NWO and other things out-worldly

Tonight I thought I’d just post some random musing as it were. I discover over the past few days that some of the blogs I enjoy reading are not the thoughts of random common everyday folks. They are indeed posted by people that do journalism of some type for a living. They may not be in the fore front of the MSM, they may not even be in the fore front of the alternative media, however they are journalist none-the-less. So I feel very tiny in this blog-a-sphere. Noting that I myself am usually the only one that browses my blog.

So I began to wonder why do this? Why spend any time at all writing here for no one to read but myself? I suppose it could be therapeutic in some way. Possibly a way to ensure that I get all this random traffic out of my head. Maybe I just like the sound of my own keyboard. Or maybe I am fooling myself into thinking that if I write stuff (and mostly I don’t “WRITE” anything I just post what other people write that I think is of some interest) because I think someone will get something out of it. Maybe some one will read this and have a life changing moment. Or at least stop to consider what I have to say. By the way, the more I type I do like the sound of my keyboard.

But, I digress. What we all do in the blog-a-sphere is hope to enlighten people to what we believe is the truth of the matter. And than can be just about any topic of discussion. Mostly in my tiny part of this world it has been political and cultural in nature. Which all of this horribly long introduction leads me to my topic: Why do people do what they do?

That is a question that I have studied for a several years. Not so much in a clinical way but in a real world way. I have discovered in my short life (45 yrs) that people always have a motive behind their actions even if they are unaware of the motive at the time of the action.

I have a friend who gives to charity. Now you may say to yourself, that is a very nice thing to do, and I would agree, however I know the truth behind the giving. My friend gives because he feels guilty for being able to take care of himself. He not only feels guilty for himself but he also feels guilty for every one else. Our company has a charity drive each year. My friend feels so guilty for being born into a comfortable lifestyle that he believes that ALL of us should give as well. He works very hard to make the rest of us feel as guilty as he does, and mostly it works. So a thing that on the outside seems like a wonderful gesture of humanity is really a drug for a guilt ridden soul.

I guess my point in all this is motives. My friend’s actions are very generous however his motives are very selfish. To some motives don’t count for much as long as the outcome fits their needs or works towards their goal(s). I feel that motives are the important factor. To me an action is nice, but if the intentions and motives don’t match the action, then the action is disingenuous. I for one would much rather have honesty. Honesty would cure a guilt ridden soul where an action is only a temporary fix.

Bookmark to:

I was thinking about the news media and how it’s perceived today. We think the news that we ingest is so much different than it was 5 years ago or even 50 years ago. I say to you that the news hasn’t changed any over the years, only the landscape of how we actually get our news.

Before the advent of the radio, everyone that wanted to know what was going on in the world read a news paper. If you couldn’t read it was pretty tough to get the news. When the radio came along we could get our fix daily by listening to the broadcaster tell us the news. Now more people had access to the news. Then came television and now not only could we hear the news but we could also see it, an even bigger audience. Now we have this marvelous device called a computer and we have the world at our finger tips.

But has the news really changed? I was having a discussion today with one of my liberal friends. He is not happy with the Republican Right Wingers. He believes that there religious ideology is getting in the way of their ability to make decisions objectively. This is really getting him in a tizzy. He believes that every one should be able to compartmentalize each aspect of their lives. He believes that a person should be able to form opinions and make decisions without any influence from each of our different compartments.

Now you maybe asking yourself, what does this have to do with the news? I’m glad you asked that question. But first some more setup. I believe that we, as human beings, cannot separate our different ideologies. We have social ideologies, religious ideologies, political ideologies, and any other ideology you can think of all swirling around in our conscious and un-conscious. These all coalesce, through our experiences, to become our ideology. We use what we believe about society, religion, and politics to form opinions and make decisions about everything we do.

Now with all that being said let’s think about the news. We tend to think that a news reporter would report the news, and a columnist, let’s say, would write about the news. I think that news is not this way at all and has never been this way. This is why I say that the news hasn’t changed much since the first time someone told somebody else what just happened. Our inability to separate ourselves from our ideas of the what the world should be gets in the way.

Let’s look at an example. Today in the New York Times an article was written about Michelle Malkin. (Here is Michelle’s article about it.) The writer Virginia Heffernan used these words: “Filipina Firecracker Michelle Malkin has taken aim at YouTube.” This was later changed to “Fox Firecracker” but that’s not really relevant to this article. If she had truly been reporting the news she would have just written: “Michelle Malkin has taken aim at YouTube.” By using the adjectives Filipina and Firecracker she was inserting some of her own ideology into the story. And I might add, she was also trying to stir an emotional response from the reader.

Let’s look at another example to further beat this point to death. Your local news paper is reporting on a car accident in your home town. Someone that is reporting the news might write something like this. “Today there was a two car accident at the intersection of A street and B street. Two people were killed in the accident.” Now there you have the simple facts of the incident. However add few more details of the story and we can invoke an emotional response. “A women and her child were killed today when they were involved in a two car accident at the intersection of A street and B street.” Now we have your attention and you are saddened by the news. I can add just a few more details to the report and get an entirely different response. “A woman and her child were killed today when the car they were driving was hit by a drunk driver at the intersection of A street and B street.” See, now you’re mad. All three of the articles are factually correct, however the presentation made all the difference.

To sum all this non-sense up, we have to very careful about the news we hear or read. It is my suggestion that you know something of the person telling you the news. It’s not too difficult to find out enough about that person to help you get to the facts of the matter. It also helps for you to know something about yourself. It’s very easy for news media of all types to try and sway public opinion. It’s all in what facts they decide to tell you, and what facts they choose not to tell.

Bookmark to:

Here is part two of the banned on YouTube series……..

Here is a link to Michelle’s article…….

Bookmark to:

Michelle Malkin has had an anti-jihadi video banned on YouTube for “inappropriate content”. You can read her account of this ordeal here. She is asking every one to get the word out about YouTube and their dhimmi ways. So I am posting her video rebuttle to YouTube for banning the orginal video and then I am also posting the banned video……

And here’s the banned video….

Sorry about the autorun on that last video I couldn’t get the autostart function to not work……

Bookmark to:

Well once again the religion of peace and tolorance proves itself otherwise…….. New Website Incites Electronic Jihad.

New Website Incites Electronic Jihad

By Abdul Hameed Bakier

The latest criticism of Islam being a violent religion, which was sparked by incendiary comments made by Pope Benedict XVI, has caused internet jihadis to launch a new website called Electronic Jihad, located at http://www.al-jinan.org. The purpose of the website is to help organize an electronic jihad against websites that insult Islam and Islamic sacred figures. The site has been well publicized on more established jihadi websites. Jihadi forums are posting quotes from the Quran in order to encourage and convince jihadis and regular Muslims of their duty to engage in electronic jihad and to attack anti-Islamic sites in order to shut them down. Furthermore, postings from August on the Electronic Jihad site already claim that they successfully shut down the Israeli website http://www.haganah.co.il. Thus, it seems that while street protests in response to Western criticism of Islam have died down in the Islamic world, the battle is still raging on the internet.

NJ

Bookmark to:

I found this article posted at HumanEvents.com, CAIR, Hamas, and the House Candidate. It was posted September 27, 2006. Here’s the cruix of the article:

The Christian Science Monitor quoted Larry Jacobs of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota exulting: “You think of the stereotype of Minnesota — Garrison Keillor and white Norwegian farmers. The first Muslim congressman coming from Minnesota? It says a lot about the changing face of the United States and Minnesota.”

Interesting…… but there’s more……..

The Monitor doesn’t mention, however, a disturbing aspect of Ellison’s record: the support he has received from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Journalist Joel Mowbray has been virtually the only journalist who has pursued this connection, exploring in a recent column, “Mr. Ellison’s seemingly tight connection with Nihad Awad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whom he met almost two decades ago at the University of Minnesota.” Mowbray reports that “Mr. Awad headlined a fundraiser last month that the campaign estimates netted $15,000 to $20,000, and in July, and it appears that CAIR’s co-founder bundled contributions totaling just over $10,000. (The campaign issued a terse denial on the latter point, though it refused to explain away overwhelming evidence to the contrary.)”

This article is interesting to say the lest and we need to keep our eye on this one.

I did a google search on “Keith Ellison” and I found his official campaign page. And his Minnesota House of Representatives page. And it looks like PowerLine has been on top of this since July……

NJ

Bookmark to: