One basic difference between these two approaches is this: Nucci will argue that it's important for children to actually have control over a part of their lives, while Kazdin says that it's only important for them to have the perception of control.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
To: Comments@kcentv.comRe: Poor technical quality of broadcastOK, I am going to be blunt. Watching the Olympics on your channel through SuddenLink in College Station has been brutal and I find myself yelling at the TV - which I am too young to be doing.1. Last night, watching figure skating, young skater from Turkey, moving story of parents sacrificing everything for her, there she is on the ice and 2/3 through her routine you knuckleheads cut to an advertisement.2. After knucklehead move we get dead air - nothing - black screen - only your channel is out. SuddenLink states its not them.3. Tonight - advertisements not coming in at the right time, dead air only this time we get to see the peacock icon animation. Over and over again, same thing, poor placement of advertisements and local adds not coming on at the right time.4. And my number one yell-at-the-TV issue: Get the gosh darn voices to match the lips. This has been an ongoing issue with your station not just for the Olympics. Your news cast seems to sync but the Olympics is aggravating to watch as well as the advertisements that are also out of sync.You have some serious issues here, enough so that if it were not for the Olympics I would personally block your station so as to not have to deal with what appears to be incompetence on someone's part. Fix it or you will forever lose my eyeballs. I get the feeling that you must not watch your own station - because if you did you would find this unacceptable and would fix it. Oh, and if you want to blame SuddenLink don't bother writing me back. Fix it.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Never before in American history has such far-reaching legislation passed on a purely partisan basis — not Social Security, not Medicare, not Civil Rights and not SCHIP.
"If we're able to stop Obama on [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him...." Sen. Jim DeMint
My my, I tried to hold you back but you were strongerOh yeah, and now it seems my only chance is giving up the fightAnd how could I ever refuseI feel like I win when I loseAbba - Waterloo
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
"Taxing the subsidy means that more companies will eliminate or reduce the coverage, and more retires will shift to Medicare Part D, which will create more costs for both the government and the retirees." Excerpt from letter sent by 10 companies to congressional leaders" (source)
Jan 8 2004 (From the Wall Street Journal - six years ago)The new federal program calls for employers to be reimbursed for 28% of the cost for prescriptions of more than $250 per retiree, up to an annual subsidy of $1,330 per retiree, beginning in 2006.Thanks to a little-noticed provision in the new law, the government will calculate the subsidy based on both what the employer spends for prescription drugs and what the retiree spends. So if an employer and a retiree each pay $1,000 toward the retiree's medical costs, the employer's subsidy is calculated on the full $2,000, bringing the company a total subsidy of $490, rather than the $210 that it would get if it received a subsidy only on its share.As a result, when combined with tax and accounting rules, the program allows employers in some cases to use the subsidy to erase the entire cost of prescription drugs for retirees, or even turn a profit from a drug plan. For instance, if a Medicare-eligible retiree's prescription costs are $2,550, and his former employer pays $1,000 of it, under long-standing tax rules, the employer can deduct its full $1,000 for tax purposes, meaning the after-tax cost to the company is $650 at a 35% corporate tax rate.Meanwhile, the company doesn't pay taxes on the subsidy it receives, thanks to another provision of the new Medicare law. So in this example, the employer would receive a subsidy of $644, based on the full amount paid by both employer and retiree, reducing the company's cost for the retiree to $6 for the year.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
No it's the "make stuff up" statistic:
"90 percent of national journalists ...... don't attend church."That's not true, that's not what the Pew Study found or reported, but now it's out there for all the world to see. The Head of Fox News quoted a Pew Study that states 90% of Journalist do not attend church. Shouldn't he know better? Shouldn't a guy who heads a news reporting operation understand the need to check one's facts before he speaks? Or is that only what journalists are supposed to do? No, I think he knows exactly what he said and that it was false, but if it serves the greater purpose - to poison the well, then the means justifies the end.
But what end are they looking for? Two things in my opinion, one is to elevate Fox News - increasing market share and wealth for shareholders and two, to confuse just enough people so they vote the way Rupert Murdoch and his friends want them to vote.
"But they're all environmentalists"No they are not, and you know that. you also know that non-church goers combined with environmentalist makes for a more potent poison to kill journalist and any other news source except "journalist free" Fox News.
But wait! You're not done yet!
"You can only have one god at a time. Too many journalists think they are"Still more poison - elitist attitude, same kind them liberal professors have - you know the academic types - smart people, not like my audience of Joe Six Packs.
So mainstream media has liberal bias and Fox News - number one mind you - has no bias. None according to Mr. Ailes:
"it only appears that way because of mainstream media outlets' liberal bias"C'mon, you got to be kidding me. You are the counter to what has always been perceived to be present. There is liberal bias because journalism attracts liberal thinking talent. That's factual but it does not mean all media is biased, because if it does then Fox News is biased as well. Your model has been to cater to the right, c'mon man its working, others are failing because they don't play to one particular audience, that is they want to keep their bias in check. That makes them boring, whereas you give your audience what you have made them want.
It's not fair and balanced in any other world than the one you and other conservatives choose to live, because in that world you have no liberal, pragmatic, enlightened, or logical thought to compare it to. Bias is always bias just as truth is always truth. Which side one leans does not alter what is factual, only perception does, and that's what has been built around the concept of Fox "News."
One day Joe Six Pack will wake up and see that a diet of candy and ice cream only made him slow and dimwitted. But for now, congratulations on your success, not only are you number one in the ratings but you can misinform just like the best of em'.
Monday, March 8, 2010
At Fox News, we're still hiring and expanding our coverage, just not with journalist and that goes for any of you youngsters who even set foot in a journalism class. In fact, as my good friend and former boss, ol' 41 was heard saying Fox News is the most trusted sources of news in America today, and we plan to stay that way - by being journalist free.
Now as the most successful media executive of the last 10 years, I think I know a little bit about what makes a good news channel, and it's not one that hires or utilizes the liberal bias of a journalist.
So welcome to Fox News, you Texas A&M graduates you can go right in since your school was smart enough to do away with its journalism department, so y'all are pure as snow flakes.
For the rest of you, we will need to ask a few questions before we can let you in.
Do you go to church?
Are you now or have you ever been a pagan?
Are you an environmentalist?
How many Gods do you have?
Do you think you are God?
Do you revere Chuck Norris?
If you pass, welcome to Fox News please join the Aggies for some tea, and if you don't? Out of my sight you environmentalist agnostic atheist pagan!
Words in blue - those used in The Eagle story
Words in green from PDF
PS for those that can't see satire, this is satire.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Now, I don't like getting painted with a broad brush nor do I like it when it is done to someone else. So I am going to focus on the utter illogical nature of his comments which included:
Ailes said a Pew Study from four years ago found 60 percent of Americans expressed the belief that God is essential to morality, but that more than 90 percent of national journalists didn't think so and don't attend church.I fact checked that - what he said was not entirely true. What the study found was 91% of those who work at national news organizations say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral; 78% of local journalists agree. Why he thinks 90% don't go to church is probably just a made up statistic to support the other nonsense he let out of his pie hole, such as this gem:
"But they're all environmentalists," the 69-year-old said. "And I have a theory that environmentalism, to some degree, is replacing religion with those people...."Oh Really? All of them? Even the ones who work at Fox News? Or does Fox News not use journalists? Hmmmmm it's all starting to make sense now.
- Pew study finds 91% of Journalists" say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral."
- CEO of Fox News believes Journalists don't go to church and are pagans.
- President Bush (41) says Fox News "the most trusted sources of news in America today."
- Fox News is number one without apparently using journalists to write their news stories.
- Texas Conservatives vote in Republican Primary 95% to pass "Acknowledgment of God."
- Texas A&M is home to the Bush Library.
- Texas A&M is a conservative leaning school.
- A conservative value is "recognizing the media for its bias, bullying, deception."
- Texas A&M closes its Journalism department.
It is really starting to make sense now.....and its kind of chilling how their plan is all coming together. It all starts with demonizing the profession and putting in its place what appears to be an alternative, but one more to their liking..... another Fox to guard our hen house.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
So I am searching for a Pew Study he quotes when, for some odd reason, I come across a blog on the recent Pentagon shooting by John Patric Bedell. Apparently the tea party gang took offense to a Christian Science Monitor report indicating that Mr. Bedell may have been part of "Right-Wing Extremism."
Well them's apparently fighting words, you know, attaching extremism, murder, and anti-government with right-wing. But they have a point, right-wing is not the sole producer of nut cases - there are lots of them that swing on the left as well.
Unfortunately the argument used by this blogger and all the other blogs that parrot it, has little to do with showing how the report's statement was premature and unfair to those that bat right handed but don't run out to the pitcher's mound to kill the opposing player when they think the pitch was directed at them. No, the argument was:
About the Pentagon shooter; Update: Stop playing games, MSM. John Patrick Bedell was a registered Democrat.
But that's not what this post is about, it's about fact checking which is what I was trying to do when I came across this blog.
You see, when someone makes a claim they should be able to back up where that information comes from. Although I try to be fair, I do not lean right, so if one does, they can/should take me to task for what I post. Now my opinions are mine like them or not, but when I use facts to support them those facts should be correct - or my argument/position loses its punch.
Unfortunately facts are only as correct as the source from which they were obtained. Still, if it is a reliable source we can assume they are true until we find out otherwise. I will always change my opinion if it was based on data that was incorrect, at least that's what I tell myself and I hope I always have the integrity to do so.
My God - I can get wordy. To the point ol' man!
The source for Bedell is a Democrat according to the blog site above is www.Electorates.us which would appear to be a legitimate source for this info, I mean it has the ".us" at the end does it not? But it does not take you to a site where you can look this info up, instead it takes you here. I cannot check this data for accuracy unless I pay what looks like $750.00. (I tried searching without paying but could not acquire this information).
Here is the problem: Google "John Patrick Bedell was a registered Democrat" and you will see page after page of blogs referencing the original blog with the information that cannot be verified.
This is to not say its true or not, its just sad how fast information is passed around with the assumption that it is correct especially when it bolsters one's argument.
Friday, March 5, 2010
It is because it happened then, has happened before, and has happened after, that I worry. It's also the reason I write this blog that no one reads, so that there is a record that some people saw it building even before it happened.
Now I have no idea what will come from all this new found orthodoxy. It's different then when we wanted to elect Perot, this group, the tea party types, are scary. Like I said in my last post, orthodoxy feeds on more orthodoxy, so when Texas Republican's find the need to vote on "Acknowledgement of God" in the Primary and pass it by 95% I kind of get a bit uneasy about where this could - could mind you - go if not kept in check.
Why the concern?
March 4, 2010 - The Eagle Letter to the Editor
I was joyful when I read the voting results for Proposition 4 on the Republican ballot: "Acknowledgment of God." Here in the Brazos Valley, 92 percent of the voters said yes. Statewide, a huge 95 percent proudly voted yes.
This proves to a lot of folks that we are, indeed, a Christian nation. Those who come here from other religions had best not attempt their terrorist acts or tactics to undermine our nation. We deal with those types in our courts by God-believing judges.
For those who do not believe in God, we have love and concern for you. Perhaps we believers can lead you into the light of truth by sharing why we know God is real.
Thank all who came forwarded and publicly declared we believe in the Almighty, creator of life on this world.
What? Me Worry?.....yea....yea...I do.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Proposition #4: Public Acknowledgement of God
The use of the word "God", prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property.
Source: Harris County GOP.
OK, I have been slacking - I said I would write about a couple conservative values I thought needed to be hashed out. So lets look at this one:
Emphasizing humility and open-mindedness instead of arrogant certainty about one's own views.
in light of last Tuesday's Texas Primary results. Only Republicans got to vote on this, and they passed it with 95% of the vote. Now this is one of those silly kind of questions that put one in a bind, kind of like the "do you still beat your wife" question a lawyer can ask. How does one say no to their God? Well 5% did, which means they are either atheists/agnostics or astute - fully aware of just how dicey forcing a whole lot of people to participate in their set of values can be.
That separation of church thing that was written into the constitution (God, there I go again evoking that silly document, which just like the Geneva Convention can be dismissed as "quaint") was done with a lot of thought. It was done primarily to stop a dominant group from forcing a particular dogma on others.
So when I am told that a conservative value is "open-mindedness instead of arrogant certainty about one's own views" and then I see that 95% of Republicans - which align themselves with conservatism want to force God on the rest, I am...shall we say...not buying it.
Now I take a Jeffersonian view of a person's belief in God: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
But the real harm to this, the real fear of 95% not understanding the danger of what they want to unleash, is that orthodoxy only is satisfied with more orthodoxy. This kind of "feel good" stupidity detracts from real issues and instead emboldens those that are normally kept in the closest. It's not about not being allowed to say "God" or a prayer, or have your 10 commandments on public land, that's how they have framed it, that someone - "them" - are taking away your rights, your liberty, your God.
There is only one logical outcome when it builds momentum, and that will in one form or fassion lead to picking my pocket or breaking my leg. It is a slippery slope, and I fear that with the Tea Party folks, the Texas Republicans, and this new push to be more conservative than the other guy we are heading down it.
Bottom line is that this is not the America we want regardless of how much we love our God. It is not the America the founders envisioned for us and specifically outlined in the constitution that scores of men and woman have sworn to uphold and have died defending.
Ahhh Jeff you're worrying needlessly, its just about allowing us to say a prayer, I mean we make up the majority, us Christians, why should we go without - majority rules, right?
Wrong - the Constitution rules.