemmings may just accept this as fact. I now needed to research the question: Is President Obama the antichrist.
To determine whether President Obama is in fact the antichrist, one has to have a definition. I Googled it and here is what I found: the vast majority of websites, dictionaries and references all define antichrist as the enemy of Christ. That is basic stuff, so I searched for specific qualities the antichrist would possess. Here is what I found.
Bible scholars claim one thing that identifies the antichrist is his ability to bring peace to the Middle East. Their basis for this is a scripture in the book of Daniel 9:27. Has President Obama done this? No. However, his next task is to talk Iran into disarming its nuclear weapons. On it’s website, BBC news reports “The US fears Iran's uranium enrichment programme is a cover to build atomic weapons, a charge Iranian officials deny. Mr Obama, like his predecessor, wants Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme, but is trying to build up diplomatic capital before confronting the issue,” (Marcus, 2009).
Another scripture used to warn of the antichrist is in Revelation 13. It talks of the death, and then resurrection, to even greater power than was previously held. Obviously, President Obama is still alive, so we cannot use this as evidence one way or the other.
I now find a litany of scriptural citations that claim the antichrist will declare himself God, but only after achieving quite a list of areas where he has global control. Specifically, they are: politically, religiously, militarily, and economically. Does President Obama meet the necessary requirements to qualify as the antichrist? Let us examine them one by one.
To be in global control politically, one would have to be in a powerful standing globally. As the recent failure of President Obama’s attempt at bringing the Olympics to Chicago points out, he has little power on the global front. As far as being a religious leader, it is true that there are groups of people who literally pray to President Obama, but, at this time, they are not given much credibility. Militarily, President Obama has not exactly put his job as Commander-in-Chief at the forefront. The Kansas City Star reported “It was Obama and McChrystal’s first meeting in person since the general took over all American and NATO forces on the ground in June… The fact that Obama had not talked with McChrystal since his report was submitted at the end of August generated criticism.” (Baker, 2009). Does this sound like someone who is currently attempting to gain military control of the world? Economically, I do not think I really need to prove the state the USA is in at this time. The Wall Street Journal reported “Job losses moderated in August, but the unemployment rate ticked up 0.1 percentage point to 9.8%, the highest level since June 1983”. Suffice to say, there is no global control there either.
I do think it is necessary to divulge a piece of information here. In the entire sixty-six books that are accepted as the Christian bible, the word antichrist only appears five times; four in singular form and once as a plural. This introduces the possibility that the antichrist may be a group of people, not a single person. All cited references to the actual antichrist come from biblical scripture, yet, outside of Christianity, the bible is merely literature; academically it is not an authoritative source. That is a whole other topic for discussion. One could therefore argue that the antichrist, to quote the bard, is “Much ado about nothing”.
I heard an assertion; President Obama is the antichrist. I found the definition. I examined some of the requirements of being such. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.
References
Baker, P. (2009, October 2). Obama and general discuss Afghanastan. Kansas City Star(reprinted from N.Y. Times) .
Izzo, P. (2009, October 2). Broader Unemployment Rate Hits 17% in September. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from WSJ.com: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/10/02/broader-unemployment-rate-hits-17-in-september/?mod=wsj_share_facebook
Marcus, J. (2009, October 2). Obama offers Iran 'new beginning'. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from BBC.com: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7954211.stm
Friday, October 2, 2009
Capitalism: A true story?
The purpose of this blog is to encourage people to think for themselves, and not to accept as fact everything they see and hear. I use the word lemmings to describe these people; they follow blindly without questioning. I see articles, videos, and news items daily that spout alleged facts. I hear, or participate in, conversations where I hear unfounded assertions. This blog’s purpose is not to persuade you one way or another; it is to encourage you to research things for yourself. I sincerely hope you enjoy my blog.-Pete
Like most people on Friday after work, I went to the gas station to top off for the weekend ahead. The station I use has installed televisions on top of the pumps, presumably to keep you from watching your hard-earned money spin away on the dial. Lo and behold, I see a commercial for Michael Moore’s new movie, Capitalism. The voiceover primarily states that Michael Moore tells the truth about important topics in his movies. I decided to check out some facts about Mr. Moore’s accuracy of statements in his newest movie, “Capitalism: A love story”.
Regarding his movie “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Mr. Moore claims that his movie irreparably harmed President Bush’s popularity: " From Fahrenheit on, Bush's approval rating never was better, it only got worse" (Moore, 2009). Fahrenheit 9/11 came out at the end of June 2004, when Bush's approval rating was at 48 percent. However, his approval rating climbed through the rest of the summer and hit 53 percent around Election Day in early November. After the election, Bush's approval peaked at 57 percent during the first week of February 2005. Here we see that the next eight months after the movie’s release, the president’s approval rating increased, not decreased. Mr. Moore’s claims are just flat out wrong on this one.
The next statement Mr. Moore makes is that the majority of Americans want a single-payer health care system. Put simply, the government would be responsible for paying all of your health care. Mr. Moore cites the Kaiser Foundation’s July 2009 poll on this matter. Let us look, shall we? The poll asks each participant to what degree he or she favored or disfavored eight different types of plans. Each plan received a favor/do not favor rating. In July, single-payer was favored by a narrow margin; 50% to 46%, compared to itself. This was the first time in six months that this was true. Among all eight plans, however, single payer rated the lowest score. This clearly shows that Mr. Moore’s claims of a majority were gratuitous at best, and that Americans were clearly thinking anything is better than single payer health care. Here is more evidence of another inaccurate claim by Mr. Moore.
In the fifties, “ A lot of people got rich -- and they had to pay a top tax rate of 90 percent” Mr. Moore says in the film (Moore, 2009). That sounds like an awful lot, does it not? Look what I found out though; the top marginal tax rates were over 90 percent in the fifties. Therefore, it appears this might be true. Look closer though. Mr. Moore says “ …top tax rate” while, in the fifties, it was the top marginal tax rates that were over 90 percent. What is the difference? Exactly this; under Mr. Moore’s formula, a person making $500,000 would have to pay $450,000 in taxes. The 90 percent marginal tax rates, however, apply only to money earned in excess of $300,000 in the fifties. Anything below that and the taxes started at only 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income and graduated on up to the highest rate after $300,000. The result is that a person would have had to make in excess of $2.3 million dollars a year to pay an actual 90% in taxes. This shows Mr. Moore’s statement is misleading at best. By the way, in case you wanted to know, in 2009, the top marginal rate was 35 percent on income above $372,958. Would you say that is quite a difference from 90 percent?
At this point, you might start thinking that Michael Moore’s films lack a certain familiarity with the actual truth. Let me point out this piece of information where the facts back up Mr. Moore. He cites a statistic that the top 1% of the wealthy has more financial wealth than the bottom 95%. This gets into semantics; it depends on whose definition of financial wealth you use. Two of the three most accepted definitions support Mr. Moore’s statement, while one definition disagrees, but minimally. Even if the exact numbers are not very correct, the truth is the top 1% has a hugely disproportionate share of the financial wealth. This is a true statement.
What of the claim that President Obama’s top campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs? That is partially true. Goldman Sachs was in fact the top private contributor to the President’s campaign-University of California employees were first, but they are public contributors. Mr. Moore is right about that assertion.
I heard a commercial stating Mr. Moore's movie tell the truth. I checked some facts. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.
References
Adair, B. (2009, October 1). Politifact-Michael Moore movie gets a fact-check. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from politifact.com: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/01/michael-moore-movie-factcheck/
Moore, M. (2009, September 29). Retrieved October 2, 2009, from Michael Moore.com.
Moore, M. (Director). (2009). Capitalism: A love story [Motion Picture].
Like most people on Friday after work, I went to the gas station to top off for the weekend ahead. The station I use has installed televisions on top of the pumps, presumably to keep you from watching your hard-earned money spin away on the dial. Lo and behold, I see a commercial for Michael Moore’s new movie, Capitalism. The voiceover primarily states that Michael Moore tells the truth about important topics in his movies. I decided to check out some facts about Mr. Moore’s accuracy of statements in his newest movie, “Capitalism: A love story”.
Regarding his movie “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Mr. Moore claims that his movie irreparably harmed President Bush’s popularity: " From Fahrenheit on, Bush's approval rating never was better, it only got worse" (Moore, 2009). Fahrenheit 9/11 came out at the end of June 2004, when Bush's approval rating was at 48 percent. However, his approval rating climbed through the rest of the summer and hit 53 percent around Election Day in early November. After the election, Bush's approval peaked at 57 percent during the first week of February 2005. Here we see that the next eight months after the movie’s release, the president’s approval rating increased, not decreased. Mr. Moore’s claims are just flat out wrong on this one.
The next statement Mr. Moore makes is that the majority of Americans want a single-payer health care system. Put simply, the government would be responsible for paying all of your health care. Mr. Moore cites the Kaiser Foundation’s July 2009 poll on this matter. Let us look, shall we? The poll asks each participant to what degree he or she favored or disfavored eight different types of plans. Each plan received a favor/do not favor rating. In July, single-payer was favored by a narrow margin; 50% to 46%, compared to itself. This was the first time in six months that this was true. Among all eight plans, however, single payer rated the lowest score. This clearly shows that Mr. Moore’s claims of a majority were gratuitous at best, and that Americans were clearly thinking anything is better than single payer health care. Here is more evidence of another inaccurate claim by Mr. Moore.
In the fifties, “ A lot of people got rich -- and they had to pay a top tax rate of 90 percent” Mr. Moore says in the film (Moore, 2009). That sounds like an awful lot, does it not? Look what I found out though; the top marginal tax rates were over 90 percent in the fifties. Therefore, it appears this might be true. Look closer though. Mr. Moore says “ …top tax rate” while, in the fifties, it was the top marginal tax rates that were over 90 percent. What is the difference? Exactly this; under Mr. Moore’s formula, a person making $500,000 would have to pay $450,000 in taxes. The 90 percent marginal tax rates, however, apply only to money earned in excess of $300,000 in the fifties. Anything below that and the taxes started at only 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income and graduated on up to the highest rate after $300,000. The result is that a person would have had to make in excess of $2.3 million dollars a year to pay an actual 90% in taxes. This shows Mr. Moore’s statement is misleading at best. By the way, in case you wanted to know, in 2009, the top marginal rate was 35 percent on income above $372,958. Would you say that is quite a difference from 90 percent?
At this point, you might start thinking that Michael Moore’s films lack a certain familiarity with the actual truth. Let me point out this piece of information where the facts back up Mr. Moore. He cites a statistic that the top 1% of the wealthy has more financial wealth than the bottom 95%. This gets into semantics; it depends on whose definition of financial wealth you use. Two of the three most accepted definitions support Mr. Moore’s statement, while one definition disagrees, but minimally. Even if the exact numbers are not very correct, the truth is the top 1% has a hugely disproportionate share of the financial wealth. This is a true statement.
What of the claim that President Obama’s top campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs? That is partially true. Goldman Sachs was in fact the top private contributor to the President’s campaign-University of California employees were first, but they are public contributors. Mr. Moore is right about that assertion.
I heard a commercial stating Mr. Moore's movie tell the truth. I checked some facts. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.
References
Adair, B. (2009, October 1). Politifact-Michael Moore movie gets a fact-check. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from politifact.com: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/01/michael-moore-movie-factcheck/
Moore, M. (2009, September 29). Retrieved October 2, 2009, from Michael Moore.com.
Moore, M. (Director). (2009). Capitalism: A love story [Motion Picture].
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Glenn Beck and the big, bad, blog.
The purpose of this blog is to encourage people to think for themselves, and not to accept as fact everything they see and hear. I use the word lemmings to describe these people; they follow blindly without questioning. I see articles, videos, and news items daily that spout alleged facts. I hear, or participate in, conversations where I hear unfounded assertions. This blog’s purpose is not to persuade you one way or another; it is to encourage you to research things for yourself. I sincerely hope you enjoy my blog.-Pete
In my surfing for a new topic for discussion, I came across a blog blasting Glenn Beck, a Conservative journalist, for some allegedly incorrect assertions he had made. Most lemmings would read this blog and accept it as gospel; I, being a cynical kind of person, decided to check out the facts for myself. Here is what I found.
The blog started out with a statement by Glenn Beck where he stated, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? They lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." (Glenn Beck Show, 2009) . The blog points out that the Vancouver games do not actually take place until 2010. This is a fact. It appears to be that Mr. Beck lied. However, he did respond, “So I misspoke. I should have said Calgary and not Vancouver.” (Glenn Beck Show, 2009) Okay, so the blogs insinuation that Mr. Beck was spouting “rhetoric” was actually just a case of misspeaking. The Toronto Star reported an independent audit placed the financial loss of the Calgary Olympics at $311 - $371 million. Mr. Beck was right about the loss, just wrong about the city and the amount.
In his explanation, Mr. Beck does bring up these facts about the 2010 Vancouver games:
“The Vancouver Olympics budgeted $175 million for security. According to the Vancouver Sun, that number may be $800 million higher. British Columbia's auditor general reported that British Columbia, "... has not fully disclosed the risks associated with the cost and revenue projections". He says they did not include, "... what he and two previous auditors believe should be counted as Olympic related costs. The billion dollar sea to sky highway improvements, the billion dollar trade and convention center and the $2 billion Canada line." That's close to $4 billion that they just kind of shuffled off onto other books. Plus the $600 million the government admits to.”
He continues: “Also missing from the budget, the $300 million Olympic bonus that unionized government employees got for signing a four year contract that ends after the games. I just, I just love these unions. By the way, that contract ends right after the election, too. Transportation to the event, which is another unaccounted for $250 million, Canadians are also on the hook for the Olympic village for a billion dollars. Its original budget was less than $200 million. They thought they could make the money back by selling everything as condos after the games. Yeah, guess how well those condo sales strategies are working out for them. Just interest on the money for all the unsold units could cost Canada $48 million. Every single year. So far we're up to over $6 billion in unaccounted for costs. The original budget was $1 1/2 billion. Also remember it doesn't include everything. There's still almost a year before the games actually start, but, you know, don't worry. They planned for this, you know. They have a contingency fund. $66.8 million. Unfortunately they've already spent 98% of that money.” (Glenn Beck Show, 2009)
So now, apparently, Mr. Beck’s original assertion that Vancouver is in fact already losing money on Olympics that have not even occurred is born out. This would appear to discredit the reliability of the accusatory blog even further.
The blog now blast Mr. Beck for asking questions about Valerie Jarrett: "Is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?" Caddell responded, "Well, that’s the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate." (Glenn Beck Show, 2009) So who is Valerie Jarrett? A little research shows that Valerie Jarrett is a senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. The blog now proves Mr. Beck is chasing a red herring by stating, without any supporting references, “Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell” (Lee, 2009). Therefore, we now see that Mr. Beck is apparently wrong again. Wait a minute. Research shows that in fact, Jarrett did not divest of her holdings voluntarily. A Time.com article states “Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.”(Scherer & Gregory, 2009)It now appears that this blog has now lambasted Mr. Beck erroneously on two counts. The blog goes on to show its true bias with this link: “For even more Fox lies,…” (Lee, 2009). Hmmm. Does that look like libel to you?
Simple examination of the facts, and a little time on the internet researching, show some serious discrepancies in the blog’s assertions. I, for one, will still read the blog in question. I will however, be skeptical about its contents until I check them out for myself. If you would like to check out the blog in question, here is the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-Turning-a-Point-of-Pride-into-a-Moment-of-Shame/# :">
I see a blog make the assertion a television journalist is lying. I researched the facts. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.
References
Glenn Beck Show. (2009, October 1). Glenn Beck- Current Events & Politics - White House attacks Glenn. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from Glennbeck.com: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/31387/
Lee, J. (2009, September 30). The White House- Blog post. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from whitehouse.gov: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-Turning-a-Point-of-Pride-into-a-Moment-of-Shame/#.
Scherer, M., & Gregory, S. (2009). Obama's Olympic Bid: Political Risks Even if He Wins. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from Time.com: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1926885,00.html
In my surfing for a new topic for discussion, I came across a blog blasting Glenn Beck, a Conservative journalist, for some allegedly incorrect assertions he had made. Most lemmings would read this blog and accept it as gospel; I, being a cynical kind of person, decided to check out the facts for myself. Here is what I found.
The blog started out with a statement by Glenn Beck where he stated, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? They lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." (Glenn Beck Show, 2009) . The blog points out that the Vancouver games do not actually take place until 2010. This is a fact. It appears to be that Mr. Beck lied. However, he did respond, “So I misspoke. I should have said Calgary and not Vancouver.” (Glenn Beck Show, 2009) Okay, so the blogs insinuation that Mr. Beck was spouting “rhetoric” was actually just a case of misspeaking. The Toronto Star reported an independent audit placed the financial loss of the Calgary Olympics at $311 - $371 million. Mr. Beck was right about the loss, just wrong about the city and the amount.
In his explanation, Mr. Beck does bring up these facts about the 2010 Vancouver games:
“The Vancouver Olympics budgeted $175 million for security. According to the Vancouver Sun, that number may be $800 million higher. British Columbia's auditor general reported that British Columbia, "... has not fully disclosed the risks associated with the cost and revenue projections". He says they did not include, "... what he and two previous auditors believe should be counted as Olympic related costs. The billion dollar sea to sky highway improvements, the billion dollar trade and convention center and the $2 billion Canada line." That's close to $4 billion that they just kind of shuffled off onto other books. Plus the $600 million the government admits to.”
He continues: “Also missing from the budget, the $300 million Olympic bonus that unionized government employees got for signing a four year contract that ends after the games. I just, I just love these unions. By the way, that contract ends right after the election, too. Transportation to the event, which is another unaccounted for $250 million, Canadians are also on the hook for the Olympic village for a billion dollars. Its original budget was less than $200 million. They thought they could make the money back by selling everything as condos after the games. Yeah, guess how well those condo sales strategies are working out for them. Just interest on the money for all the unsold units could cost Canada $48 million. Every single year. So far we're up to over $6 billion in unaccounted for costs. The original budget was $1 1/2 billion. Also remember it doesn't include everything. There's still almost a year before the games actually start, but, you know, don't worry. They planned for this, you know. They have a contingency fund. $66.8 million. Unfortunately they've already spent 98% of that money.” (Glenn Beck Show, 2009)
So now, apparently, Mr. Beck’s original assertion that Vancouver is in fact already losing money on Olympics that have not even occurred is born out. This would appear to discredit the reliability of the accusatory blog even further.
The blog now blast Mr. Beck for asking questions about Valerie Jarrett: "Is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?" Caddell responded, "Well, that’s the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate." (Glenn Beck Show, 2009) So who is Valerie Jarrett? A little research shows that Valerie Jarrett is a senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. The blog now proves Mr. Beck is chasing a red herring by stating, without any supporting references, “Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell” (Lee, 2009). Therefore, we now see that Mr. Beck is apparently wrong again. Wait a minute. Research shows that in fact, Jarrett did not divest of her holdings voluntarily. A Time.com article states “Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.”(Scherer & Gregory, 2009)It now appears that this blog has now lambasted Mr. Beck erroneously on two counts. The blog goes on to show its true bias with this link: “For even more Fox lies,…” (Lee, 2009). Hmmm. Does that look like libel to you?
Simple examination of the facts, and a little time on the internet researching, show some serious discrepancies in the blog’s assertions. I, for one, will still read the blog in question. I will however, be skeptical about its contents until I check them out for myself. If you would like to check out the blog in question, here is the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-Turning-a-Point-of-Pride-into-a-Moment-of-Shame/# :">
I see a blog make the assertion a television journalist is lying. I researched the facts. I will not say what I believe. My belief is irrelevant. I am just trying to encourage you to question and research things for yourself. That is the purpose of my blog. Remember, the truth is out there…you just have to look for it.
References
Glenn Beck Show. (2009, October 1). Glenn Beck- Current Events & Politics - White House attacks Glenn. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from Glennbeck.com: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/31387/
Lee, J. (2009, September 30). The White House- Blog post. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from whitehouse.gov: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-Turning-a-Point-of-Pride-into-a-Moment-of-Shame/#.
Scherer, M., & Gregory, S. (2009). Obama's Olympic Bid: Political Risks Even if He Wins. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from Time.com: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1926885,00.html