The thing that bothers me about the "mainstream" press is that it seems like they have a Cool Aid mentality. They all talk the same talking points, vilefy the NRA and gun owners, think gay marriage is wonderful, global warming is a fact, Obama is the 2nd coming, etc. For someone like me it's nice to have a different voice on the TV news. It's interesting to me that the President has taken time to point out Fox and some of their newspeople for simply disagreeing with him. If Bush (and he deserved disagreement too) had done the same thing he would be pointing out ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. If what Fox has had to say about Obama is wrong, they should talk about the points Fox is making and give the evidence to show that they are wrong. All I've heard from the President and his cabinet is name calling. At least, the President shouldn't bother responding if he doesn't like what they are saying. I watch a variety of news to see what's being said and I honestly don't see the balance that Fox gives. I've seen more instances where they have a topic and bring on two guests that are on opposite ends of the spectrum and give them equal time. Just my own observations over the years. I've watched all of them at one point or another and for me (because of my personal beliefs) Fox is the best fit. Just like I vote. I find the candidate that fits my core convictions the most. You can do the same. And, I don't think watching the other channels again would change my opinion, in general, on things anyhow, no matter how hard they try.

 

I certainly don't disagree with your central idea. Like which magazines or newspapers we read, we should have access to free speach. Unfortunately, in the chase for ratings and ad revenue the networks have abonded reporting "news." I don't care which one. They have this re-packaged, sensationalized spin that they make look like news broadcasting. Actually broadcasting news is boring so no one watches it, so no one wants to advertise on it and so on. But, these advertisers are now telling broadcasters what to emphasize based on their marketing demographics. Again, the first ammendment is a wonderful thing, and we should be proud that we honor it, I just wish there was a place on television that broadcast the good old boring news so I can make my own opinions.

 

All in all, it beats government control of media. Not perfect, but nothing much is.

 

Obama hasn't been very presidential, has he? Even Clinton and (gasp, gag) Carter never made petulant statements like that. Doesn't project a very mature attitude. But, not to worry. Even the huggers are mad at him now, because he moved so slow on the gulf oil spill. That's his Katrina.

I got rid of broadcast TV 12 years ago, when my old C band satellite receiver blew out and I never bothered to get it fixed. So I only see broadcast and cable news every once in a while. News today as compared to what I saw 12-15 years ago is horrible. It's all slanted. There's the obvious political slant of Fox and MSNBC. Then there's the commercial bias of CNN and the three networks. They'll sensationalize anything just to keep you in front of the tube. You know the news industry is in trouble when the National Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer prize. Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite have broken their caskets from rolling over so much.

I find internet news to be better. Not that it's any less biased, but you have a wider range of choices, more variations on the same story. If a story interests you, eventually you can find out everything and then make up your own mind.

As a matter of fact, TV in general has decayed. What's with this reality garbage? It's all about humiliating people. You find that entertaining? I think it's sad and pitiful. There are a few shows I like and buy the disc sets: Lost, 24, Bones, the CSI shows. But the rest is pathetic.

There's still no substitute for your own personal judgment. It's about all you can trust these days.

 

Yep JohnO. You can get tons of information on-line, and it does take time, but you can sift through and make your own decisions. Like you, as I said, I don't want ANYONE'S opinion when it comes to news reporting, I want information. Should biased crap be available? Sure. I don't want it, but plenty of people, and more importantly, ALL advertisers want it. Why? Just what you said, if it keeps you in front of the magic box you will see the ads they parade before you. Believe me, tens of millions are spent researching who is watching what so product ads can target the "correct" audiences. My wife is a social psychologist and has gotten recruited tons of times by these folks to do just this kind of research. Best woman on earth (no offense, really, to anyone, to me, and on Mothers Day), she has never even given it a second thought, even when they parade all kinds of scratch. Sticks with stuff that helps regular kids (and us adults) find ways to get a college education. Busted caskets, GREAT!!!!! I'll bet there are legions of them from real journalists, problem being, we are talking about their caskets.

 

I personally think our country will be buying overseas oil- including the middle east for quite awhile to come- including from those involved with terrorists & those run by dictators etc in the world.

Read also not so long ago where the airforce was just going to start a production plant in Mt etc- to produce synfuels made from coal- so the middleeast etc would not have control over our military or be the major source of its vast vast amounts of oil & fuel it uses & needs.( said fuel tested very well in there engines)
And that- that all changed( along with a few other things) with obama - along with Waxman & the epa etc that killed the whole deal.


Love to see them figure a way to run aircraft etc on windmills ( that aint going to happen either of course)

 

Cant find the newer story mentioning obama & his policy/poltical changes & the killing of this program etc in it ( hard to go back & find things for me)

.................................................. .......................................

Home / News / State and Regional News

Air Force prods Wall Street to invest in coal-to-liquids plants
Looking for oil alternatives

MATTHEW BROWN Associated Press writer with staff reports | Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:00 am |

MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. - On a wind-swept air base near the Missouri River, the Air Force has launched an ambitious plan to wean itself from foreign oil by turning to a new and unlikely source: coal.

The Air Force wants to build at its Malmstrom base in central Montana the first piece of what it hopes will be a nationwide network of facilities that would convert domestic coal into cleaner-burning synthetic fuel.

Air Force officials said the plants could help neutralize a national security threat by tapping into the country's abundant coal reserves. And by offering itself as a partner in the Malmstrom plant, the Air Force hopes to prod Wall Street investors - nervous over coal's role in climate change - to sink money into similar plants nationwide.

"We're going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there's three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves," said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. "Guess what? We're going to burn coal."


In a recent letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Waxman wrote that a promise to control greenhouse gas emissions from synthetic fuels was not enough. Waxman and the committee's ranking Republican, Virginia's Tom Davis, cited a provision in the energy bill approved by Congress last year that bars federal agencies from entering contracts for synthetic fuels unless they emit the same or fewer greenhouse gases as petroleum.
Anderson said the Air Force will meet the law's requirements.
"They'd like to have (coal-to-liquids) because of security concerns - a reliable source of power. They're not thinking beyond that one issue," Waxman said. "(Climate change) is also a national security concern."



http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/03...13007fa108.txt

 

But ran across a more current one involving BLM leases/land here, energy production in Wy etc. ( i have a feeling things could get pretty darn expensive ) under ruler O bama ( lucky ppl are smart enough not to send a demo from here to congress or the senate.
( dont know what gov dave or the ppl who elected him( or obama) thought would happen )
..................................................
Backlog of protested Wyo leases persists at BLM

MEAD GRUVER - Associated Press writer | Posted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:45 am | No Comments Posted
Font Size: CHEYENNE -- Environmental protests, uncertainty over endangered species and a change in presidential administrations have bogged down oil and gas leasing in Wyoming.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has issued just 51 of nearly 1,200 oil and gas leases sold at its 11 lease auctions since June 2008.
The backlog prompted Gov. Dave Freudenthal to "implore" Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a fellow Democrat, to act in a January letter. Yet the backlog is likely to grow when the BLM holds its next lease auction today.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regio...94a7b5351.html

 

Just the tip of the iceberg. We've got to clean house in November.

 

Oh man c'mon. Where is some wider context. If it has to do with the President it is some giant bad, horrible thing? Automatically? How do you know if turning coal into liquid jet fuel isn't 2,000 times more toxic than burning styrofoam by the ton? I'm not knocking coal or synthetic fuels, and maybe one of you has a PhD in chemistry and can put this all into a context, but if not, please. Like JohnO said, and paraphrasing the idea, you really need to triangulate your information and read differing viewpoints, and not decide that every legislator should be removed because turning coal into liquid jet fuel should be a no brainer (that last part was a clear departure JohnO). This mentality, and you obviously know better Moose, is the reason for legislative gridlock. It has become one non-stop campaign. And in a campaign, it is the one liners and gimmicks and buzz words that work. Problem is, it prevents our government from GOVERNING. Form being leading administrators and legislators.

This lack of governance, I will guarantee you, by a thousand fold, is far more dangerous from a national security perspective, especially in the near term, than our depency on imported oil, as bad as that is. Especially in a time of war.