John Stossel: Right wing media puppet for anti-health reform

Here are 3 videos of interest regarding John Stossel who recently left ABC's 20/20 for Fox. Seems like a much more suitable place for him. We all know Fox is "Fair and Balanced." Just like Stossel claims to be. Right....


In this video, Stossel asserts that Canada's Health Care system is inferior to the American system and uses exaggerated wait times, false statistics, biased witnesses, and... Okay. Let's call a spade a spade. It's a bunch of outright lies and bullshit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJgkvF19QA

In this one he claims that it is better if people pay because there is less waste. Oh. He forgets to mention that the $20 flu shot you can buy at Walmart may not be quite as affordable for some as for others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

Dr. David Gratzer who appeared as an "expert witness" in the first video (20/20) and lied his face off, is taken apart in this one by Dennis Kucinich. Watch the little slime ball squirm. This one is great!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DII7v8yeRjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMynI9Yg6jY

Are we "free thinkers" or are our minds being controlled as implied in this video? Perhaps we should think again if we think again we are in control of anything. Since birth, we are all under the manipulation of mass consciousness and most of us are well versed in the do's and dont's of culture without ever realizing that we are being controlled or conditioned. Those who don't go along with the agendas or the herd instincts are pressured and harassed into conforming. We buy into the propaganda on many levels without ever realizing it. Through social engineering our consciousness is molded along the "correct" lines, and we persist in amassing all the products that constantly bombard us in the all pervasive advertising campaigns that surround us. We are unknowingly surrounded and engulfed by consumerism and this becomes our fake reality.

Bill O'Reilly on Health Care Reform

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

Fox News - "The only network that brings you fair, balanced and accurate reporting so you can make a choice." Indeed. My ass.

Right Wing Rag aka Fraser Institute?

SGEU warning on privatization lacks credibility

The StarPhoenix

February 26, 2009 3:06 AM

It's in trying to cloak its pure self-interest in sanctimonious claptrap about public safety and crime fighting that the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union undermines its cause and invites derision.

The television and print advertising campaign SGEU recently began to sound the alarm against the privatization of government-run liquor stores in Saskatchewan uses scary-sounding statistics and emotional language that, upon a closer look, is manipulative at best and cynically deceptive in the extreme.

Seemingly elevating to the status of near-angels and guardians of public morality its 900 members employed at Saskatchewan Liquor Board outlets in 64 communities, the SGEU ads suggest privatizing liquor sales would translate into every evil from an increase in crime rates and social problems to profit-driven private vendors selling to underage youth.

SGEU workers at liquor stores may well be trained to deal with minors and intoxicated individuals, but that doesn't make them morally superior to private business owners whose livelihood depends on abiding by the law if they are allowed to sell liquor. As the union very well knows, there are many private vendors acting as agents of the SLB in small towns across Saskatchewan who take their responsibilities seriously and are just as diligent in checking the ID of young people and refusing to sell to drunks.

SGEU notes that the number of liquor stores in Calgary "increased by a staggering 620 per cent" by 2002 since Alberta privatized liquor vending in 1993, and that Edmonton police reported a 164-per-cent increase in alcohol-related charges between 1993 and 1999.

What it doesn't say is that the growth in the number of liquor outlets may well have been a rational market response to serve a city that may have been grossly underserved by the public sector stores and whose rapid growth in a working-age demographic over that period necessitated additional stores.

And it's possible, too, that Edmonton police began to crack down harder on alcohol-related charges and the boom in Fort McMurray translated into more young people with more cash in their pockets spending more of their free time partying at bars in the city. Without context, it's silly to blame any of that on Alberta's move to privatize its liquor stores.

This SGEU messaging is part of an ongoing union anti-privatization campaign that bespeaks of problems that have befallen Canadians, from toll-highways in New Brunswick and Ontario to the selloff of public assets in Saskatchewan in the Devine era to the Walkerton water tragedy and the listeriosis outbreak, after governments turned over to the private sector jobs formerly done by public sector workers.

Although Premier Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party government ill-advisedly has adopted a hands-off policy on privatizing any Crown agencies including its liquor stores, the SGEU ads seem to be a shot across the bow of the government over its recent decision to allow the opening of two private wine stores that will sell specialty products not currently sold at SLB stores.

It may be the case, that as the SGEU says, public liquor stores create well-paying jobs for its members and that the wages of liquor store employees in Alberta were reduced in half since privatization. But ultimately the liquor stores ostensibly are run to serve the needs of the public, not primarily of those who work at them.

Those lower wages earned by those who work for the private vendors in Alberta translate into cheaper prices on the shelves -- a concept that many SGEU members who shop at the Wal-Marts and Superstores well understand as they go about their daily lives.

However, what's most egregious is SGEU's attempt to mislead the public on the $173.6 million in profits that accrued to the government from liquor sales. The suggestion is that privatizing the liquor stores would deprive the government of revenues that now go to fund public services such as schools and hospitals, ignoring the fact that private companies do pay taxes and that the government, which would still act as the liquor wholesaler, would continue to take its cut.

Only those who equate their self-interest with the general public's would dare to accuse their entrepreneurial neighbours of moral decrepitude and criminality that'll see minors given ready access to booze, neighbourhood safety threatened and the public treasury plundered.

It's enough to make one wonder if copious quantities of shelf products aren't being sampled when SGEU poobahs sit down to write up their ad campaigns.

"But ultimately the liquor stores ostensibly are run to serve the needs of the public, not primarily of those who work at them....Those lower wages earned by those who work for the private vendors in Alberta translate into cheaper prices on the shelves -- a concept that many SGEU members who shop at the Wal-Marts and Superstores well understand as they go about their daily lives."

Sure they do. While we're at it, let's cut all good paying jobs, knock everyone to minimum wage, let a few people in the country control all the wealth so that we can all shop at Walmart and Superstore and be subsidized by welfare. When we all end up in jail because we resort to crime to subsidize our income, we won't have to worry about booze sales because it's a controlled substance in the slammer.

Brilliant article brainiac. You sure you haven't been slipping across the border to sample copious amounts of cheap shelf wares when writing your columns?

Rush Limbaugh - again (still?)

Media Matters for America

Limbaugh misquoted Obama on home values, used it as evidence of Obama "talking down the economy"

Summary: Rush Limbaugh falsely stated that President Obama said "that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again," later adding, "This is what I mean by him talking down the economy." In fact, Obama said that we should "not assume that housing prices are going to go up 20, 30, 40 percent every year" [emphasis added].

During the February 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely stated that President Obama said "that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again." Limbaugh also stated: "This is what I mean by him talking down the economy. Don't think of your house as going up in value anytime soon." However, Obama actually said during a February 18 speech in Mesa, Arizona, that we should "not assume that housing prices are going to go up 20, 30, 40 percent every year" [emphasis added], not "over our lifetimes" as Limbaugh asserted.

From the February 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Obama said that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again.

Jane here with a great question: then why the hell buy one? Well, the answer is you need shelter, and a home is the American dream. Yeah, but it's also the -- for most people -- their number one asset as they establish equity in it.

This is what I mean by him talking down the economy. Don't think of your house as going up in value anytime soon. Don't -- we've got -- you've got to get realistic here. The days of prosperity are over. Can I translate it for you? The days of prosperity are over, quote, the president of the United States, unquote.

What? Well, of course I say screw that, but not everybody can. Not everybody is in the position to say "screw that, I'm going to be prosperous." Some people are not self-starters. Some people need others to start businesses so they can go apply for jobs there. Fact of life. It's a reality. And we're targeting the people who start jobs. We're targeting the people who start businesses.

Et Tu CBC?

I'm back.

I was talking to a friend of mine on the weekend, and am compelled to relate this disturbing story. We tend to think of CBC, the publicly funded broadcast subsidized with our tax dollars, who we tend to think of the most fair broadcasting. Perhaps not, folks.

Last summer he was listening to a broadcast on CBC Radio about the Summer Snack Program sponsored by the Saskatoon and District Labour Council. Yes, that's right; funded 100% by donations, primarily by union members. Well, the CBC story related how these summer students were providing food to inner city residents, mostly children, a wonderful program and how they had seen an increase in the need for the program particularly for adults. They had praise for the program, for the work of the students and for the summer job opportunities provided for them. Just a great program all around, right? Right.

A little detail omitted from the story? Where did the funding come from? Oh, no mention of that. Hmmm.

My friend called CBC to speak to them about this. He was fully aware of the program, having been a CUPE member for many years, and commented that the summer snack program sounded like a wonderful program. He had just one question. Where did the funding come from?
They responded that it was funded by the Saskatoon and District Labour Council. He asked why that hadn't been mentioned in the story. Their response? They had "time contraints". My friend went on to ask why it was that they could go on and on about other things even going on to promote companies and products but when it comes to supporting unions and labour they couldn't mention the good things that unions do. He mentioned all the things that labour does in Saskatoon including the United Way Partnership, the Summer Snack program, the Labour Day Barbecue, The Day of Mourning among others. They backed down immediately and of course, passed the buck. The response was "Talk to my manager in Regina." Sure. I'll get right on that. And hear more Anti-Union rhetoric.

Do the CBC workers remember the wages and benefits they enjoy because they belong to a union? What are you afraid of? Losing your right to strike? Perhaps you are losing that anyways. After all, it is an essential service to promote companies and products in these difficult economic times under a government that hates unions.

Et tu, CBC?