Auto Industry

Have you ever thought that this years car sales aren't great because the cars and trucks they are selling just aren't that impressive? I look at the biggest names that come to my mind in America: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda. Is there anything really revolutionary about the cars they are making this year that is better than last year? Is there any safety system that has proven it can dramatically save lives? Is there any with an attractive design that draws people in by the groves? The answer is NO. What has the auto industry really done? They offer a "new" car, just like the old one only newer. It rides like the old one did when the old one was new. It stops like the old one when the old one was new. It is just like the old one but with a "new car smell." If the government would stay out of things (both in causing the problem and in fixing it!) Capitalism would ensure the best competition and the fastest improvements. That is capitalism's purpose. If the auto industry doesn't give us something we want or need, someone else will! We will replace the stuffy corporate big wigs with a revolutionary generation of changers. Capitalism is great! It provides a way so that any convincing person with a good idea can change the world.

Auto industry has lost its luster, the solution is may not be smaller cars or alternative energy, it may be an entirely new system. If it is mass transport, flying machines, working from home, automated assembly, scanning and "beaming." I don't know, but it is something other than what we are currently doing.

Guess what is the problem with my solution? Yes, government. Government officials through ear marks, social programs, grants, and etc as ceased to work for the greater good. Government "by the people" has ceased to exist because they are so in thrall with what the can do for the society that they have forgotten what they should do for society. They should keep everything simple (from heath care, to taxes, to defense.) Government should be easy to understand and transparent. Government officials through their own ambitions have created loopholes and hidden systems for themselves and their friends to take advantage of the American people.

In an effort to get certain candidates elected, media has ceased to educate the people on issues and prefers only to bash and bolt. Media should be unbiased (which we know is impossible) therefore they should provide all biases so that truth might more easily be uncovered.

History-making

Well, I hope you are as involved in this election as I am. I have taken the opportunity to watch some of both the DNC and the RNC. These events function as a way to display to the country the person who will be nominated for election from each of the political parties. I have read and listened to the news containing quotes and highlights from the candidates and prominent party members' speeches. I have to say that they mislead and confuse the audience against the truth, they bias and misconstrue facts! They present the views only of the journalist without bearing on the candidates, their qualities or positions. I ask you, my dear friends, why? Why do we need these journalists, reporters, and commentators? What value do they add to the story, what do they provide that we cannot possibly comprehend by reading or hearing the actual speech? If you objectively want to know which candidate most completely aligns with your views, just listen. You don't need sarcastic comments, you don't need flattering overtones, you need truth, and you need facts. Do you think that journalists want truth? Do you think they want facts? No, they want to sell! They are ENTERTAINERS!
Throughout this election, I have heard talk of making history...the first African American, the first woman, the first yadda yadda yadda...who cares? Why should we care whether we elect the first of anything? I liked the way Rudy Giuliani tried to phrase the question we should ask ourselves. The American people have two resumes presented to them, each with the names and political party removed from them. We read the resumes, interview the candidates ad select the best person for the job. It doesn't matter if that person has race, gender, religion, age, or handicap. So many people have fought to eliminate these barriers, these unfounded, unimportant prejudices. We have made great strides in accepting everyone into the American culture. Those journalists that claim history making events are perpetuating inequality. They are accentuating differences. They retreat into their on stereotyping prejudices. Again I ask, "what value do they add?" History-making...a history-making event would be to select a Congressional or Executive candidate based solely on their qualifications and not on the political, do-nothing commentators.
I have heard this Congress called the "do-nothing" Congress. I have heard our President called a "lame duck." But who is making these comments, and what value do these comments add to our society? If you want to know something, go to the source.
Don't get me wrong, media has a purpose in politics. They should keep polititians honest, they should expose truth and facts that politicians often try to blur. But the moment they begin to write commentary, they become entertainers.

Great new website!

I have discovered what so many people already knew. www.junkscience.com
Although I have yet to explore the many facets of this site, I know that my search for logically thinking people has not been in vain. I have finally found a website where good science can be published without a lot of hype. The basic text of the website lends itself to the importance of the articles published on its pages. It doesn't draw a lot of attention to itself with flashing banners and out of control graphics. It is simply...science.

I have many times ranted about the ridiculous display put on by the media. I can't seem to make it any more clear than put it in simple economic terms. In the US, all major networks and news agencies are commerciallized, therefore they must sell something, make a profit and reinvest just like any company. So what does media sell? Well, back in the day, news was sold at the cost of obtaining, writing and publishing the news. But companies found that they could advertise their goods and services within the news media. Which may I ask is more profitable/easier for a company, to gather a bunch of dimes from a million people or a million dimes from one company. The answer is obvious when your read the Sunday ads...I mean paper. It has become difficult to find where news ends and media begins. (Actuall on that front, we found an ad that was written like news, with articles picture etc....very good ad from the point of view of the company) But what makes a company want to place an ad with one news agency over another? It must be that the news agency reaches more people or a target market or something. All news agencies have the same news to work from, so in order to sell more/reach more people, it must create something more interesting than the other news agency and thus, hysteria. Hysteria sells, when you as a consumer don't know what is going, you turn on the news, they produce hysteria, they sell more. This is no longer news but entertainment. I am fine with entertainment, but the media should never touch science, they shouldn't interview scientists (because their expert is usually no more informed than the next Joe) they should not report scientific findings. Just let the scientific journal publish science. Please, media agencies, stick to entertainment!