“O’ Really, Really???”

ABC Strikes again!: Liberal Propaganda on the loose!

Tonight at 9 PM EST, there was a show on ABC called “What would you do?”. I am sure some folks have seen this show or have seen other shows like it. The basic premise of this type of show is to stage an uncomfortable situation in front of a bunch of bystanders to see how they react. For this show, they do it several times with different little variations to see the reaction of the public. Great and harmless entertainment, right? In the old days they called this type of show “Candid Camera” (that is for you old farts out there, or you middle age farts like me who vaguely remember this comedy show). The main difference between “Candid Camera” and “What would you do?” is basically this: “Candid Camera” ranged from slightly funny to hilarious situations, while “What would you do?” uses semi-serious to very serious topics to drive home some moral or political point of view. In most cases this show can be harmless and mildly entertaining. For instance, the second “stage” of the show tonight involved the following situation:

A person or persons is finishing their meal at a public restaurant. He / She / They get up after finishing their meal and leave a tip on the table for the server. After He / She / They leave, a stranger (actor) gets up from an adjacent table and steals the tip. Now the whole gist of this is what do other people do that witness this theft? Do they stop the thief; do they get the manager, what? Now this situation is cut and dry. The stranger is obviously stealing money. No moral grey area here. The grey area is all about how the other people react to this blatant thievery. Nice and harmless entertainment right?

I never saw the completion of this section of the show because I was completely outraged by the first “stage” of the show tonight. I will set it up…

The first “stage” of the show featured two actors in a local restaurant in one of Nevada’s border towns. One actor is of obvious “Hispanic” descent and will feign to know little to no English for the entire encounter. The other actor is a “white boy” Security officer (not a cop, this is important), that will challenge the “Hispanic’s” actors citizenship. Let me be clear here, in every episode of this encounter the “Hispanic” actor does NOTHING out of the ordinary to draw attention to himself (herself, themselves, whatever) again this is a very important point. During every variation of this encounter, the “white boy” security officer (not a real cop) asks a few questions of the “Hispanic” actor and gets nothing back but broken English and some Spanish. So, the “white boy” finally asks the “Hispanic” for some sort of identification. He first asks for a “driver’s license”, then (in EVERY EPISODE), he asks for “your papers”. By the time the security cop (rent a cop…whatever), asks for “your papers”, some bold bystander “American” challenges him. In most cases the “American” tells the security cop to stop harassing the “Hispanic” actor. In some cases the “American” goes so far as to challenge the security cop to his rights, and basically humiliates the security cop in public. It all looks so nice on TV. The ugly “authoritative figure” asking for “your papers” while outstanding freedom loving “American” citizens’ challenge that authority. Wow, such a pleasing picture to see, isn’t it, Americans standing up for their ‘illegal’ brothers rights.

Whoops!! That was a sure big leap of me to take there wasn’t it? I guess I took some “liberal” steps to get from point A to point B didn’t I (no pun indented)? Or did I?

To the average uninformed person, this whole episode was a great way to denounce the obvious “racial profiling” that MUST be going on in every state bordering Mexico. The big bad police are just questioning every halfway looking “Hispanic” person they see and demanding to see “your papers”. Obviously, law abiding American citizens in the public (this was staged to see what unsuspecting people would do) would never stand for this! It is a complete invasion of privacy and is against the “American” way! So, because these average “American” citizens were so outraged at this staged event, any “illegal immigration law” must be horrid and “un-American”, right?

Before I get into the details of why this staged event is a complete piece of trash and total left wing propaganda, let me just state that if I were present at this ”staged” event, then my reaction would have been very similar, if not identical to those unsuspecting citizens that were put in this dilemma.

Ok, now to tear this apart!

The entire “staged” episode is a complete fraud for two reasons. The first reason is obvious, no “security officer”, or “rent a cop” would question anyone while they were off duty. Why? Simple reason is they don’t get paid for that. Along the same lines is this: “Security officer” does not equal “Police Officer” of any sort. Off the bat, you replace our “white boy security officer” with a “white boy REAL cop” and all outcomes would have been different based on the simple fact that real policemen get much more respect (and carry a gun). So, strike one on ABC and their attempt to fool the American public.

The second reason this is a complete fraud is this: All of the “illegal immigration laws” that I have read, or have come across, DEMAND that a suspect must be in the act of, or suspicious of committing a crime before any questions are asked about their legal status. In every variation tonight, the “Hispanic” actor(s) were minding their own business and doing nothing wrong! So, the “security cop” (again, why not use a real badge here ABC, so freaking obvious you are trying to pull something here) goes out of his way to question the innocent “Hispanic” actor. Notice I did not put innocent in quotations. The “Hispanic” actor was innocent of any wrong doing, so I applaud all the bystanders for sticking up for the “Hispanic” actor. They did the right thing! I am proud of them.

Another factor that proves that this is completely set up to make any “illegal immigration laws” look “un-American” is the use of “your papers”. When in the world have you ever heard an American cop (real cop) ask for “your papers”? I have been pulled over multiple times while driving and have heard “license and registration”, but never “your papers”. This is an obvious use of phrasing to promote that “illegal immigration laws” are “un-American”. I mean come on, the only time you hear “your papers” is either some German flick or Russian flick. Please, ABC…so obvious. At least make an effort to fool the American public. At this point you are just insulting our intelligence.

Let me describe for you the scene that would make sense for determining a real “American” bystanders reaction to proposed “illegal immigration law”.
Actor one is obviously of “Hispanic” decent. Actor two is a Nevada Highway Patrolman with gun and motorcycle to prove it. Actor one has finished his (her) meal and has consumed multiple alcoholic drinks and is acting drunk and out of control. When accosted by the restaurant manager, Actor one is belligerent and throws things. Actor two, then approaches Actor one and asks him (her) to calm down. Actor one continues to be uncooperative. Then, Actor two warns Actor one to calm down or there could be a violation for disturbing the peace or public drunkenness. Actor one does not comply. Then, Actor two declares Actor one is under arrest for failure to comply and asks to see some form of identification.

How many outstanding “American” citizens jump up to say the Policemen is wrong? Not a single one.

I would like to thank ABC for their outstanding attempts at misleading the American Public. It is such a shame that you people actually make any money putting such spotty work together.

Russ Jackson
02/04/2011

ABC with Diane Sawyer!!

“O’Really…Really?”
“ABC Tonight: How to present a one sided story”
By
Russ Jackson

Today I only have a brief point to make. I usually do not watch ABC, or any other major network for news anymore, but ABC with Diane Sawyer just happened to be on while I was cooking. Here is the link to the story I happened to catch http://abcnews.go.com/WN/cost-brand-drugs-soars-hurting-elderly-americans-fixed/story?id=11478210.
In this story, ABC says that 217 brand name prescription drugs have risen over 41.5% in the last five years. It also claims that the consumer price index (wtf is that? Does the average American know what that is, or just take for granted that if the news says it is not growing, then it has made a point) has increased by roughly 13% over the same period of time. To be fair, here is a story about consumer price index, and you can look it up http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=89190&page=1.
Here is my point, ABC is trying to paint the brand name drug companies as evil money grubbing entities. And you know what, they may be right about that. However, to present just these facts (which I will not dispute), is just praying on the average Americans intelligence, or lack of intelligence.
Now, if ABC really wanted to make a strong point that these name brand prescription drug companies were jacking up prices just to screw us all, they should have linked the PROFIT MARGINS of these companies over the same time period. Any person with a little bit of financial knowledge would understand that if the PROFIT MARGINS (post taxes) of said money grubbing drug companies had also sky rocketed in the same five years, that yes…these are nothing but evil drug companies trying to screw the American public. In other words, increased prices on certain drugs does not mean that the drug company is making more money. Maybe the raw material cost went up, maybe there are more taxes imposed on drug companies now and the increased prices are made to MAINTAIN PROFIT MARGINS. But, we will never know based on this little ABC story now will we. Why? Because the truth is not what ABC is really reporting. ABC just wants to make the public hate the evil money grubbing drug companies.
If I had the time, I would do the research myself on the profit margins, but I am not getting paid big bucks to write a story and be a journalist. Its too bad to, I am pretty sure I would have included relevant information, like how much money ( % profit post taxes) the drug companies are actually making due to these cost increases.
Also, I am not a fan of the drug companies. I am sure they use every tactic they can to make money (that is called capitalism by the way). And, if their profit margins rose in comparison to their increased prices without any other factors involved, then I would agree that they were sticking it to a section of the American public that really can not afford it. But, that is not my point here. My point here is that this was a one sided hack job story done by ABC that really has no proof that the drug companies are “evil money grubbing companies”, which is obviously the point Diane Sawyer was trying to make.

Russ Jackson
8/25/2010

New Jobs Bill!

“O’Really…Really?”
By
Russ Jackson

I have to tip my hat off to the Democrats. The recently passed jobs bill ( http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/10/house.funding.bill/index.html?hpt=T2 ) in the House of Representatives is a political masterpiece. The Republicans have challenged the Democrats on excess Government spending (skyrocketing deficit and continued uncontrolled government spending). The Republicans have challenged the Democrats on frivolous spending (the stimulus bill that has not touched the unemployment number so far). So, what do the Democrats do? They develop a “jobs bill” consisting of $26 billion aimed at bailing out the States and saving over a hundred thousand jobs. You can see more details of the bill on the Speaker’s website: http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0403. These are not just regular bureaucratic meaningless jobs, but Teachers, Policemen, and Firefighters. So, the Democrats get a big check for actually passing meaningful legislation.
The Democrats also get a big check for making the Jobs Bill deficit neutral. Here is the kicker here: this bill is paid in part by closing a corporate tax loophole that allowed corporations to receive Government funds (your money and mine) to pay for foreign taxes. In other words, corporations were given an additional incentive to place manufacturing and other businesses outside the United States. Since I have been a victim of manufacturing going oversees, I can not find any reason to oppose the closing of this loophole. I think you would be hard pressed to find any working class American to oppose the closing of this loophole. The rest of the monies come from cuts to other pieces of the budget, as well as from the stimulus bill.
How many Republicans voted for this Bill in the House? 2. Now, I disagree with the Democrats on many, many things. Spending and bailouts are two of them. I have lately found myself agreeing with the Republican “Just say No” campaign over the past several months. But I find myself scratching my head on this one. By voting No to this Jobs Bill (which makes a good deal of sense at least to me), the Republicans have actually painted themselves as the party of “No”, instead of the party of “No to senseless spending and increased Federal Government”, which is the party I think they should be. I know that the Republicans believe that their base is most likely with them on this issue, but I am not sure that your average American is. It is one thing to say “No” to ridiculous legislation (Health Care Reform), and another thing to say “No” to everything. By saying “No” to the jobs bill, the Republicans have lived up to what the Democrats have been saying now for months, that the Republican Parties agenda is to make Barrack Obama a failure.
So, again, hats off to the Democrats on this one. In one fell swoop, I think they have put themselves back on the map for the midterm elections with this one piece of legislation. Not only did they help out their base (Teachers unions), they made the Republicans look silly by voting “No” to the best piece of legislation floated in Washington in the past 2 years.

Russ Jackson
8/10/2010

“O’ Really…Really?”
By
Russ Jackson
Arizona, Going Rogue?

I was not sure if I was going to tackle this issue due to the very delicate nature of the debate. In fact, I would say that the intensity of this issue is as great if not greater than the health care reform debate recently held.

So, going forward, I will try to handle it with caution. First, let me set something up real quick. I do not begrudge people trying to make a better life for themselves or their family. It is my belief that the majority of illegal immigrants in the country are here with this exact purpose in mind: to find decent paying jobs so they can support their families back home. These folks come here from less fortunate countries and take on tons of manual labor jobs and are paid well below the minimum wage to do so. What is really sad is that well below minimum wage in America is still vastly superior to whatever wages they can receive in their home countries. It has to be, otherwise why risk being arrested time and time again by crossing over the boarder illegally. I am stating that I do not agree with them doing so, I am stating that I can sympathize with the situation. More on this later…

On July 27th, the 9th circuit court of appeals struck down parts, but not all of the Arizona immigration law. Those backing reform, and general amnesty for illegal immigrants feel this is a victory. Now, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (although that would be great since it would mean I was employed!). However here are just my gut feelings on this whole fiasco (and it is a fiasco).

First, obviously there is an illegal immigrant issue within the United States. Even the ones that are here just to pursue better employment are still a drain on the public resources without putting much back (no taxes, majority of dollars earned sent back to their home country). Then there are the illegal folks who are here for nefarious reasons. The drug runners, the kidnappers, the Mexican Mafia and all those folks who seek to profit by inflicting misery on others. Obviously these are two different problems that need two different solutions. The second problem (the nefarious ilk) poses a danger to the actual citizens of the United States in the form of physical harm. While the first problem poses economic and resource allocation issues. Knowing that multitasking is a very difficult job for our Federal Government, shouldn’t we choose one to focus on first? Which of these problems is more important? I know my vote lies with the nefarious crime ridden drug running types. Your mileage may vary, but I am guessing the citizens of Arizona were focused on the drug running and gang violence when they formulated the new law.

Where does the responsibility lie for controlling the border of our nation? I think the obvious answer is the Federal Government. The Feds claim they are doing the job of border patrol. Arizona says they are not (hence the new legislation). So, there is a disconnect here since both can not be right. Both may perceive they are right, but they can not both be correct. Just from learning a few things while in the professional world, my guess is that the ones that are closer to the problem have a better feel for what is real, and what is perceived. Also, it is obvious from multiple polls conducted over the last several weeks that the majority of the citizens in Arizona support the new law. Now, I don’t know if the new law would actually make any difference in the number of deportations, or number of crimes stopped and/or prevented. Chances are, we may never know. I will say this though, regardless if the law is ever enacted or is struck down in the Supreme Court, my guess is that the real agenda for Arizona was achieved. To bring light to the actual problems occurring on the border states and force some action, any kind of action, from the Federal Government. So, mission accomplished for Jan Brewer.

Now, I have two questions for consideration. The first is an easier question to answer (but government officials want to make it complicated), and the second question is a little more complex.

Question #1: Can border security be achieved without complete immigration reform? The simple answer is…maybe? OK, this question is not as easy as one might think. But let us consider this first as far as placing importance on securing the boarder. Having a tight border is not just related to illegal immigrants crossing the boarder looking for work. In fact, that concern should be at the bottom of the list. The top reason to secure the boarder has nothing to do with working immigrants, or racial profiling, or getting mad that “them there Mexicans are stealin’ our jobs!” That was done in my best southern hick accent, just so you know…

The number one reason for securing the boarder is (drum roll please!) preventing terrorists and other foreign operatives from entering the country and really doing some damage. So, to this citizen, the whole argument from the left falls so short (oh we are racial profiling!) from the actual dangers that it is not even funny. Now that the real problem is on the table (porous border that can allow terrorists and other foreign operatives in) I think it is easy to answer Question #1 now. Yes, the border can be better secured, and really should be (not just the southern one) for National Security reasons regardless of immigration reform.

Question #2 (and this may make some folks uneasy, but I am really curious)
Where are all the legal immigrants and why are they not screaming the loudest about illegal immigrants? I mean, theses are the people who put in the hard work, dedication, and patience on earning the right legally to work here in the United States. They did things the legal way. They pay taxes, contribute to this great society of ours in the US and both the US and they are better for it. So I do not understand why they would not be the first people to stand up and say “No” to amnesty? Please do not take this the wrong way, I just know that if I worked my butt off for something, and then saw the same thing just given away freely, I would be a bit perturbed. I am sure part of it has to do with family ties and other things…but I would be very interested to see someone who has done things the legal way answer this question.

I do not doubt that there are problems in our immigration system. It probably is too long, too cumbersome, and difficult to achieve. We may need to increase the actual numbers of legal immigrants we let in each year. I am sure there is reform that is needed. There is also a need to deal with the 12 million some odd illegal (working legal jobs) immigrants as well. I will have to tackle those issues at another time though, as my fingers are growing weary tonight J.

Take care all, and thanks for reading! As always, comments are welcome!

Starkimus
7/28/2010

“O’ Really…Really?”
By
Russ Jackson
Commentary on the “Ed Shultz Show”

On July 26th, Ed Shultz had Howard Dean on to discuss the whole “Fox News” issue concerning Shirley Sharrod. Dean basically said that it was Fox’s fault that Sharrod was fired. He explained that Fox was racist and had a racist agenda. Even when Ed (correctly) pointed out that Sharrod was fired before the story broke on Fox News, Dean brushed this aside and stated again that Fox had a racist agenda and was invested in the downfall of Barak Obama. To see some actual facts to this whole show down, please visit
http://johnnydollar.us/files/100725fhwir.php.

First question is this, how in the heck did Howard Dean even get on the Democratic radar back in 2004? I mean really, based on this interview alone, most forward thinking people would come to the conclusion that at best Howard Dean lives in his own little world, or at worst, needs psychiatric help. Now, I get that Dean and his left leaning comrades have an agenda. And that agenda includes smearing anyone who does not agree with them. But, a person who has sat as the Democratic Chair and held other prominent positions in government (Governor) should have enough sense to back down when confronted with overwhelming facts. You know what, forget all that. The simple fact that it is OK for Howard Dean to proclaim an entire News Organization as racist is plain wrong. Where is the outrage from the left on this? The left claims to be the holder of tolerance, and compassion. Where is the outrage from the ACLU, or Reverend Al Sharpton? They all claim to be against racism, and here you have Howard Dean using the R word on national TV. Not a whisper from the left. Hardly even a whisper from the right. If I sat on the board in FOX, I would be firing a lawsuit for slander and deformation of character against Mr. Dean on pure principle alone, regardless if it ever went to court, and regardless if I could win or not. Screw the cost, I would raise such a stink against Mr. Dean for his scandalizing, baseless, disparaging remarks that he would be forced to find a cave to live in.

You can bet that if the situation was reversed, and Michael Steele stood up and said that MSNBC was racist for not covering the New Black Panther situation and that whole scandal in the Justice Department that the NAACP, the ACLU, and every other jack in the box who ‘claims’ to be looking out for humanity would jump all over Steele, and force his resignation at the very least.

Second question is this: Can you disagree with the President of the United States and not be a racist? Well, the obvious answer to that question is a resounding yes regardless of the color of his skin (our current President just happens to be African American this time). However, according to multiple pundits’ in the left leaning media, it is obvious that if you disagree with any of the Presidents policies, that you are racist and just want to ‘beat the black man down’. What rubbish. While the left wants to play these silly games, the United States sinks deeper into debt and continues a deep recession that at this point has no end in sight. To be sure, the republicans are really not much better at the moment, and all the country can really hope for at this point is more deadlock in Congress and the Senate before any more damaging bills are passed into law.

So lets get to today. Again, I am watching the Ed Shultz show, and for those of you who do not know what that is, it is MSNBC’s poor attempt to counter the successes of Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannidy. I do not normally watch Ed’s show, but lately I have decided that if I am going to see the right slant, I should at least attempt to stomach the left slant. And in all reality, Ed himself can be pretty entertaining, much more than say Keith Oberman (story for a different day). An aside on all of these commentary type TV shows. First off, they are for entertainment value only. Do not be tricked into forming an opinion solely based off of any of these commentary shows. Do your own homework. They all have their own agendas (making money is #1). To be sure, some of the agendas I can agree with, others I can not. The point is, watch all of these shows (including radio programs of any political persuasion) with a large grain of salt.
So, all of these shows follow a similar pattern. The host proclaims their views at the beginning of the show aka O’Reilly’s ‘Talking Points’ or Ed’s ‘Burning Topics’. This is followed by a few guests that are basically on the show to parrot the hosts point of view. It is pretty hilarious if you watch these things closely. All of these hosts ask leading questions, interrupt their guests to no end, and have to get the last word. I guess that works, after all it is their show right? Right… Lastly, each host will have some poor schmoe with an opposing view on to illustrate that the host is indeed fair and listens to both sides. In reality, they over talk the opposition, continuously try to put words in their mouths, and basically try to make the opposition look silly or stupid. Shows like Hardball, O’Reilly, Hannidy and Countdown with Keith Oberman follow this same basic format.
OK, back to todays show. This afternoon, Mr. Ed had some poor guy on from the Heritage foundation. First off, this poor lad was unprepared to deal with the mighty Ed Shultz, and Ed hammered his guest on the republican stance of not repealing the Bush Tax cuts on the ultra rich. First, lets take a look at Ed’s opening commentary. Ed starts off the show by proclaiming that removing the tax cuts on the rich (passed by the republicans in 2002?) is not a tax increase. It is just going back to the status quo. I guess that works in theory but in reality taxes on some people will go up and the general principles of a recession point to lowering taxes, not raising them. To be fair, raising taxes on less than 10% of the American people by only 2% is kind of hard to argue against when the Nations debt is out of control. It is hard to have the position of saying “No” to higher taxes while saying the “debt must be reduced”. Or is it? I will explain in a second. But, to put things in context, it is pretty hard to defend that position and if I were from the Heritage Foundation, I either would not have accepted the interview, or put a more seasoned warrior on there to battle the mighty Ed Shultz. Needless to say, Ed hammered his point home and made this guy look silly.
Now, back to the point on defending the ultra rich tax increase (regardless of what the status quo was, it is a tax increase on some people and that is a fact). How do you defend not raising taxes on the ultra rich? Those increases will not affect me, will not affect anyone in my family, and most likely will not affect anyone I interact with. Now, I have to give some credit to Ed, even though I disagree with about 99% of his view points. Ed said on National TV that the tax increases (or tax reduction repeal if you’re a left leaning reader) will affect him, and he was OK with that. So, props to Ed for putting his money where is mouth is.
Here is what I have to say about ANY Tax increases to any part of the American population (individual, small business owner, corporate, and that even includes BP). NO! Until the current federal government and administration can prove they can be fiscally responsible with our money, they have no right to raise any taxes. Zero, zilche, nada, the federal government has pretty much lost all credibility in this voters eyes and are in essence behaving like a bunch of children. But that is an issue for another day. I would agree to tax increases (even on the middle class) only under these conditions. 1) All federal employees take a minimum of 10% pay cut. 2) All federal employees take a minimum of 15% benefits cut (including medical and pensions). 3) All federal employees take a minimum 30% budget cut for food and travel. 4) The Federal budget is cut by 5% every year until a balanced budget is reached. 5) All raises in taxes go to pay off the US debt. I have many other suggestions as well, but the point is this. The federal government, the US Congress, and the President of the United States need to put their money where their mouth is, just like Mr. Shultz did today. Until the federal government can show that they are willing to tighten their belts like the majority of the American people have had to do over the last few years, they have zero credibility and zero right to increase anyone’s taxes.

Thank you for reading “O really…Really??” by Russ Jackson, take care all! And look for more, because I am one of those unemployed people with nothing better to do than rant about the current sorry state of affairs in this great nation of ours.

Starkimus
7/27/2010

New Beginings

My first blog: A dip in the vast Internet pool

Greetings my fellow readers and Internet junkies. I am bored, bored and somewhat unhappy. I am using this blog to share my thoughts and feelings regarding the current state of the United States. I will post commentary on the evening 'news shows' as well as the radio programs I listen too. I will share my views on all of these on a weekly basis (maybe more depending on the week). Typically I will be choosing a controversial topic that both the left and the right are completely screwed up on, and share the common sense point of view that our entire Government is ignoring (mostly on purpose).
Eventually I will post more information on my background, and the reasons I have started this blog. However, for now, it is enough to know that there are many people out there in my same boat. Many people who feel that the current state of affairs in America is unsatisfactory and many folks who feel underrepresented by their own 'representative' government.

I welcome all critics and praise. Feel free to post what you think, or let me know via email. Challenge me, challenge my views, make me think. All of these things are welcome. What is not welcome are ad ho min attacks on my character, and I promise not to promote the same. If I get some facts wrong, correct me. If I get some facts right, point that out too. I have no pride, and can take pretty much take anything you can dish out, as long as it is based in fact, and not in some imaginary world.

Take care my friends!
Stark Out!