The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

E.D. Hill ...Up Skirts..... NOT CNN, NOT MSNBC, NOT FOX , A Whimsical Look ...REDUX. " I report, you decide"

 WHIMSICAL, WHIMSICAL, WHIMSICAL


NOT FOX, NOT , NOT CNN, NOT HLN, NOT MSNBC and NOT EVEN AMERICAN but  glaring shots (excuse the pun) of the existence of 'News titillation'.



A few questions: 1 Do you really think this reporter had to go through a normal interview to secure a job? 2. Do you think any males viewers care what language she speaks? 3. Is there a story in the segment (even despite language); I did not see one? Why did I not see nor hear a story? 4. Where is this woman's mother?


 
 Do you think language acts a barrier to understanding this story?  Why would this media outlet even foot the expense of a set backdrop. I am certain one camera angle is all that is necessary, desired, or useful (your choice). I wonder if the very young in her country are prohibited from viewing the evening news. If so, I wonder how many young females grow up watching her and thinking, "....oh well, think I will become a nurse". Forget this woman's mother, were the hell are the Police?  No, No not the police...but, but who will arrest her? FIREMEN??? PRIESTS?  Hell, If I were not married, I would make a citizens arrest.


The Power and Influence of ratings!
 
Feeding the 'foot fetishes'
 in the audience?


 As I move away from the 'pure' exhibit, I want to revisit the Ratings Wars.

 Ratings data that might help illustrate a point, have been pasted or copied below.

 Since the early morning hours garner the most 'skirts' shots, I think it notable to view the first sets of data just below.  The source of the data was not saved.... shame on me) but if that is an issue, I will locate the data.  The fact that the data is a copy and paste without opportunity to modify the data, should help with credibility.
A few bits of slightly aged data before we proceed.






PEW RESEARCH DATA (Unformatted and  a little hard to discern)                                                      CNN         FOX     MSNBC
                                Men                 43%   46%44%
                                Women            57    54 56
                                Republican      17   44          14

                             Mod/Lib Rep       9  34    8
                              Independent      31  28  30
                                 Democrat       47  21   53
                        Cons/Mod Dem      28   16  34
                                  Lib Dem        16     3  18



Well. no real surprises in the data. Basically, FOX News and its predominately male audience has the higher levels of viewer-ship wins the ratings wars.  

Those who follow such data might tend to believe that FOX News is the most competent and credible of the three major cable networks. 

I notice that FOX hands-down wins the DAY TIME TV Wars 
(recent data was not available to me).  Bare with me just a moments.  The Fox News evening shows with an exception for Van Sustren, is a male bastion.  OK, so we know who watches those evening shows.  The day-time shows, however, have another dynamic.  I suppose their quality of news coverage is superior to both CNN and MSNBC.


FOX NEWS BUSINESS (I will wager the audience is predominately Male!) 2:47 Minutes
I understand the visual impact of camera shots but this segments is inordinately   laced  with wide shots; lot less facial shots....UUUMMMM wonder why?


HLN Hendricks (1:47 Minutes)
This one is a classic....There is no way the camera specialist and the reporter could not have anticipated the visual of this leg cross (No Sound).


Bloomberg Joins in.....





The Network King FOX..compilation




I see that Kiran comes over to CNN from FOX.  UUMMMMM, and I wondered why her penchant for the leg shots.  Oh, gotta check out ED Hill at the 1:18 Minute mark of the video. Is she taking direction or being warned that a bit much is showing?

So much for the Whimsical look (redux).  The current practice of news room exposure is moving to levels of completely 'over-the-top'.   American viewers are not yet exposed to the level of exposure as depicted at that top of the article; not yet.   If newsrooms producers continue to move towards 'stretching acceptable levels of skin', I cannot be convinced that the quality of the news does not suffer.

I am convinced that we will one day see or read about a discrimination lawsuit filed against a network based on issues related to whether of not 'skin exposures' is a Bonafide Occupational Qualification.

In  the meantime, I guess we just watch to see where we reach the 'flesh' outter limits or we enjoy....individual perspective.

NOTE: for sake of clarity, I also love good shots of 'skin'...just think that we are moving towards serious overdoses of skin in our television news (ON CERTAIN NETWORKS), and I believe it is very much a strategy and not callousness by the female reporters or anchors.
StumbleUpon

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Michelle Bachmann...Flake????

President Obama visited India in 2010 as a guest of that countries leader.   During the visit Michelle Bachmann spoke publicly that the President was costing  the US 200 million per day while occupy hundreds of hotels rooms...and wastefully tying-up a naval fleet. When publicly 'outted' for speaking from a basis of complete lies, Bachmman fessed-up that she had read the information from an Indian news writer (or was it a blogger).  If you follow US politics, you should not be surprised that another of the GOP leadership misspoke and we can only hope it was based in false information Vs. outright lies.  

Well, she has done it again.   I posit that (this time) Bachmann is practicing outright lies as she attempts to improve her position as a candidate for the top of the GOP ticket.


 FACTCHECK.ORG. has run here 'announcement' speech through the fact check 'machine'.  Her announcement speech did not make it to the 'truth cycle'. 



I'd love to address this issue a bit more but my vacation time is tight and I should be asleep in contemplation of a busy day tomorrow. Rest is at a premium. Today I was caught admiring a few bikini outfits and I did not have the mental acuity to convince the wife that I was focusing on the bathing suit and not the body that it very inadequately covered.



One point before signing-off.  When Chris Wallace, allegedly the only real journalist on FOX News, has to ask Bachmann. ( on camera) if she is a flake.  Anyone who is not one of the FOX News sycophancy, knows that Fox News Producers use the Chris Wallace method to allow their guest to speak about issues that are in the news. Hannity is the master of the non-interview.  I see the 'Journalist at Fox-Wallace, is using the same 'soft-technique.



Problem??? 



If  Fox News has to resort to such 'bush league' interview tactics, there is real merit in the (question's) underlying point.  Of course, Bachmann is a flake and a not very mental flake at that.








Bachmann's Waterloo

The GOP lawmaker's presidential campaign starts with a slew of off-base claims.

June 28, 2011

Summary

Rep. Michele Bachmann officially joined the presidential campaign trail, but made a flurry of false and misleading claims along the way.


The Minnesota Republican appeared on two Sunday talk shows the day before giving her formal announcement speech in Waterloo, Iowa. On the shows, she made false statements about income from her family farm and government subsidies to her husband's business. She also made misstatements regarding earmarks, federal pay, government-owned "limousines" and health care:


    * Bachmann falsely claimed that she and her husband "have never gotten a penny" from a family farm that received federal subsidies. But she reported income from the farm in 2006, 2008 and 2009 -- the most recent year available -- on her congressional financial disclosure statements.

    * She claimed she had been "faithful" to her pledge not to request federal earmarks. But she requested $40 million in transportation earmarks in the 2009 fiscal year budget after taking the pledge, later claiming such projects should not be subjected to her promise. She withdrew her requests after the House Republicans took a party position in 2010 not to seek earmarks.

    * Bachmann wrongly blamed President Obama for increasing the number of federal transportation workers who earn more than $170,000 from one to 1,690 during the recession. At least two-thirds of those employees were receiving more than $170,000 before Obama took office.

    * She criticized the president for a 73 percent increase in government "limousines." But one department accounted for the increase, and it had a long-term plan, pre-dating Obama, to add armored vehicles. The term "limousine" includes armored vehicles and sedans, not just actual limos.

    * She claimed government money received by her husband's counseling clinics did not benefit the business, because the funds paid for employee training. It's true the clinics received $24,041 for training, but the business received thousands more in government funds, including money for treating crime victims.

    * The three-term congresswoman repeated -- on two Sunday shows -- the false claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the federal health care law will "cost the economy 800,000 jobs." The CBO never said that. It said there will be a "small" impact on jobs.



When she got to Waterloo to deliver her first official campaign speech, Bachmann made her now viral gaffe in saying that tough-guy actor John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. The Duke was born in Winterset, Iowa, and was raised in California. It was John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer, who was from Waterloo.

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site: www.factcheck.org


UPDATE.  While I am peeved at Politifacts.com over the Jon Stewart Fox News flap, I think the following link is critical as we face the horrors of phony self-serving politicians like Bachmann.


OFF THE CHARTS SKIRT ON FIRE  LINK

StumbleUpon

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Vacation (or Holiday) Calls

I may check-in from time to time over the next 1.5 weeks but daily visits will be impossible.


If you come her each day, I do apologize for succumbing to the need for relaxation, palm trees, sandy beaches and bikin.....Oh, No, No...and sunlight. Whew!!!! 


Have a great week, and keep an eye on the conservatives....gotta watch them even when we are asleep!

The Pardu







               








StumbleUpon

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Social Security Works




I received an email related to the heroic efforts by House of Representative Bernie Sander's (IN) fight against GOP efforts to dismantle entitlement programs that benefit our aged citizens.

If you take a few minutes to read or at least peruse the following information you should walk-away with questions as to why the GOP and conservative America are working so diligently to dismantle entitlement programs; and perpetrating it now that we have a Democratic POTUS.  If you can walk-away from the information without recognizing the majority of Americans do not want the House of OZ to follow through on GOP dismantling, then you may suffer from a reading deficiency that contributes to an inability to discern information from reading.


I recognize that Medicare and Social Security are serious drains on the national deficit and a strain that will grow as older Americas move into age groups beyond age sixty-two.  Sanders, I believe, and other more rational minds are simply seeking opportunity to take less drastic measures in dealing with a developing problem.  We as a nation have far more pressing problems than going full force after a Social Security in 2011-2012 fix. 

Archived information related to this article is linked below.  

Brief

Social Security payroll tax contributions are only paid on wages up to $106,800 in 2011, with employees and employers contributing equally (though the employer contribution is deductible for income tax purposes). Just 6 percent of the population has wages above that cap. While the vast majority of Americans must make payroll tax contributions on all of their wages, millionaires and billionaires only do so on the first $106,800 of their earnings this year. Scrapping the cap so that all earnings are subject to the payroll tax would close Social Security’s entire projected 75-year funding gap, or come very close to doing so.
Factual Situation At-A-Glance

1. Social Security belongs to you—the workers who contribute to it—not the politicians in Washington.
2. Social Security will never go bankrupt. Its major source of income comes from the contributions of workers and employers; as long as there are workers, Social Security will have income. Closing tax loopholes for wealthy individuals will increase the long term financial health of the program, and protect it for decades to come.
3. Raising the retirement age is a terrible idea and a large benefit cut. If you were claiming benefits as a 66 year-old retired worker and the full retirement age was changed from 66, where it is today, to 69 your benefits would be cut 20 percent. A typical benefit would drop from $14,000 a year to $11,200 a year.
4. Privatizing Social Security would be a disaster. Social Security is so valuable because it provides a guaranteed benefit. Privatizing Social Security would remove this guarantee and have people gamble their retirement savings in the casinos of Wall Street. If the recent financial crisis taught us anything, Wall Street is the last place where our money is safe.

FACTOID
Social Security is in deficit, because it is paying out more than it is taking in in FICA contributions Including the interest on the Trust Fund’s bonds, Social Security has an annual surplus until 2021 and beyond
Interest on Social Security’s bonds don’t count, because we can’t afford to pay them back Social Security’s bonds are insured by the full faith and credit of the US government; if we renege on them for Social Security we must do the same for all of our creditors
Because Social Security is in deficit it is effectively already borrowing in order to maintain current benefits Even if Social Security does not have the funds to pay full benefits, it is forbidden by law from borrowing
The 2% payroll tax reduction in 2011 puts the general budget on the hook to Social Security Yes, but it is not Social Security’s fault; it was a one-time economic stimulus measure that will expire in a year


*Figures include interest accrued on Social Security Trust Fund’s bonds.
Source: “Table C-1: CBO’s Baseline Projections of Surpluses or Deficits in the Trust Funds,” Jan. 26 2011


Cuts in Retirement Benefits Resulting from Raising the Retirement Age to 69 (linked just below)

Impact of Raising Retirement Age





Removing the Annual Cap on the Social Security Tax should be the starting point to 'the FIX'.


Scrap the Cap


Americans who understand that our nation should not revolve around the wealthy,  should carefully follow the workings of the top money men for modern conservatism.  If you are of middle America the Koch Brothers consider you fodder in their game of ' Change America'.

A few words from an an author over at Poilitcususa.com.

Politicususa
Bernie Sanders Exposes the Koch Brothers Echo Chamber
June 22, 2011
By Sarah Jones







Bernie Sanders takes on the Koch brothers. You can help him by spreading this far and wide.
“EXPOSE THE KOCHS: The Koch brothers fund multiple think tanks and academic centers to promote their ideology and grow their profits, a Brave New Foundation investigation reveals. Let’s create an echo chamber of truth by using YouTube’s SHARE tools above to protect Social Security and counter the Koch billions.’

America is at a crossroads. The socio/political RIGHT is taking every perceived opportunity to accomplish long-standing agendas as we try to uncover from a stifling recession that was caused by these very people.  They watched, they supported and they voted for just about every proposal or initiative from the Bush Administration. They lived (and still do) via a mantra of "FREE MARKETS/NO REGULATION while Wall Street greed tore down a stable economy as the nation moved from the 1990s. You, I and all cans see their efforts in dismantling public service unions, depriving poor women of medical care, significant cutting education expenditures; all while refusing to consider jobs bills or seriously consider 'cutting'  defense spending.

While unrelated to killing Medicare and Social Security (as we know it), the recent decision by the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Wal-Mart in the recently adjudicated class action discrimination lawsuit is a stark example of a nation moving away from concern for the common people.  The conservative SCOTUS is the directly result of, and reward to, years of 'stacking from' the RIGHT. 

Bernie Sander's and other rational minds are simply asking that we look at other measures for making Social Security solvent before cutting benefits to those who need those entitlements for a comfortable life in their non-working years.  


The nation can ill afford to reach for quick fixes and follow the RIGHT down their consistent path of failures in federal and state economic administration.
The dangers are 'clear and present'. 
StumbleUpon