Wednesday, October 12, 2011
So, How Fair of a Journalist IS Shepard Smith?
Shepard Smith is SO fair of a journalist that even "Rolling Stone", "EVEN ROLLING STONE", won't lay a hand on the fellow. I cite specifically one of their most recent scathing articles on the network where this is what the writers said about him, "Watching Smith is like changing the channel: The Fox agenda vanishes, underscoring how tightly coordinated all the other shows are. Smith is 'not the right-winger Roger would like to have,' says an insider. He returns at 7 for another spin-free hour."............So, there you have it, folks, prima facie evidence that not EVERYBODY (I would also add to Mr. Smith, correspondents , Carl Cameron, Ed Henry, and weekend hottie, Harris Faulkner) who works at Fox is full-fledged liar/partisan chump. Yep, that's right, "Rolling Stone", that liberal bastion, says, ixnay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I even heard that Roger Ailes leaned on Shep once to tone down some PRO union statements.
OT/ will, but a paradigm shift if I ever saw one.
Saudis Lay 2,400 Miles of Rail to Ease Oil Dependence: Freight
Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia is laying 2,400 miles of rail lines, almost enough to stretch across the continental U.S., in a push to diversify from oil that will also benefit Saudi Basic Industries Corp. and Saudi Arabian Mining Co.
The construction in the kingdom, which relies on crude exports for 86 percent of government revenue, aims at developing mines of bauxite -- Saudi Arabia holds at least 11 percent of the world’s estimated deposits -- phosphate and precious metals. The first major rail line began running test shipments in May.
The Saudis worry about oil dependence???????????????????????
W-T-F????????????????????
BTW here is a map of their existing and new rail lines;
Saudi Railway Organization Projects
Everything except the orange on the map is NEW rail lines.
Now ask your self a question;
What do the Saudis know, we do not, if they, who argue they have 260 billion barrels of oil in reserve, are building rail-lines NOT roads for the future?
Why do they want their population riding trains instead of driving cars across the Kingdom?
Add that to the fact exports of oil continue to drop world wide, which create scenarios like this;
Most Supertankers Idled Since ‘80s Still Won’t Buoy Charter Rates
Owners of supertankers, losing money for a sixth consecutive quarter, will probably idle the most ships in more than two decades as they contend with a glut that drove charter rates to the lowest in at least 14 years.
The combination of too many ships and slowing demand growth for oil means that about 6 percent of the fleet will be anchored in a year from almost none now, according to the median in a Bloomberg survey of eight brokers and analysts. That may not be enough to end the slump.
Hint the slump is because there is less oil to ship every quarter because the producing nations usage is still rising with their own populations.
Net crude oil exports – the shrinking commodity
long but worth the read;
Here is a nice chart which illustrates what the articles says;
OECD Total Net Imports in thousands of barrels per day.
OECD is the user counter part to OPEC.
Maybe Shep should ask why the Saudis are so worried about being dependent on oil, they are building billions of dollars worth of electric rail lines in their nation.
PS from the chart, the drop in exports began in 2006 not 2008, so is unconnected top the financial bubble or world wide recession after that. For every barrel Europe or the USA gives up because of that bubble;
China, India and Brazil gladly buy them up to use, and yes Brazil is actually a net importer of petroleum.
Uh oh,
Cliffy read another article on "peak" oil....
Double b, and he also said that tax revenues need to be a part of any feasible deficit reduction package.......37927, Volt, I heard (it was probably a biased source, I don't remember) that the United States has more natural gas than Saudi Arabia has oil. Providing that we can tap into it safely obviously, is that going to be the future source for our transportation needed.
Number boy,very informative post.Stay on top of the situation and report back to us in three weeks.
Funny, the facts that the major producer of oil for the planet since Nixon was president is worried about being dependent on oil, gets volt to try a unfounded personal attack, and rusty childish games, instead of asking why they would be worried about being Dependant on oil.
Will we don't have near the natural gas either Russia or the Saudis have. We do have more available if fracking is used. But if the efforts to transfer electricity production from coal to NG and use NG to fuel more cars and trucks, then we don't have more then a single decades reserves, however that still ignores the question;
Why the Saudis would be worried about being dependant on oil.
BTW Volt, regardless of any idea you are clairvoyant as to who is posting, like the idea of who posts a fact is important, the article is from Bloomberg News.
Certainly not any left wing website, except to those who refuse to believe anything unless, WND or Rush Limbaugh push it.
I don't care/know how fair Shepard Smith is... I don't watch Fox Nooz. If he is, then good for him. I wonder why he was hired and why he hasn't been fired.
I'm curious as to whether or not Will is a global warming denier. Because he suggests we use natural gas for our future transportation need... when we should be moving away from fossil fuels.
We're going to have to run our cars and planes on something (even electric cars need coal). As for trains, Americans simply don't like trains (I personally would rather walk into a headwind carrying two suitcases). I mean, yeah, in some apocalyptical scenario (either through a government imposition or a legitimate lack of resources), maybe but, other than that, Americans have a love affair with cars and planes.
Do I believe in global-warming, wd (setting another trap, I see)? Yeah, I suspect that there's probably some warming of the planet. Am I totally convinced that it's man-made? No, not really (although I DO believe that we should cut back as much as feasible air pollution). a) 95-99% of greenhouse gasses (depending upon whether you include water vapor) are NON man-made. b) The planet is some 6 billion years old. c) There have no doubt been thousands of episodes of global-warming prior even to the evolution of man. And d) I'm old enough to remember the Newsweek cover on the coming of the second ice-age.......As for what we should do about it, I kind of like what that Danish guy, Bjorn Lomborg, has been saying. "Yes, there's global-warming. Yes, it's a problem. But, no, let's not go off all half-cocked and just throw money at it (can you say ethanol subsidies, Solyndra, free golf-carts for millionaires, etc.?). We need to think about it first, in other words.
WD: Can you spell the word "News" ?
Will: You sound like you have an informed and scientifically-based view on the deep controversy global warming.
Speaking of going off half-cocked, that is exactly what the Kyoto accords tried to do: that one was all politics, not science or environment. As it had China increase the output of so-called "greenhouse gasses".
dmarks: You sound like you have an informed and scientifically-based view on the deep controversy [surrounding] global warming.
The only controversy is that some on big oil's payroll are disputing the findings of the real scientists... and people like you and Will are mistaking this misinformation/propaganda as "scientifically-based".
Other than that, there is no controversy. Virtually all real climate scientists are in consensus... global climate change is real and it is caused by man.
Just like the silly "coming ice age!" stuff from the 1970s.
In the mean while, sunspots and solar cycles are the real engines driving this.
Sorry, you can't blame Dick Cheney as the Martian ice caps melt.
wd, the 95-99% figure is a "big oil", figure?......Yeah, dmarks, that Kyoto protocol was a real piece of work. We have to severely strap our economy while China and India get a totally free pass. Who, I ask you, in his right mind would ever agree to that?
The Union of Concerned Scientists says, "...there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it".
Other scientific organizations that agree include:
·American Association for the Advancement of Science
·American Chemical Society
·American Geophysical Union
·American Institute of Biological Sciences
·American Meteorological Society
·American Society of Agronomy
·American Society of Plant Biologists
·American Statistical Association
·Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
·Botanical Society of America
·Crop Science Society of America
·Ecological Society of America
·Geological Society of America
·Natural Science Collections Alliance
·Organization of Biological Field Stations
·Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
·Society of Systematic Biologists
·Soil Science Society of America
·University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
·U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Those that disagree include:
·dmarks and his fellow dupes on the Right (and in the middle).
·Scientists on the payroll of big oil.
You forgot to add Al Gore, the man who invented the Internet, to the "pro" list.
Snopes debunked your claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet. Yet you continue to claim that he really said he invented the internet... based on a gut feeling I'm guessing.
Still you continue to slander the man. He'd probably punch you in the nose if you said that to his face.
But, yes, Al Gore is in the camp that believes what the actual scientists say about global climate change. He isn't among the deluded fools and outright liars that make up the entirety of the camp that disbelieves.
I thought Al Gore was out searching for Manbearpig?
I thought Al Gore was out searching for Manbearpig?
And number boy...I filled up my wifes Tahoe yesterday,there seemed to be plenty of gas coming out of the pump....and I'm guessing there will be for as long as I'm around....seems O.K. to me.
WD said: "Snopes debunked your claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet."
No, they didn't. The Snopes story actually contains his quote where he took credit for creating the Internet during his years in Congress. Something he didn't do at all.
"Yet you continue to claim that he really said he invented the internet"
He did say this. Invent is fair paraphrase of create.
"based on a gut feeling I'm guessing."
Actually, this is based on what Gore said on CNN.
"Still you continue to slander the man."
I will stick to the actual CNN record.
"He'd probably punch you in the nose if you said that to his face."
And he would get jailed.
And now to completely debunk WD's claim:
During a CNN interview, Gore said: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet". This was in March 1999.
From the thesaurus, "invent" is a synonym for "create".
Therefore, it is correct to paraphrase and say that Gore said he invented the Internet.
The Snopes claim, which says he did not use the word "invent", is correct. But that's a technicality. Everyone knows he did not use the actual word "invent", but it is well known that he said he invented the Internet.
dmarks: ...it is correct to paraphrase and say that Gore said he invented the Internet.
It is completely incorrect. He was referring to legislation he sponsored that helped make the internet possible. Anyone with half a brain knows this.
You're taking what he said literally and IGNORING what he really meant... because doing so serves your partisan goal of smearing Mr. Gore.
When bush said, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we"...
...was he admitting his administration never stopped thinking of new ways to harm the United States?
According to your rules that public figures must always be taken literally... he was. Unless this rule only applies to Democrats and not Republicans.
wd, before you get all crazy (or, should I say, crazier) on me, I'm not saying here that there isn't global-warming. I'm not even saying that mankind may in fact be contributing to it (although, yes, I do have doubts - science, too, has its limitations). I'm just saying that maybe we should think things through before we start spending trillions of dollars on an escapade that may in the end only reduce the world's temperature by a half a degree or so. That's all. I mean, look at what happened when he hurried our way through the damned bailouts.
As for Mr. Gore, I'll just echo what the Snopes article said. His phrasing was "clumsy and self-serving" (as, too, was his decision to build his second mansion a stone's throw from the Pacific).
WD said: "He was referring to legislation he sponsored that helped make the internet possible."
That's a very bad "save" on your part. The Internet existed and was called that BEFORE Gore got into Congress. So your "what he really meant", if he intended this, is also incorrect of him to say.
There's no smearing of him going on.
And guess what? Your Bush example is very true. A gosh awful thing of him to say. Just like Gore lied about the invention cough creation of the Internet.
Unlike you, I am not rewriting history in order to let someone off the hook depending on whether he has (D) or an (R) after his name.
dmarks: The Internet existed and was called that BEFORE Gore got into Congress.
The legislation he sponsored helped create the internet AS WE KNOW IT TODAY... dumbass.
dmarks: Your Bush example is very true. A gosh awful thing of him to say. Unlike you, I am not rewriting history in order to [blah, blah blah]...
"Rewriting history" has nothing to do with it (dumbass). What I (and Shopes) are doing to realizing someone used inprecise language (Gore), or mispoke (bush) and discerning what their intended words were (which isn't usually very hard).
btw, if bush really did mean his administration never stopped thinking of new ways to harm the United States... I wonder what he was referring to?
I think he was referring to ignoring the warning signs that an attack was coming (9-11)... in which case we can add yet another crime (treason) to the long list bush racked up while in office. If you don't think that's it...
...then how do you think bush never stopped thinking of ways to harm America?
Will: His phrasing was "clumsy and self-serving".
Of course it was "self serving"... and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Politicians need to let people know what their accomplishments are so they can get re-elected.
dmarks: Unlike you, I am not rewriting history in order to let someone off the hook depending on whether he has (D) or an (R) after his name.
Gore didn't mean (or say) he invented the internet; bush didn't mean (although it is what he said) his administration looked for ways to harm the country... even if that IS what they did (in effect). He didn't mean it.
So much for my "rewriting history" to protect only those with Ds after their names...
Unlike you I'm not a dumbass.
On a "self-serving continuum scale", though, wd, that one pretty nearly broke the meter. Just like his SECOND mansion right next to the Pacific Ocean nearly broke the hypocrisy meter.
WD said: "The legislation he sponsored helped create the internet AS WE KNOW IT TODAY... dumbass."
You keep spinning this SO many different ways. The "as we know it today" was not part of Gore's actual quote at all. That's another terrible save. What Gore said was so factually wrong that you are moving the goalpost and fabricating non-existent statements
I insist on sticking to what Gore said. And as such I am not slandering him at all.
"Gore didn't mean (or say) he invented the internet; "
Wrong. Actually, he said it. I proved this by providing his actual quote (not a made up "I wish Gore had said this instead) and mentioning what create and invent really mean.
Whether or not he meant it, who knows. All I am doing is accurately describing what he did say.
You may not be a dumbass, but you are intentionally lying by claiming Gore did not say what he actually said. Or have you forgotten how to read?
---------------
Face it: Gore said he invented the Internet, when in fact, he didn't. Regardless of what me meant to say, he told a whopper.
(By the way, Bush DID make the statement you are discussing. I know. Like Gore's false claim about the Internet, its a matter of historic record. So I am not going to dispute either).
OK dmarks, you've convinced me. Al Gore said he "invented" the internet, and he meant it.
However, you'll also changed my mind regarding the accuracy of his statement. Before I believed he spoke imprecisely. Now I believe he actually did (at least help) create/invent it.
I think we owe Mr. Gore a debt of gratitude for his wonderful invention. Without his taking the initiative we may very well not be conversing today on this blog.
Personally I'd like to thank Mr. Gore... "thank you for inventing the internet", I'll say if I ever meet him in person... and I'll let him know I mean it sincerely, and am not one of the a-holes who ridicules him because he TOLD THE TRUTH concerning his role in creating/inventing the internet. (and I'd also thank him for bringing attention to the very real issue of man-caused climate change).
Thanks for the internet Al....now if you could only capture Manbearpig your life would be complete...except for that Tipper thing....and,oh yea that "happy ending" massage thing.
WD said: "OK dmarks, you've convinced me. Al Gore said he "invented" the internet, and he meant it."
Talk about dumbass. I never tried to convince you of either.
1) He said that he invented the internet. However, he did not use the word "invent". So the quotes are wrong. Invent is a fair paraphrase, not an exact quotation.
2) I never claimed he meant it. Only that he said it.
"...and am not one of the a-holes who ridicules him because he TOLD THE TRUTH concerning his role in creating/inventing the internet."
Regardless of his intent, his statement is a lie. A huge whopper. The internet had been created/invented before Gore got involved. He certainly did not tell "THE TRUTH".
Post a Comment