Hohn Stossel should do an analysis of the KOOKS on his own network, who beieve not at all in freedom and the American way of life. You know the network: the one with Bill O'Reily out thre "crusading" for Obama (the government" to CONGROL every aspect of the business of the oil companies, seemingly for the venefit of O'REILLY (which is how O'Reily looks at everything, for all of that dishonest talk about "the folks").
This blog has advocated that you boycott the unfair and unbalanced network as having no redeeming social value . I am more firm in that position every day. However, the situation is especially bad on WEEKENDS. On weekend, as far as aiI can tell, the unfair and unbalanced network is WORSE than CNN. My 89 year old mother, in fact, pointed out the ony difference between CNN and the unfair and unbalanced network (which she has had an opportunity to observe, because AT&T FORCED my housebound mother to abandon the unfair and unbalanced network, by taking the netowrk out of AT&T's basic service, meaning she has switched to CNN. What she has noticed is that CNN PROMOTES OBAMA, while the unfair and unbalanced nettwork really does nto . On 'issues", THEY ARE THE SAME> Taht reflects, by the way, the fact that the GOP estalibhshment and Democrats are much more the SAME than is true of the GOP estalbishment and conservatives. To the extent the unfaira nd unbalanced network is not PANDERING to mainstream "journalism', with "journalists" just the same as on CNN, the only "bias" the unfair and unbalanced network MAY have is a POLITICAL bias toward the GOP ESTABISHMENT.
And I still have not gotten to the weekend KOOKS. ONe minute is all I could take today. I surfed the unfair and unbalanced network for ONE MUINUTE today, and could not take it. I almost smashed my TV set. They had this program talking aoubt "fruit snacks", and how they may not be good for yoou. Now there is the standard criticsm taht many of thee "healthy" snacks aimed at ch;ildren have too much SUGAR. Even that is overdone, but the unfair and unbalanced network went right by the SUGAR issue straight into KOOK CENTRAL. Tis, in case you have not guessed, is part of my 'you are a kook if:" series.
You ARE a kook if:
179. You work for the unfair and unbalanced network. I keep urging my two high-powered attorney daughters to appply to be on the network. They would fit right in as far as being willing to go off on kook ideas, but they would RAISE theINTELLIGENCE of the women on the network by something like 50%. For example, Megyn Kelly is a certified idiot. I have certified her.
180. Yoou believe that one of the major problems wtih fruit snacks for children is DYES. You know (or maybe you do't, if you are not a KOOK like thee peole) R"ed dye no. 4" (ow whatever), and all of these "artificial" additives.
181. You point to the LEFTIST kook systgems of EUROPE to "prove" taht the U.S. should be WARNING agasint these "food dyes', and probably other "artificial additives", on food labels.
182. You gnore the fact that CHILDREN may actually EAT food that looks attractive to eat, while food that is unattactive may well go uneateen. There i a REASON these food dyes are used. The companies are not really TRYING TO KILL US (although you get the feeling tlhat the unfiair and unbalanced network is KOOK enough to look seriously at that possibility).
183. You take seriously the FAD, LEFTIST, KOOK idea that we have an explosion of 'hyperactivity" and ADHD (or whatever,--it is a kook diagnosis, as used, in any event). in this country. My middle brother, was as HYPERACTIVE as you can get growing up. He still can't sit still, My mother still remembers that he kept gtting SWICHED in shcool (common then, although now the ANTI_CHRISTINAN Anderson Cooper, and peole of CNN, tratt this as an example of how Chrsitian child rearing advisors are "bausing" children", or cauisng it). My borther simplly could not sit still in his desk at school. He is now a pharmacist. That is probably because RITALIN did nOT EXIST then, and this KOOKINSM about "hyperactive" children had not taken hold. You don't see the connection? Well, you SHOULD NOT SEE A CONNECTION. But this KOOK on the unfairaand unbalanced network says taht EUROPE has asserted evidence of a connection between FOOD DYES and hyperactivity in children. Deliber me from this RELIGION.
Do you see why I don't acknowledge leftists as "good people'? How many CHILDREN have leftists DESTORYED by USING children to push these overbown ideas about "artificial additives". If yo want to be a KOOK, and avoid "artificial", be my guest. Sometimes kooks are even right (as is true of my own kook belieff that women should nvever have gbeen given the vote). Europe shows how leftist KOOKS DESTROY PEOPLE. Porr people can't afford food? Leftists have the ANSWER: KILL them off by making food too expensive for them with regualatin after regulation on everthing from "global warming" to artificail food additives.
184. (and this may be the general one that includes basically all of the others); You ARE a kook if you think "artificial" is automatically bad, and automatically worse than "natural". These words don't even hav objective meaning. SUGAR is "natural". So are arsenic and mrcury, where leftists want us to ERADICAGTTE the natural LEVEL of those subastances in our water. Human waste is "natural", and some of the most horrible disease known to man are created with uncontrolled fertilizing with human waste (a really terrible tapewrrm egg caused brain eating disease being the subject of one of my cases in my other life as a trial lawyer, where the problem for me was that this kind of thing is fairly pevalent in Mexico, with uncooked bvegetables/lettuce: etc. being contaminated with human waste, which led the defense to allege that my client got the condition in Juarez rather than from the Aemrican sewage I was alleging). "Natural" is not automatically better, and "artificial" automaticlaly worse. You are a KOOK if you blieve something else.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I am dead serrious about the unfair and unbalanced network on weekends. It really is as far let as you can get, with only a few exceptions. On "health" and "consumer" items, especailly, you might as well have Michelle Obama in charge of the stories. The netowrk is BAD durig the week, and getting worse. On weekends, it is way beyond bad. How can I say this, when I have NEVER seen the network on weekends more tghan a few minutes in any indiviudal day? That is exaclty why I can say it. When my RANDUM surfs ALWAYS produce this kid of stuff, you KNOW how bad it really is. It is absurd to believe that I merely HAPPEN to see only the bad thigs.