Fox Batshit Crazy News

The Latest Lies from Dreck and Ins-Hannity

On December 14 Fox News's Glenn Beck reiterated a story that he and his henchman, Sean Hannity, had been harping on for several months--the allegation that the White House Science and Technology Adviser, John Holdren, advocates forced sterilization and compulsory abortion. Before being appointed by Obama, Holdgren was director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy program at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard. This sensational "news" story was a lie.

The shred of truth in the story came from the fact that Holdren was the third author of a 1977 book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment in which extreme population measures were discussed but not advocated. Despite the fact that PolitiFact investigated and debunked Beck's July claims, he and Hannity have continued to repeat their wildly innacurate claims. For example, Beck claimed that Holdren advocated "forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." PolitiFact concluded that "the text of the book clearly does not support such a position...In fact, the authors make it clear that they did not support coercive means of population control...Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate forced abortions." (PolitiFact has won a Pulitzer Prize. Hannity and Beck have not.)

A week after the PolitiFact report, Beck was back at it again, describing Holdren, "musing about how to infect the nation's water to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth." Hannity resumed the attack on Holdren as follows: "Science adviser Eric [sic] Holdren, who spoke out in defense of compulsory abortion and sterilization of women, he is in the cabinet." Pretty good: two errors in one sentence--Holdren is not a cabinet member, and his name is John, not Eric. On September 9, Hannity continued "he's (Obama) got, in the case of Eric [sic] Holdren, his science advisor, a guy that has talked in favor of compulsory abortion and sterilization." And on September 10: "Does Eric [sic] Holdren need--need to go--a guy that supports compulsory abortion and sterilization?" Stories like this migrate from ideological blogs to our premier ideological news network where talk-show hosts like Ins- Hannity and Dreck--whom many consider an accurate source of news follow up with drumbeat coverage. The Holdren story started with a blogger, then moved to Fox where it's been exploited for five months. No other mainstream media outlet has reported on the story which Faux News repeated 32 times.

Dreck and Ins-hannity drove the coverage that caused the resignation of two low-level appointees Van Jones and Yosi Sergant. Holdren is bigger game. They also have an unfactual vendetta going against Cass Sunstein an Obama appointee to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Sunstein has also been mentioned as a possible appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Exposing the lies of Hannity, Beck and others is the responsibility of fact-based journalists. PolitiFact and Media Matters can't do the job alone.

[I'm indebted to Lou Dubose in the January 1, 2010 issue of the Washington Spectator, PolitiFact and Media Matters for America for the above material. The Washington Spectator is an excellent little publication which is available by mail-$18 for 22 issues. I'm also indebted to the WizardofWhimsy for the caricatures. ]

Family Values In Missouri
Family Values In Missouri

Media Matters "Misinformer of the Year--Glenn Beck"

Comments 113 comments

William F. Torpey profile image

William F. Torpey 6 years ago from South Valley Stream, N.Y.

What's new, Ralph?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Happy New Year, William! Just got back from Christmas with our kiddies and new granddaughter in San Francisco. What's new with you? When are you going to get your great senator Joe Lieberman under control?


blue dog profile image

blue dog 6 years ago from texas hill country

hey ralph,

how long has it been so bad? do we grow more aware with age? i feel like we're living in insanity. the whole thing has gone bad.

great job again. glad to read you had a nice holiday - and good to see you back in hp.


ColdWarBaby 6 years ago

Thanks for those links Ralph. I've added them to my homepage bookmarks module.


ethel smith profile image

ethel smith 6 years ago from Kingston-Upon-Hull

It seems anything goes in your political arena too?


robie2 profile image

robie2 6 years ago from Central New Jersey

Thanks for this Ralph-- especially the link to the politifacts website--fascinating stuff. Beck is nuts ditto Hannity. Happy 2010:-)


William R. Wilson profile image

William R. Wilson 6 years ago from Knoxville, TN

Amazing how they can keep doing this sort of thing.

Thanks for writing this Ralph. Keep shouting it from the rooftops!


eovery profile image

eovery 6 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

You had better read what wikipedia says about Holdren and sterilization. Or is Wikipedia wrong also?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

And talk about hate, the left HATED Bush last year. The shoe is on the other foot, and the right are nothing but haters now. But it was okay for the left to hate last year.

Keep on hubbing!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

eovery, there's nothing disturbing in the Wikipedia entry on Holdren. He and others have expressed concern about overpopulation (most people agree)and DISCUSSED a variety of possible solutions including sterilization but RECOMMENDED less severe solutions including birth controll and access to abortion. The truth didn't come close to the lies of Hannity and Beck. I'm sure they knew what the truth was, but felt no compunction about their exaggerations and outright lies.

Thanks for your comment.


Tom Cornett profile image

Tom Cornett 6 years ago from Ohio

Why aren't they being sued for slander?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

That's a good question. The bar for slander against public officials is higher than for ordinary citizens. ???


Iðunn 6 years ago

interesting news on fox vs cable companies (ongoing):

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-01/time-w...

that link is a quickie and you can google the details, but the gist is that Fox is trying to pull it's signals from certain cable companies unless Fox can get more money for it's 'unique' programming. considering most of their avid viewers are undereducated, underemployed right wing nutjobs, I think this move is pretty stupid, but when does stupid ever stop Fox, eh?

Murdoch also wants to start charging by the article for any online news from his site beginning next year and is hoping other media will fall in behind him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/07/rupert...

personally I hope cable and satellite companies would choose to stand firm and get FoxSlander off any visible media source. to have them do so at their own hand because of overwhelming greed would be poetic justice.

and I admit I would consider it to be something of a public service if Fox news took it's own garbage 'news' off the free internet also.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks Idunn! I agree.


William F. Torpey profile image

William F. Torpey 6 years ago from South Valley Stream, N.Y.

Happy New Year,Ralph. I've settled in to my new diggs in Valley Stream, but still keeping busy at the East Rockaway VFW

Considering that he was chosen by Gore to run on his ticket, Lieberman is a major disappointment. His perceived power has really gone to his head. I'm afraid he's too far gone now to ever be rehabilitated. And to think I introduced his sister Ellen at a rally in the Stamford municipal center when she campaigned for him and the ticket in the 2000 presidential election.


eovery profile image

eovery 6 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

Yes, less severe as now, but it could change. You don't think this could change? From my understand, is that they agreed on a less severe method would be best for now, but they could go to a more drastic method if they saw the need. This is freaky scary.

And this appears to be pointed at certain ethnic groups and/or class of income. This is freaking scary! We are standing up for these people and pointing out the possibilities to everyone and that they need to get their heads out of the sand.

Keep on hubbing!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

I doubt it very seriously. What do you base "your understanding" on. Sounds more like speculation than understanding. I guess we should get a copy of the book and read it for ourselves.

Here's what PolitiFact had to say:

Glenn Beck claims science czar John Holdren proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population

Pants on Fire!

Bookmark this story:

Buzz up!

ShareThis

As evidence that the country is closer to socialist than capitalist these days, radio and talk show host Glenn Beck recently made this claim about John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:

"I mean, we've got czars now," Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. "Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

Political figures like Holdren, who are little-known by most Americans, make easy targets. And Beck's biting quick hit on Holdren provides a healthy enough dose of outrage on which to hang his argument.

But is it true?

Beck's allegation has its roots in a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment .

Conservative bloggers have quoted the book extensively, and often out of context, to make the point that Holdren has advocated positions such as the ones Beck stated.

We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy."

In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.

Here's a few excerpts:

"The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. ...

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ...

"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Later, the authors conclude, "Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries."

And here's the part that some have interpreted as Holdren advocating for forced abortions.

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."

This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.

In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference.

In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren's office issued this statement: "The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation."

Holdren's office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: "We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.

Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'"

Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, "Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?"

Said Holdren: "No, senator, I do not. ... I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we


Judith Spencer 6 years ago

eovery wrote: "Yes, less severe as now, but it could change. You don't think this could change? From my understand, is that they agreed on a less severe method would be best for now, but they could go to a more drastic method if they saw the need. This is freaky scary."

Even though I only have a high school education, my reading of what Ralph quoted from Holdren's own writings is nowhere near anything but the "discussion of" things that "could but probably never will" become solutions to overpopulation in this country.

We could all sit here and put forth ideas about going through the city hospitals and euthanizing all the baby boys born in the past 6 months to control population growth but that doesn't mean we WILL do it...nor does it mean we'd even consider it. (And that idea didn't work out too well for guy who originally thought it up, did it?)

The thing I find freaky scary is people blindly believing every twisted word that comes from FOX "news". Just because they seem to exist to twist words and scare people with lies doesn't mean we have to buy what they say hook, line, and sinker...they are a far bigger threat to this country than any "discussion of population control" could ever hope to be!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks, Judith and happy New Year to you and my friends at The Mote.


William R. Wilson profile image

William R. Wilson 6 years ago from Knoxville, TN

There is way too much rumor and wild speculation coming from Fox News for me to ever take it seriously. I hope the rest of America wakes up to this. Thanks again Ralph for bringing it to light.

This is similar to what happened to Van Jones - he said and did some things as a young man that were used to tarnish him and the white house. But if you look at some of the things he said since then he makes so much sense. It's too bad he got forced out by rumors and fearmongering.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Considering humans only occupy about 2.5% of the Earth the problem of population control is absurd to begin with. With such a low percentage why would anyone even consider any control methods.

That alone makes me ask - What is the agenda?

There are more severe problems that should be delt with.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

joer4X4, my impression is that the population issue has more to do with the rate and effect of our use of non-renewable resources such as oil, coal, natural gas, old growth timber and the like more than the percentage of land occupied by people which, as you noted, is small although much of the earth's surface is uninhabitable for various reasons.

Just curious, are you a fan of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

From my point of view we have been told we have been running out of resources for years yet it hasn't happened. Old oil wells that were predicted to run dry are still pumping oil.

There have been too many crises with no impact.

The bottom line is that we have more products and throw away items more than ever. More are introduced everyday.

I ask the question again - what's the agenda? I just don't see any proof.

One could argue we are losing forest. But here in America they are replaced when used ensuring future suppy.

I don't think I can be classified as a fan of anyone. Hannity I never watch (no particular reason) and the few times I watched Beck (I work at night) I would say he's a bit over dramatic but I don't think he's a liar either.

I think the Acorn thing was good.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Yes, oil wells are still pumping and new fields are still being discovered, but no new oil is being created, and eventually we'll run out. Some claim we have already reached "peak" oil and are on the way down. Seems to me that Beck lied repeatedly and intentionally about Holgren.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

You're right, government won't let us claim our own resources.

But we won't run out because other countries are dilling new wells. China has set up shop right off our coast just outside territorial waters.

If you can find someone in the oil industry ask them what they think of peak oil. You will be surprised.

I didn't see Beck's show on Holgren. For me, Holgren is involved in way too much politics for a scientist and I think he is a bit full of himself.

The way I see it if you're going to serve the publics interest your public property. We don't have kings, queens, princes, or princesses in the USA.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

In the Bush administration the scientists were trumped on policy by the evangelicals in the White House.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Guilty as charged!


George Nagle 6 years ago

By advocating falsehoods, Beck/Hannity reveal their lack of integrity. They are showmen, not responsible commentators, and injure the democratic process itself.

For them, it's all about ratings, the truth be damned.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks, Joe and George for your comments.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 6 years ago

Ralph, if you are certain that Beck and Hannity are lying, why not, in Beck's case, phone him on the show. He seems to welcome anyone calling him out on one of his assertions. I never read Holdren's book, but if you have and you are sure Beck is wrong, call him. It would be fascinating.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

I haven't read Holdren's book. I'm relying on PolitiFact's commentary and quotes, posted above, from the book. It's pretty clear that Beck has been lying or at the very least greatly exaggerating which he does constantly.


eovery profile image

eovery 6 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

I guess, from your guy's rants Beck may have over did it, and wrong here. So why don't you read the book and make sure of it.

But what is the difference, most of the media get the rest of the news wrong daily and biased to the left. The rest of the media his their nose so far up Obama's "you know what", and the liberal side that they are missing some very good news.

Now media talk about the socialistic and attacks on the USA that happened in Copenhagen. To have Hugo Chevez as their spokes person and his big speech, is nothing but an attack on the USA by socialist and communists. All we here about is making a treaty to cut green house gases. These bastards want to take the USA down and they are hitting us from the behind and have infiltrated us. It is a war that is being fought with bullets. Where is the media?

Keep on hubbing!


Ivan the Terrible profile image

Ivan the Terrible 6 years ago from Madrid

While not yet Pulitzer Prize winners yet, I think Hannity and Beck (and O'Reilly) are up for the Putzy Prize this year. I do actually see them on Internet feeds now, and it is a lot of fun to watch them spin their little webs of deceit and conspiracy. Why do these clowns stay on TV? Have things really become that loony in the U.S.????


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Hay, Ralph, Ivan just sent me an email about your new hub. Hey. Ivan! thought I'd pipe in.

Beck is a case apart, neither being a news reporter nor a journalist. He is an entertainer and he knows just like any pitchman, how to build and keep an audience. what he says in said only to make people either angry or to get the to agree. The gist of what he says, to him, is less important than the effect it has.

He makes a lot of stuff up, using some obscure bit of information which he then twists and turns until it no longer has any bearing on the original fact. I would cringe if some of the early ideas I held as a child or young adult were to be used to judge me as I am now.

Tigers may never change their stripes but people do all the time. When Beck claimed that Obama was a racists and against "white culture" I had to laugh. Obama was writing about some feelings or thoughts he had as a child, not about how he believes today. He went into some detail to show how he evolved as a person. we all go through those moments where we "grow up" and see that our ideas are simply not credible.

Well, most of us do, anyway! With Beck it's all about the money. Money and fame.

Cheers! (And thanks, Ivan for the heads up!)

Chef Jeff


bill yon profile image

bill yon 6 years ago from sourcewall

fox news has become the t.v. equal to the national enquirer,star,and globe,some of its true the majority of it is not,they know,they are just riding lies and half truths all the way to the bank.I think Becks book is on the New York times bestseller list.


AmericaSpeaks profile image

AmericaSpeaks 6 years ago from Brevard, NC

There's no doubt that the media embellishes the facts to fit their need at the moment. This type of "slander" (as one comment stated) was perfected during the Bush era. I want to thank MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, and CBS for showing Fox the way to be successful in the slander news business!


Alp 6 years ago

I think I will switch to the democrat party, as it seems to me that (from the comments above) the truth and only the truth can be found there, there is no spin, half truths, gray areas,political fighting or back stabing.

The democrats and there supporters NBC,ABC,CBS,PBS,Hollywood, and most of the Inst. of higher education are laying the ground work for heaven on earth; Where is the coolaid I want some!


GeneriqueMedia profile image

GeneriqueMedia 6 years ago from Earth

Not that I wish to dispute anything here, and I especially agree with AmericaSpeaks. I don't trust any major news network because of their ties with political parties and corporate duties to grab a victim of viewership and sensationalize the news.

Politics today is more a kin to a soap opera or a wrestling federation; they act the part of disliking each other, but behind the scenes they're good buddies. A one party system just doesn't create enough decent issues to actually engage in considerable thought in.

Therefore, slander is a good way of ensuring viewership.

Between the major news outlets you have basically four issues on the table: global warming, the war(s), health care, and the economy.

When they're discussed in-depth or the public begins to lose interest banter between sides is a very effective medium to boost ratings.

As for the attacks on FOX...I think it goes with the territory; the right arm of the political party doesn't gain much traction in the media and as Murdoch's corporation is their biggest supporter stateside it's rather easy to nitpick your biggest political "rival." Though their pundits certainly do make it easy.

Relevancy by screaming.

"Presidents are selected, not elected."-FDR


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

What I find amusing is that so many Conservatives so easily accept what Beck says while they at the same time they try to point out how jaded the "Liberal Media" has become. Aren't they all rather jaded up there in Cable News Heaven?

And just for the record, if you are going to say "Democrat Party", Alp, (And I am assuming it was not just a typo), which is gramtically incorrect, then you'd best also start saying "Republic Party" for the other major political party. What's fair is fair, after all, so let's all show our ignorance of proper grammer and then beat our chests and shout "We're Number One!" until we drown out the chorus of nations overtaking us in so many fields of endeavour.

As for the Right not gaining much traction, I must disagree. On all channels there has been extreme coverage of Sarah Palin and her book tour. Since when does anyone promoting a book deserve such intense coverage? Yes, some of it has been negative, and some has been positive, but my point is, she is no longer governor, she is selling a book, so why is she on my TV screen five days each week? I do not care if it were Al Gore or Pee Wee Hermann - I am tired of this mindless crap posing as news! Aren't you?

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Curious Jen profile image

Curious Jen 6 years ago from Canada/Nicaragua

Really excellent article. I couldn't agree with you more.


Oilrod 6 years ago

It is so good to have a different view like fox.

Looking down on crap is a lot better than tip toeing out of all the crap the Scumbags called media(cnn,abc,nbc,cbs and the worst NPR) as the leftist spew crap up to our necks with stinking disgust the nation wallows in it like a hog being as happy with the food(news) given on same ground they live sleep and eat and excrete on.

Yes seems this nation is happy to live like that.


Alp Arslan 6 years ago

Chef Jeff

I read your post on the hub pages and you where correct I should have checked before I posted.

The question I have is what exactly dose a grammatical error have to do with the post or the original story?

With all due respect, are you with the grammar police? (There is another term for that but it escapes me).


Mortgagestar1 profile image

Mortgagestar1 6 years ago from Weirton,West Virginia

What ever happened to those Obama Campaign promises?

Nancy Pelosi said " Yes, That WAS the campaign ".

Follow the lies at

http://www.nachumlist.com/


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

The comment was in general to those who say "Democrat Party" thus intentionally changing their speaking habits to reflect the Right's latest GOP politically correct grammar error of using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic".

I was a teacher and I tell my Conservative friends that if they insist on saying Democrat Party they should also say Republic Party since they are changing the rules of proper grammar for one, but not the other. I also tell my Liberal friends the same thing. (I am a Moderate Independent).

So, if Democrat Party is the new vogue PC way of talking aboput the Democratic Party, then one must also say Republic Party to be PC, fair and balanced. We really can't have one without the other.

Also, it is a bit of political humor, so no, I am not the grammar police, just pointing out that many Conservatives use the term Democrat Party in lieu of the grammatically correct Democratic Party.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Mostgagestar1, campaign promises are worth the toilet paper they are written on. No one ever keeps them, and we just let every politician get away with it. Those who support the winning candidate seldom challenge them on it, and those who did not support the winning candidate are told to stop with the sour grapes already. And We the People get squished in between it all. And then we go out and do the same thing over and over.

Obama's campaigh promises are worth as much as were G. W. Bush's, Clinton's, those of G. H. W. Bush., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc., etc. Even Lincoln did not really keep most of his.

But the point of this article is more about FOXNews' promises, such as fair and balances, and implied by their title, to report the news, not to make it or slant it. Just because Conservatives claim that the Left is doing it does not mean it's OK for the Right to do the same thing. either one reports news, or one politicizes current events.

The three charicatures at the top of this hub do not and cannot claim to report news in any semblence of a fair and balanced manner. there are those also on the Left that do the same thing. To me it's sad that we use any of them for learning about what is really happening out there. I'd like to see them all off the air.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks, Chef. We're on the same wavelength on this one, as usual.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Just a point.

Politifact is a lot like Factcheck.org in that they really don't follow through. They tend to stop short without following throught completely.

An example. They claim Obama kept his promise to expand loans for small business. Well...that's partly true because it was in the stimulus package already.

But when the funds got there no business recieved them. Some funds were kept by the states and special interest. The banks aren't lending unless you have star credit and most banks that received money invested it for their own survival.

Now, It was out of Obama's control once the funds were delivered. But Obama made a promise he could only keep in vague legislation. So on one had he kept the promise on the other hand he broke it.

Bottom line the funds were never delivered to the intended source.

Politifact never followed it though all the way. And that's a lie of ommission.

Factcheck.org does the same thing.

Most politicians can not and should not make promises. What they promise is always out of their control.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Joer4x4, you are correct that politicians should not make promises. They are elected to lead, but we have come to expect them to exhbit certain traits and we demand a stand on their part before we vote for or against them. One of those traits includes telling us how if you "Vote for me and I'll set you free!", in the words of an old song.

Somehow we actually think or believe a President has some magical power to make things happen all by him or herself. We have three parts to our Federal Government, and the POTUS is only one part of that. As for a sad lack of presidential power, one needs only look at Jimmie Carter's time in office to see just how impotent a president can become when isolated from (a) the party he belongs to and (b) the opposition when they have enough power to stop him. Carter was a nice guy who was unable to exercize the full extent of his Constitutional power due to politics. George washington warned (as did others) about not allowing parties to influence government, but we just had to split up into opposing teams and battle each other since the earliest years of our nation. Too bad for us.

When Ross Perot ran, and if he would have won, which party would have supported him? Neither major party seemed at all interested in backing any of his ideas, so even though many people saw him as a common sense candidate, his ability to get things done might never have been allowed to come to fruition. Again, sad for us.

Once anyone gets elected the first thing theyseem to do is forget their promises, mostly because they become aware that they can't keep them. I have no doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama really meant it when he said he was going to change how Washington works, because it was and is clear to him and to us that it does not work very well, but the Democratic Party did not and does not necessarily agree to go along with that, just as the Newt Gingrich idea of term limits died because neither party really wants them in place.

But the POTUS is not a dictator and has to get his ideas past a reluctant Congress, which looks out more its own interests than those of the nation at large. As we have seen, the Senate, especially, has the power to block anything one or several Senators do not like. Thus a Joe Liebermann can stop health care time and again, using lame excuses as to why he won't vote for it, and a Mary Landreu can get big bucks for her vote or Ben Nelson can get unique benefits for his state.

It was obvious that the Republicans would not support anything Obama proposed, because so many have been labelling him Socialist or Enemy of the State, and many of the most fervent GOP supporters simply do not want Obama as president.

But even beyond that, Democratic Senators who come from traditionally Conserative states will not do anything that smacks of borerline liberalism because someone, somewhere, will shout out loud how Senator so-and-so is some Commie Pinko Freak and should be out of office NOW! Even some Republicans have had to tighten up on their ultra-Conservative credentials for fear of having someone farther to the Right run against them, as happened in Upstate New York in a special election. The GOP had a perfectly good candidate who actually dropped out and then supported the Democratic candidate after she was pronounced "not Conservative enough" to pass muster with some of the far-Right Conservatives nationally.

Just look at how Viet Nam hero and honored veteran Max Cleland was smeared in Georgia and you get an idea of just how virulent the opposition can be. He neither earned nor deserved such low-handed tactics.

So Obama can't and won't keep a lot of his campaign promises, even though I believe he sincerely meant them when he ran. He just simply can't, at least not without support from his own party, and perhaps even support of Republicans who to date have not shown any willingness to support anything he wants to do.

I am most troubled by some Republicans who sat on health care committees who, even after they put in their own ideas for health care reform, said they would not vote for health care no matter what was included or taken out. Chuck Grassley of Iowa seems to me to be the most disingneuous of them all, but he is not alone. Those who falsely called the health care bill as seeking to set up death camps and murder old people are quite irresponsible, to say the least, and liars to say what is in my heart. Better to say I do not like these aspects of this bill than to make up garbage such as "This bill will kill old people and young who don't pass an Obama Death Panel inspection", which is the most absurd thing I have heard in Obama's first year as POTUS.

But such, unfortunately, is the nature of the beast called Politics. It is not there to do what is right: Rather it is there to do what it needs to do to get elected or reelected.

And, even more sad, as the point of this excellent hub lets us know, there are people in the media who seem to perpetuate these lies and even allegedly take part in creating them, such as Glenn Beck, who in my humble opinion is perhaps one of the most ignorant of men I have ever seen. I once had some great respect for him, when he was on CNN/HN and told about how he had worked his way up from a life of alcoholism and other problems. But he soon showed that there are some disturbing things he is willing to go along with, in my opinion untrue and even dangerous things, which now his audience seems to take a gospel truth when Beck actually states few credible facts to back up his assertions. He also seems to stay just this side of slander and libel, which shows me he is also very cunning and deliberate. He talks as if he knows what he is talking about, when in fact it seems to me that he just wants to get ratings and money. And people offer it to him. I alsobelieve that on any other news channel save FOXNews he would have been kicked off long ago.

But his populism and popularity have kept him in place even as he gets more and more ridiculous. That is why some people have started to call him "Lonesome Roads" after the character Andy Griffith played in "A Face in the Crowd".

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Good points for sure Chef:

Our politicians lead with their pockets and carry the party line, not the voters who gave them the job.

In this country if your in public office - you're public property. This is what everyone needs to understand.

The Republicans are just as disgusting as the Democrates. The Republicans are afraid to stand up and Democrates let the far left take over.

As far as Beck goes I'd have to get a copy of the book and hear Beck's words. Since this is based on Politifact, I'd have to take a step back.


Alp 6 years ago

Chef Jeff

Your latest post is on target. It is a shame the original hub was not as equally balanced in regards to left Vs right.

The original hub dose a good job in pointing out the rights errors but fails to bring up the equally damaging “showman ship” (crap) of the left.

Having watched GW take a beating year in and year out ( some of it deserved), I feel the need to support my “team” , even though I know some of what I watch is a stretch of the truth.

I suppose it is human nature to over look the errors of you side and examine with a microscope the errors of the opposition.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Well here goes.

Page 838 “Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce."

Holdren tries to make a play on words and he is wrong. Life is guaranteed but to have life one must reproduce.

This statement is astounding and is an attempt to open the door to forced birth control.

I haven't read the whole thing (in this short time) but it is an eye opener.

Beck got this one right. God! I love research!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Keep us posted. However, I don't think the authors proposed "forced birth control." Let us know if in the book there is such a proposal which they support as claimed by Glenn Beck.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Well, Alp, as you point out, neither side get's things correct when they approach handing out "facts" from an agenda-driven point of view. When they (either side) has something to push, the "facts" rather conveniently support their own point of view and downgrade any opposing point of view.

I really think most Americans are smart enough, when presented with cold, hard, non-politicized facts, to make intelligent decisions.

When ALL the facts, in favor or not, are presented, we have the ability to see how things really stack up. We might not come to the same conclusion, but at least no one can say "I was not given all the information."

It's time for all news outlets to stop pushing political agendas and get the entire story out there.

For example, Mark Sanford and Erik Ensign and other GOP politicians were engaged in sexual hanky-panky, but prominent Democrats were as well, so to try to make this a one-sided story seem like politically trying to make some point or another.

True, Republicans tend to run on family values more than Democrats do, but when we elect a leader in any capacity, we do expect them to act in such a way that their private lives do not become an issue to doubt their ability and credibility to do the work we sent them to do. If any politician is messing around, are they so drunk with power that they think they are better than us? Elliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, and some other Democrat from New Jersey seemed to be flaunting their political power in our faces as much as Sanford, Ensign and Vitter did.

It seemed obvious to me that MSNBC focused on Ensign, Sanford and Vitter while FOXNews focused on Spitzer and the other Democrat, but played down as much as they could their own side's having done the same thing. To me that shows a bias, and I do not like bias, no matter which side of an issue.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Sorry Ralph but politifact is dead wrong and Beck is right on course. This is disgusting - I can't read anymore. This is really an eye opener.

Page 943:

"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits."

Page 837:

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility."

He writes about energy taxation and wealth distribution. Changing the whole economic world would require temporary retraining and unemployment. It just goes on and on. It's over 1,000 pages.

I am shocked! I didn't think Holdren was that bad. But he wrote the words and now has to live with them.

Don't pay money for this book - get it from the library if you can. My copy is going back today! I really need to rethink some things.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Well, my understanding of Holdren et. al. book is that they are showing various cases of what the future as seen by them back then might look like. Some of their ideas were indeed based on incidents occurring at that time or which occurred already, such as Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, and so forth. We have seen with the past occupation of Afghanistan by the Taliban just how cruel and inhuman some governments or take-overs can be.

I do not think they were saying these were acceptable or even desired outcomes, they were only postulating with warnings of what might occur.

I will read it myself to get a better perspective of the full context of what you mention above and then pipe in with what I see.

One of the problems with quoting portions of a text is that it may unintentionally lead to a misunderstanding of what the author was trying to say. By itself, if this were indeed a position Holdren proposes, it would be disturbing. However, I have never heard of Holdren ever proposing or even condoning these ideas in the past. It seems that he has simply tried to show what our future could look like, but I'll make sure of that by reading this book.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


AdsenseStrategies profile image

AdsenseStrategies 6 years ago from CONTACT ME at Adsensibilities@gmail.com

At least Fox shows its true colours, so we know where it stands. The real slime takes place on CNN, NBC, ABC etc. Because they are much more subtle in their bias... which is not to say that their bias is (always) liberal. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But it is bias all the same, and represents powerful interests. I'd rather know upfront that a TV station stands for x, y and z than this sneaky garbage.

Best wishes


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

AdSense, Fox claims to be "fair and balanced." That hardly "shows its true colors." It's true colors, I concede, are obvious to any sentient being, however. The same is true pretty much of CNBC. The influence of the "establishment" is a bit harder to discern on PBS's Lehrer News Hour.

Joe, IMHO, the lines you quoted don't confirm Beck's ridiculous claim that Holdren "supports" (present tense) forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water. Close but no cigar. I admire your tenacity for actually getting a copy of the book and checking the issue out from an original source. We need more of that on HubPages. Thanks and best wishes.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

I notice that people keep saying CNN is biased, and most of these folks say it is boased to the Left. I have whached CNN since it's inception and I rarely see unfettered opinions go unchallenged there as they do on either MSNBC or especially FOXNews. It seems that they (CNN) try as hard as they can to allow all sides a voice. Am I missing something here?

I am not plugging CNN over other cable news channels. I just fail to see any huge bias or partisanship in most of what they do. In fact,they seem rather bland in this area. I like that - no showboating, no grandstanding.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


AdsenseStrategies profile image

AdsenseStrategies 6 years ago from CONTACT ME at Adsensibilities@gmail.com

Noam Chomsky (I think it is) does an interesting commentary about the PBS Lehrer report... it's probably on Google Videos or Youtube.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Sorry, the last post had to be quick as I was running out the door.

Holdren did mention in the book that force birth control is not neccessary now (at the time of writing).

The words are plain and clear and there is no moral justification for it in any context. There is no question that he thinks he knows what is best for other people.

He actually talks about several ways of cleaning up society and using sterilization. I didn't read the whole book nor did I want to. But what I have read leads to that conclusion and there is no doubt of the desired outdome.

As for now? Let me ask you - have you changed your mind over the last 20 - 30 years on any issues that run deep to your core? Ususally most don't and if they do they admit the mistake if they are sincere. What's stopping Holdren?

My God, this was a college text book! Holdren is a dangerous man with a single focus. He is full of himself. Talking about a "Planitary Regime" and the Untited Nations stepping in and taking over? No - that's wrong on any count!

At times I got the feeling he was talking about America when he said the richer countries should pay poorer countries at least 20% of the GNP! He seems to have a distaste for what he sees as unjustified wealth. Yet given is status I'm sure he does not feel that way about his own wealth.

BTW when I took the book back the person at the counter asked how I got it out. I replied the person there yesterday just wanded it out. Appatrently it's out of print and for in library use only. It was a bit shabby.

A quick search shows a handfull of expensive copies around.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Well, setting aside what was in the book of which he was the junior of three authors, I'm willing to accept his recent statement that he does not advocate or support any extreme population control measures of the type Beck and Hannity accused him of advocating. As far as I'm concerned he's well-qualified for the position he holds and is not a secret advocate of some sinister population control scheme.


SheriSapp profile image

SheriSapp 6 years ago from West Virginia

WOW!!! There are some pretty misinformed people reading and commenting on this hub. Beck ALWAYS invites the WH to call him on any factual inaccuracies, but they haven't done so yet. If he is such a vicious liar, WHY??? Anyway, this hub and most of the comments re-affirmed my fears for my nation and where the "progressives" want to take it.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Sherisapp, why would anyone even want to engage Beck in any sort of dialogue? The phone is a publicity stunt, out of the old school demagogues of the radio days. Others used the same trick. One later admitted the phone was not even hooked up.

If Beck were a journalist, or any sort of newsman, which he admits he is not, why should anyone take him seriously with that phone stuff? Why not schedule an interview, as a news reporter would do? I might as well ask Michael Steele to call me on my cell phone and explain why he says some of the things he says. Do you think he'd call me? Somehow, I don't think so.

It is up to We, the People to discern whether or not anyone disseminating news and information is telling the truth, and that requires more than just passing agreement and passive acceptance. Our founding fathers knew that newspapers, which were the TV and Internet of their day, were biased and could not be relied upon to give facts. Indeed, slander and bias were so great that Aaron Burr got into a duel over slander and libel printed about him. Maybe Beck should challenge those he lambastes to a duel. LOL!!! Even Abe Lincoln got involved with this chicanery by writing under an alias some nasty things about an opponent. This is not a new thing.

But seriously, I have learned from hard and bitter experience that I simply do not trust anyone on any of the cable news channels because these organizations make huge profits off our anger and the misinformation that feeds it. Go on believing Beck and others if you want to, but one day he (and many others on both sides of the political spin room) will be discovered as the fakers they really are.

And for all those who defend Beck but rip apart others like Maddow and Olbermann - why do you think your guy has the truth on his side? Simply because you believe that side of it? There is no exclusivity to facts and facts can not be owned by anyone. There are, however, those who would bend and twist facts and make stuff up. Beck, and all too many others, Liberal and Conservative, are becoming masters at this dog and pony show routine.

Remember that a fact is not opinion. Facts can help us come to conclusions, but opinions do not replace facts, and Beck and others use opinions with a sleight of hand technique to make their case. Inother words, they make up or bend the truth to their use, and give the appearance of having solid facts on their side, much like, for example, proponents of the infamous flat Earth society. Their argument appears logical on the surface, but is all bogus just beneath it, much like fake gold jewelry shines bright, but is really copper beneath the golden veneer. These are con men of the highest order.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


William R. Wilson profile image

William R. Wilson 6 years ago from Knoxville, TN

LOL Sheri called us misinformed.

I'd have to read the book myself - the quotes Joe provides don't demonstrate that this is a plan, only speculation. For example, note the word "might" in this quote:

Page 943:

"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits."

And the two "ifs" in this one:

Page 837:

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility."

Looks like speculation, not advocacy, to me.


William R. Wilson profile image

William R. Wilson 6 years ago from Knoxville, TN

"It is up to We, the People to discern whether or not anyone disseminating news and information is telling the truth, and that requires more than just passing agreement and passive acceptance."

Truer words have never been spoken, Jeff.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

William:

Textbooks are not speculation. Textbooks are meant to teach young minds. How many minds have been affected. A textbook is an education "plan".

Easy to dismiss if it was a run of the mill book. But it's not. It was meant to influence by its very nature. There are no "ifs" or "mights" about its intened purpose.

The devil is always in the details. One can ignore the whole picture and dance around the picture if they so choose. But there are only two choices. Is it right or is it wrong.

PS - looks like you're headed to the library - can you provide a link? LMAO!

Just had to throw that out there!

Have a great day!:)


William R. Wilson profile image

William R. Wilson 6 years ago from Knoxville, TN

Joe - just now read your comment. We're not talking about an elementary school textbook here, but a college level text. Speculation is a vital part of teaching and learning at the University level.

And if we can't talk about something that is immoral in order to understand it, how can we form a complete picture? Discussing something is a far cry from doing it, or even preparing to do it, or even wanting to do it.

We must have open eyes, and understand all the possible outcomes, if we want to make informed decisions about the future.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

I remember that as part of our senior year high school literature class we had to read Mein Kampf and The Diary of Anne Frank. Two heavy, completely opposite books, but each an important part of history. One tells of Hitler's plans to rule his world with his ideology; the other tells the story of how those plans affected a young human being.

Later in College we were asked to read about the Russian revolution from two opposing books, not to make us believers in either report, but to make us understand how to discern what questions we needed to ask before we took either account as either accurate or inacurate, and then we had to give our research discoveries as to why we came to our opinion.

I did snag a copy of Holdren's book from my son, who used it as part of a Modern Sociology class in his undergrad junior year. He was also to read Anne Rand's Atlas Shrugged as it was an important founding book of modern Conservatism.

The professor wanted, again, research into each book and conclusions drawn as to how and why each book was important to the world we exist in today.

To my knowledge this book is not aimed at high schoolers. It is sometimes used as a college text for camparisons, not for planning a new society.

I've read a few dozen pages. Everything so far points to speculation and to me of showing possibiities, none of which are proposed by the authors as being either good nor acceptable. Just as other authors have written books that inform us of what may occur, that is, as far as I have read, the intent of this book.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks, ChefJeff, Sounds like you and your son had good educations. I read "The Fountainhead" after my parents finished it. At the time I thought it was a marvelous book but didn't get its extreme anti-state, libertarian slant. I hope the schools aren't assigning Atlas Shrugged or other Rand stuff without some accompanying background information as was the case with you and your son.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Well, even though Rand did not live up to her own advice, and demanded extreme obedience from her followers in contrast to her damn the crowd attitude, she was a genius in her area of expertise. Personally I think she was too Conservative for my tastes, but a lot of people swear by her.

The end result is that I am that much richer for having read her book than i would have been if I had not read it. The same goes for all the books I have read.

I did start reading Sarah Palin's book as well, but I found it rather dull and it seemed to me she was trying to point out how false were the flaws others found in her. That is, she was trying to say she had no such flaws and this was all the result of bad media bias, personal dislike for her, or other reasons other than she is just the type of person who creates controversy.

There is some truth that some people were blogging falsehoods about her, but she makes it sound as if she were the only one on the recieving end of criticism, completely ignoring the fact that she does the same thing to others and that others as well get harshly criticised on-line. I came away with the impression that she is trying to clear the decks for 2012.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Joer4x4, books are not always written to be right or wrong. This one, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," seems to me to be written more as an overview of possibilities that seemed to loom on the horizon. I find very little so far that says we need to do this or that. So, looking at it from the point of view that it is a blueprint for something, I believe, misses the entire point of the book. that is where I differ with Glenn Beck, in that he is saying that the authors were trying to get some cruel and hidden agenda put into place, which I suppose is one interpretation, while from I see thus far it is more or less an overview of, if we are not careful, things that may occur if we do not understand how they come about and refuse to acknowledge the possibility of these things occurring here.

Also, some of these ideas were not new when they wrote. Some were proposed by members of Congress in the 1940's & 1950's, and were carried out,such as the forced sterilization of some Black men in the South, as well as other medical experiements carried out by giving prisoners, again mostly Black men, syphillus to examine how they deteriorated as the disease progressed. Holdren was writing from the position that such things were possible, and had even occurred.

To those who lived in or understood Germany in the early 1900's, it never seemed possible that this wonderful nation of so many great thinkers and genius musicians could ever be responsible for, or even desire, warfare such as that which broke out in 1914. Yet, because the warnings of people who wrote books like this one were ignored, the nation went blindly into an Imperial conquest mode.

I remember that some of those authors were called Communists and Free Thinkers, a nasty title back then, who were neither patriotic nor worthy of being German citizens. Much the same thing happened after WW I and before Hitler came to power, and they were also branded with names and some died for their writings.

Even Gallileo was criminalized because he wrote about the abuses and the ramifications of such abuse. Most societies do not want to hear about negative things that may happen. Yet those societies which ignore these warnings end up sadly enough much changed for the worse.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Chef:

I understand. Of course - all textbooks are overviews of the content to be covered. But Holdren opted to write it as textbook instead of a Novel or Fiction. He could have promoted a focus on education and not mention serialization at all. He could have rescinded it but he won't because he believes it.

Does one write what they do not believe?

His thoughts, his words - thoughts are more often desires than not. Thoughts are insight to the man.

I think the point is one either agrees or disagrees with Holdren. I strongly disagree. Sitting on the fence only erodes the fence.

The question I ask myself is "Would I write those words? The clear answer is NEVER!

To defend this man because something Glenn Beck said is clouding the issue. It's not about Beck.

What was done in the 40s and 50s was wrong. So is this man for it is obvious he stands with them.

Is this to be ignored so that we could be changed for the worse?

A good day to all!


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Did these authors actually write this as a text book? Or, did it become one because of its content? I really don't know. But I have often written praise of people and ideas that I do not agree with, simply because of the genius behind the writing.

I did not particularly like Ayn Rand but I do see the genius behind her writing and the influence they had. I seldom agreed with Wm. F. Buckley but the man was a clear genius inhow he presented his ideas.

Again, not everything written inbooks, even non-fiction books, is necessarily and either or proposition. I am still reading and will comment more as I go alog.

I also believe that our political perceptions make up our outlook, and that if you see a tree with yellow leaves and I see the same tree with red leaves, it is only our perceptions that differ. The tree is still the tree, but we define it in our own manner.

The other point is: If, and I exmpahsize IF, Holdren and the other authors did actually mean to implement the policies and ideas they wrote about, (a), did they advocate those ideas since writing the book, and (b) did they ever try to get those ideas implemented?

As an example, Malcom X hated Caucasians when he first started out, but later came to accept that the idea of hating skin color was foolish. He began to see people as people. In other words, he grew and changed. So, to answer a question posed above, people do change all the time. I know I am not the person I was at age 15 or 20, or ever age 40. I have learned to adapt and to change long-held ideas that were simply wrong.

I seriously doubt that Obama would do any of the things in the book in question, even if he could. A lot of the people bashing Obama and his choices need to realize that no president can act like a dictator. they are on the same wrong track as many people who bashed Bush with misinformation and innuendo.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Perceptions - right your are Chef!

In fact, the proof I would offer is our fragile chaotic world of today.

Chef, I don't mean any disrespect but I think you're sugar coating this one.

You can't use Malcom X as an example because his change was evident, known, and practiced.

Holdren has not taken anywhere near the same course of action. Holdren's only action was to say "No" when asked in front of the Senate hearings. Outside of that he has done nothing.

He thinks he can solve the climate cange problem with geo-engineerring. Really? Are we that advanced or did someone forget to tell us something?

We can't control a thunderstorm yet we are going to waste taxpayer money on controlling the climate. Sorry, that is delusional perception.

Chef - you know what happened when Europe gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt. It started out small just like this.

The perception of Hitler was incorrect, yet it was all there before he got started. Yea, he didn't mean it!

Later:)


danielthorne profile image

danielthorne 6 years ago

Early publications

Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[19] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[20] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.[10][21]


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks for your comment. As you noted, Holdren, et al, discussed but didn't recommend forced abortions or involuntary sterilizations. Apparently their book does not support the Beck-Hannity diatribe against Holdren.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Joer4x4, I seriously doubt that Obama will become the next Hitler. I also doubt that is his plan. I do believe that the book will remain controversial because people will see in it what they want to see. Some see it as a blueprint. Others as a warning.

A few years ago some people said the Harry Potter books were part of a fiendish, devilish plan to undermine Christianity and to promote witchcraft in its place. Hasn't happened yet. Probably won't.

Do you remember when certain religious leaders said that Proctor and Gambles logo was a sign of secret satanic worship, and that company suffered millions in losses? I do, and it was all false, but seemed logical when those leaders proclaimed it. that fact that it was flase made no impression onthose who still believe it.

I look at these things with eyes open, but with my skeptic flag flying out there prominently. I see absolutely nothing in Obama that smacks of some of the things he has been labelled with.

I do see that he came in with a pair of rose-colored glasses on, though, thinking that he could change things. People demand change and then reject it because change means a period of discomfort, and no one is willing to undergo any discomfort in the name of change alone. But Obama is pragmatic and has changed himself. I have yet to learn about any president who didn't change while in office. It's part of the learning curve.

But the fear of change is what is driving a lot of this discussion, and other discussions. Is the change we voted for or against really what it seems to be? Or, is it something sinister and evil? We just can't seem to find any good in anything our leaders do, and that includes Obama as much as it included Bush, Clinton, and all other presidents. Heck, even Lincoln was hated and reviled until his death, when suddenly he became "Father Abraham" instead of the gorilla-like charicature his many critics painted him as.

Somewhere in this process we all need to take a chill pill and realize that this will not end in some bizarre government takeover where we are all in concentration camps because we voted for one party or another. We so easily fall for demagoguery and it does us no good credit to be so gullible.

Just as those who predicted Dick Cheney would secretly take over the government and declare marshall law, this smacks of fear driving fear-driven anger.

We truly have nothing to fear but fear itself, and the repercussion of what that fear will do to us.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

I was going to add, Joe, maybe sugar-coated my response is, but I have to look at people as they are now. My reference to Malcolm X was because many people still regard him as some sort of either hero or zero. A lot of people do not believe he really changed all that much but he did. Others say he changed a lot. His eyes were opened. He really did believe one thing very fervently, but saw and understood that his beliefs were built upon bad foundations. Therefore, with courage and intelligence, he changed himself. I am not comparing Holdren to Malcolm X, only the fact that people with deeply held convictions can indeed change. I believe someone had written that people do not basically change somewhere up above in some other comment.

Whether or not Holdren ever actually advocated the things written about is indeed another matter, but I have not seen where he went around after the book was written and said we have to do this or else, or where he actively or even semi-actively tried to get these ideas put into practice. It may be a lot like mental masturbation, his having written this back then, or it may be, as you hint at, some sort of deeply held belief. I really do not know. It was up to the Senate to confirm him and it is my understanding that they did so unanimously.

Did no one investigate him on the GOP side back then? If not, why not? If so, then what's the fuss?

Also, and this is a general question pased to all, and seeing how we are on the subject of past writings, we are all aware of the John Birch society. Some people like them, most people it seems do not. Why are they one of the hosts of a big GOP gathering coming up? If we are to hold Mr Holdren to his writings, I would like to see some reciprocal anger over this fact. The John Birch society has, after, advocated some very anti-Constitutional and anti-Democratic actions and has actively promoted these ideas with government officials since the early 1960's.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

John Birch Society hosting a GOP gathering? The party is self-destructing. That's the first I've heard of that bunch in a long time.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

The John Birch Society hosting a GOP gathering? That's the first I've heard of that bunch in a long time. I guess they figured the time was ripe to slther out from under thair rock.

Another sign that the GOP is self-destructing.

Here's a paragraph from Wikipedia on the John Birch Society-- "paranoid and idiotic" said Barry Goldwater

[Where's Barry when the country needs him!]

Robert Welch and The Politician

Mainstream Republicans such as William F. Buckley, Jr., and Russell Kirk grew increasingly unhappy with the society after Welch circulated a letter calling President Dwight D. Eisenhower a possible "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy."[24] The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.[25] Welch also wrote that President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in advance, but said nothing because he wanted to get the U.S. involved in World War II.[26]

The sensationalism of Welch's charge that Eisenhower was possibly a Communist dupe led many conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and intellectuals of Buckley's circle, to renounce outright or quietly shy away from the group.[24] Welch later said it was not originally meant to be published because it was just a confidential letter among friends.[citation needed]

Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as "paranoid and idiotic libels" and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the society.[24] Welch responded by attempting to take over Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative youth organization founded with assistance from Buckley.[citation needed]


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Ralph, I heard that from the Rachel Maddow program when I was flipping through the evening entertainment line up between FOX and MSNBC.

Also, did you get your inspiration for title here from the character Colonel Batt Guano from the movie Dr. Strangelove?

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

CJ, the inspiration and the art work for the title and the Lieberman totes came from the WizardofWhimsy, aka, Robert Dente, an artist friend from Connecticut who I met on the Internet. The "Wiz" may well have been inspired by Bat Guano. He is a wonderful artist and a great political cartoonist. Here's a link to a Hub on his art.

http://hubpages.com/art/Italia--Effimera-Ed-Eterna...


danielthorne profile image

danielthorne 6 years ago

In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively,

from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children,


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Just curious, what was your source of the above alleged quotation?


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

I remember there was a lot of talk about China and India, and it was rumored but not true that the U.S., via the CIA, was sending milk laced with birth control agents. It was also said to have happened in Africa. None of it turned out to be more than fear mongering, however.

But the topic of how many people the worlod could feed was indeed on many people's minds. Similar studies were written and published by our own government, so this was not a single incidence. Look back at the writings of that era and population control was uppermost in all futurists' minds.

Again looking back, and seeing the suffering and starvation around the world, one may be able to see why drastic measures were brought up, and why in some nations they were possibly implimented.

China, indeed, put into effect the one-child per couple law based on ideas about how it could not only feed, but manage a population of over 1 billion people. They are said to have forced abortions for women who became pregnant with a second child. Does anyone know the truth of this? I remember readinbg it but forget just where.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

I think we need to get to the truth. Population control is morally wrong and not neccessary. There are plenty of resources. And whatever they claim were running out of - they have been claiming for decades.

Will all the money we have given (and the world) hunger should no longer exist. Where has that money gone?

Look at Haiti - a disaster. Yet in 1989 a 7.0 struck California and a little over 70 died. What's with that?

In the US the people and business hold the money (so far), but in Haiti and Africa the governments hold the money. As a result the US can build a stronger infrastructure because of the free enterprise. Where's the free enterprise in Haiti?

All the donations will go through the Haitian government. Let's see how better off the people will be a year from now.

And people like Holdgren won't write a word about dictorial and corrupt governments stealing money from their own people but will put the onus on the poor people. He didn't write about educating them did he? I guess he rather spend everyone else's money sterilizing them instead of teaching them how to be self sufficient. Doesn't that seem peculiar?

In the 70's he testified to the Senate that we were going into an ice age. Well that didn't last - did it? Now he's gun ho on global warming and cap and trade? So who's lying the old Holdgren or the new?

Obama just pledged $100 million to Haiti (that we don't have by the way). It will go through the government and some of it will trickle to the people and they will still be poor. And the left will keep crying about the poor people but not one of them will mention a word when the fancy palace gets rebuild bigger and better first.

The instincts of men never change.

A spade is a spade no matter what you call it.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Why do you think population control is "morally wrong?" We have plenty of resources in the North America, but that is not true in a number of other parts of the world which are experiencing drought, famine and extremely low incomes. Actually the U.S. is far from number one on the foreign aid hit parade.

Select a linked column heading to change sort order

ODA in U.S. Dollars (Millions) ODA as GNP Percentage

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003

1. Norway 1,264 1,346 1,746 2,043 0.8 0.83 0.91 0.92

2. Denmark 1,664 1,599 1,632 1,747 1.06 1.01 0.96 0.84

3. Netherlands 3,075 3,155 3,377 4,059 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81

4. Luxembourg 116 142 143 189 0.7 0.8 0.78 0.8

5. Sweden 1,813 1,576 1,754 2,100 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.7

6. Belgium 812 866 1,061 1,887 0.36 0.37 0.42 0.61

7. Ireland 239 285 397 510 0.3 0.33 0.41 0.41

8. France 4,221 4,293 5,182 7,337 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.41

9. Switzerland 888 908 933 1,297 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.38

10. United Kingdom 4,458 4,659 4,749 6,166 0.31 0.32 0.3 0.34

11. Finland 371 389 466 556 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.34

12. Germany 5,034 4,879 5,359 6,694 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28

13. Canada 1,722 1,572 2,013 2,209 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.26

14. Spain 1,321 1,748 1,608 2,030 0.24 0.3 0.25 0.25

15. Australia 995 852 962 1,237 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.25

16. New Zealand 116 111 124 169 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.23

17. Portugal 261 267 282 298 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.21

18. Greece 216 194 295 356 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.21

19. Japan 13,062 9,678 9,220 8,911 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.2

20. Austria 461 457 475 503 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.2

21. Italy 1,368 1,493 2,313 2,393 0.13 0.14 0.2 0.16

22. United States 9,581 10,884 12,900 15,791 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14

Source: OECD Web site

"Almost all rich nations fail this obligation

"Even though these targets and agendas have been set, year after year almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their agreed obligations of the 0.7% target. Instead of 0.7%, the amount of aid has been around 0.2 to 0.4%, some $100 billion short."

"U.S. aid in terms of percentage of U.S. GDP is already the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, its dollar amount has been the highest. And while U.S. aid has increased dramatically in recent years, much of the new disbursements have been related to the war on terror and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Israel and Egypt continue to make their annual claims to the lion's share of U.S. overseas aid."


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Ralph, respectfully...

Really? When another country is in trouble who is there? USA! When USA is in trouble who's there? NOBODY!

Here we go again with Haiti. They will have more than enough resources but like I said - let's see how much of it reaches the people.

The reason other countries have no resources is not because we have them all, but because they're not producing them. Hell, let's get real here. Even the first man had to feed "himself". He didn't get any handouts, he would have died waiting for his government check or foreign aid.

No nation gives more than the people of the US. Your stats only cover government. Government has no money of its own to give. It takes its money from its people.

Why are we rich? Maybe we worked hard for it? We don't owe anyone anything. Just like a man is not entitled to another man's property, no country is entitled to another wealth. If a country wants wealth let them work for it. They will be proud for their accomplishments. But their governments won't allow it via regulation and taxes.

Giving free money to a person or country does not help them become self sufficient. It only helps them stay poor because they become dependent. And after a few handouts, they expect it and become entitled. Then they demand it. Hence a monster created.

Where's the famine? Where there is famine there is a rich government and officials eating well tonight.

GNP is a natural bias against countries that produce. What did the first nine countries on the list ever produce besides nothing? Besides it their governments that give - not the people (well the governments got all their money). How about dollars per population? More realistic picture I think.

If your Mother was forced on birth control and never gave birth to you - is that OK with you? Would you not rather have a life? OR is it ok for others and not you?

I say if Ralph Deeds were deprived of life - that would be morally wrong.

No man has the power or right to control another's life. If you don't get that - you may be part of the problem.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Joe, do you think Haiti and Bangladesh should have helped New Orleans after Katrina? We are the richest country in the world. And we are doing the least to help the poor countries of the world.

Nobody is proposing "forced birth control." Do you support voluntary birth control? Are you one of the religionists who think birth control is a sin?

No, I don't see the logic of your points. So, I guess I'm "part of the problem."


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Ralph,

I think the US is taken for granted. Haiti and Bangladesh can not be held responsible for the corrupt New Orleans government. Enough money went down there yet they are still rebuilding. Where did it all go?

I think our disagreement in how it is done. Sure they need money for food and supplies. But we should also help them to be self sufficient. If they don't want to be self sufficient then that is their choice. We can not force them to do what we want. Behavior can not be controlled.

These government want our money but they do not want us to help their people. Why is that? Could it be they don't want to give up their unearned riches?

Thousands of dollars are being generated for Haiti across the country from people like you and me. Just in the Philly area alone people are poring their hearts out.

You say we do the least. I say we do more and give more. True, our government does the least and it is always politically motivated. But "we the people" give more personally than any other country. In that sense we disagree.

But that is the way it should be since governments mishandle it and have their own agenda. And it not their people.

Maybe the problem is that the poor countries need to take back their countries. It seems they don't have the means but yet their governments are living high on the hog.

To say no one proposed birth control is illogical. Holdgren wrote a book about because he thinks its important. More important than liberty or life.

I am not religious at all but I'm not secular either. Let me answer this way. I am against abortion, however if the woman down the street wants an abortion that is her personal decision. I have no right to force my will on her even if I think she is wrong.

I think we need to ask ourselves the question: Do we want someone else controlling out lives and forcing us to do what we don't want to?

First and foremost I believe in life and liberty. Not just for me, for everyone.

So, If Ralph was never born due to forced birth control, is that alright with you?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

The U.S. does more only if you count military aid like the $2 billion per year in military aid to Israel.

Why would you aske me about forced birth contol? Nobody is proposing it. To answer your question I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF FORCED BIRTH CONTOL. (Neither is Barack Obama or Holdren.)


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Because you support Holdgren. Do you not believe your own words of what you have written here and in your hubs? If not, why would you write them? Why would you grant Holdgren an exception?

Anyway...

No military aid here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/eco_eco_aid_do...

http://www.america.gov/st/foraid-english/2007/May/...

Have a good one...gotta scoot:)


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 6 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Joer4x4: I don't necessarily support or deny Holdren in his current position. I don't think Ralph is saying that either, but I'll let him say what he thinks. Holdren is neither the best nor the worse possible person to be there. I really don't care if he wrote that book, which I am still working on finishing. There were many such books written back then, because these ideas were being floated around, just as there were books about UFOs in the 1950's.

As far as the political Right is concerned, the choice of anyone would be controversial to someone in their ranks. But what Obama choice hasn't caused his opponents to claim that there is some sort of agenda here, and then go out and find "proof" that it is?

The original purpose of this hub was to point out that Glenn Beck often says things that turn out to either be not at all true, or only true in his own interpretation of what he finds.

In other words, Beck spews forth opinions and seems to be pretending it is hard news, backed up by uncontestable facts, which I find in his case is often not so. I refrain from saying he lies, but he certainly colors the facts and bends things to fit his own way of seeing the world.

In that he is not alone, but to excuse him of having to report the news or make clear that his is merely an opinionated view, and to stop saying things must be true because he sees things that way, is to me just like you (Joer4x4) saying that Ralph has the blinders on concerning Holdren.

There are no sides here. Truth is truth, opinion is opinion. Somehow, along the way, and not just by Glenn Beck, these simple truths have been forgotten, or, possibly worse, conveniently set aside in the name of profits and ratings.

Cheers!

Chef Jeff


Mortgagestar1 profile image

Mortgagestar1 6 years ago from Weirton,West Virginia

Notice Obama's Senate voting record? He voted for every spending increase including the one's he claims Bush left us in debt.

Fox News is #1 because they have all sides. Unlike the far left hypocrites whose ratings are tanking. Liberal radio is dead because it is boring and offers no true debates. George Sorros and "Air Amerika" are for the most vile hatred spewed and fortunately, only 19% of America identifies themselves as liberal. Hence the word ' Progressive" same guy in a different suit!

Meanwhile, 41% identify themselves as Conservatives. I personally am an Idependent Conservative.

Our taxes are subsidising political one way thought through National Public Radio/Television. We DO NOT Need the Fairness Doctrine since the Feds already does this with thier socialist anti traditional American rhetoric via NPR.

True. unlike Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann who get orgasms running up thier leg while shouting hatred agaist those they disagree with is emotional where Hannity and Beck are at least cebral. Thus, liberal versus conservative thought patterns are displayed.

Keep watching those ratings and interesting how the DNC are paranoid of FOX in thier recent talking points.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

"Fox News is #1 because they have all sides. Unlike the far left hypocrites whose ratings are tanking."

Surely you are kidding! Say what you want about Fox News, but not that "they have all sides." They do occasionaly have a weak opposing Democratic view, but Fox is quite biased toward extreme conservative viewpoints on most issues. I watch them occasionally, but, as you might imagine, I'm much more of a fan of MSNBC--Mathews, Olbermann and Maddow. However, I would never make the ridiculous claim that they "have all sides." They occasionally criticize Obama and the Democrats, but the channel is hardly unbiased. Do you really believe what you just posted. Hannity "cerebral," Glenn Beck rational? Give us a break!


Mark Thompson  6 years ago

Clearly one third of Democrats surveyed claim they trust FOX as the most accurate. Axelroad ha ssent out a memo to divide and conquer the Tea Party and Fox news. Keep fighting mainsteam America. Get youf face out of that bong long enough to releaze the ange from the left towards traditional America and teh lefts love for Chavez, Castro, Moa, Lennin as Obama's inner circle is so fond of.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Mark, you're obviously a big fan of Batshit Crazy Fox News!


Mortgagestar1 profile image

Mortgagestar1 6 years ago from Weirton,West Virginia

I notice how libs are pro speech as long as its thier ideology. I watch Fox, CNN, the alphabet networks, CNBC, & MSNBC.

I was a liberal Democrat in my teens and early twenties and evolved over the years from real life experiences from militray travels and years of quieriery inflections. Many of the Tea Party people are former Obam supporters and some are even left wingers believing they were sold out by Obama's stacking his adminastration with Goldman Sachs and Washington insiders. Over thirty percent of the recently polled media watchers who viewed Fox as the most trustworthy are Democrats. Perhaps you may insult them as well for there opnions.

http://mostlywater.org/fox_most_trusted_news_chann...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks for the link. I find it incomprehensible that Fox is the most trusted Network. Yes the Tea Partiers are a mixed bag, very unhappy but not the brightest bulbs on the tree.

Here's an interesting paragraph from the article you linked:

Qualms about the biased approach of the network has even reached the Murdoch family. Earlier this month the PR executive Matthew Freud, who is married to Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth, told the New York Times he was "ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes's horrendous and sustained disregard of journalistic standards".

BTW, I'm one of the unhappy campers about Obama's economic team--I'm not a fan of Larry Summers, who is about as arrogant as any human could get, or of Geithner who was sent to the White House by Goldmine Sachs. Bernanke is the best of the bunch. He's from academe, not Wall Street. He was appointed by Bush.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Here's another from the article you linked which is depressing:

As further evidence of its pre-eminence, Glenn Beck, the network's most strident and emotive of rightwing hosts, was this week voted second favorite TV personality in the annual Harris Poll, behind only Oprah Winfrey.

[Please don't take it personally when I criticize Fox,Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly.]


Mortgagestar1 profile image

Mortgagestar1 6 years ago from Weirton,West Virginia


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Sad testimony to the ignorance of Americans!


d camp rant profile image

d camp rant 6 years ago from Pittsburgh, Pa.

there are ALWAYS democrats & liberals on all the shows on fox. like bob beckle, dr. lamont hill, gretta is a liberal and so is sam sheppard.what about geraldo? he's hardcore republican huh? please post something from the factor that was false or misrepresented.(not a rumor from a liberal site) but from bill's mouth/uncut. it doesnt exist!

please post the list of conservatives on maddows or matthews show.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

How long a list do you want? I could write a long hub citing Fox misinformation and outright lies, especially by Hannity and Dreck. The list of Fox truths would be much shorter!

Rachel Maddow has guests on her show who are expert in whatever they are talking about, not liberal hacks.

Here are a few links to Fox lies plus a couple of videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqS7jK6E6h8&feature...

http://foxnewsboycott.com/tag/lies/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-m...

http://foxlies.gather.com/

http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/01/video-...


d camp rant profile image

d camp rant 6 years ago from Pittsburgh, Pa.

these are all far left sites, non of which is factual, you post some kids slideshow from youtube. thank you for proving my point. no list of conservative points of view from the scum at msnbc, no uncut/edited segments proving Bill O'Reilly making false claims. Let me give you an example of how it's done-

George Bernard Shaw was a progressive that praised Hitler for killing Jews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

What does Shaw have to do with our conversation?

You can view the letter sent to Beck here. It includes the following list of falsehoods made by Beck over the last year:

* Beck falsely claimed “[o]nly 3 percent” of stimulus plan would be “spent in the next 12 months.”

* Beck aired false claim that a union only needs 30 percent support from employees to be “established.”

* Beck falsely claimed average UAW worker makes $154 per hour.

* Beck falsely asserted that U.S. does not fingerprint foreign visitors or collect rapists’ DNA.

* Beck falsely claimed Iowa marriage ruling “is actually about going into churches.”

* Beck echoes tired falsehood that ACORN received stimulus funds.

* Beck falsely claimed $1.4 million in stimulus spent on doors, which actually cost $246,100 to repair.

* Beck falsely claimed Obama said he doesn’t want health reform protesters to “do a lot of talking.”

* Beck reports fake murder story from ACORN video as fact.

* Beck, falsely claimed IPCC’s Latif has “pulled the rug out” from under climate change consensus.

* Beck falsely claimed Anita Dunn “worships” “her hero” Mao Zedong.

* Beck falsely accused Reid of lying about support for public option.

* Beck falsely claimed that under the Senate health care bill, “You don’t get a single benefit until 2014.”

* Reviving “born alive” falsehood, Beck claims Obama suggested it’s OK to “put a spike in the baby’s head.”

* Beck falsely claims no jobs are being “saved or created.”

* Beck falsely claimed Robert Creamer “stole” $2 million from banks.

* Beck led charge advancing “Lie of the Year” contender that Holdren supported forced abortions and sterilizations.


d camp rant profile image

d camp rant 6 years ago from Pittsburgh, Pa.

the gb shaw clip has nothing to do with the topic, I chose that to show you how to prove your point with the words from the mouth of the person you are slandering, not what some stranger typed. just like your posts. as for your claims, Im not gonna go over everyone, but here's a few-

you can youtube the speech Dunn gave saying she admires Mao & mother Terisa to highschool students.

as a senator obama voted for late term abortions, you can see that at gov.org and his entire voting record.

robert creamer did time in prison for stealing money, thats a fact, not a lie. he wrote his book in jail, read it, & see for yourself, it's full of socialist/progressive ideals, you'll love it!

read holdrens books- ecoscience & human ecology

Reid & pelosi & andy stern are all for public option, they wrote the bill. you can youtube them as well, look for the actual interviews not what someone said or heard.

go to obamas website and see for yourself the "free" healthcare doesnt start until 2014. those are obamas own words.

thats just a few, I notice you have half the story, but add some typical liberal spin. like "worships" he never said that, she never said that, what beck did was show the speech. beck never said spikes in babies heads, he said to look at his voting record. maybe you should watch the show instead of reading far left blogs, so you can see first hand

rather than post someone else's opinion.

I watch nbc, so i know what the enemy is saying & thinking.

try the same stradegy.

it doesnt matter if we agree, the truth is it's both sides, something Beck says everyday. the federal government is too powerfull.I'll leave you with my favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson~ the policy of the government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.


d camp rant profile image

d camp rant 6 years ago from Pittsburgh, Pa.

notice he plays the whole thing not just a lil section to bash Dunn- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2FVEe7wCzs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJlUXL9MUAw -creamer


d camp rant profile image

d camp rant 6 years ago from Pittsburgh, Pa.

I would like to say one more thing, I don't think you are a bad person, I don't think you are a stupid person. I think you are simply misinformed as I once was. I'm an Independent

I would vote for a democrat if they were serious about stoping the spending the Federal Gov is doing. like Tenn about a decade ago, had a republican in office & messed everything up, Tenn voted in a dem & he fixed the budget. good for him. I dont care whos in office as long as they are fiscaly responsible.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 6 years ago Author

Thanks for your comments. The fact remains Fox News is the most biased, factless, lying cable news channel. I'm not sure what O'Reilly's education is, but Hannity is a dropout and former bar tender. Beck is also a dropout and former addict who has no respect for the truth. In contrast, Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow who lean toward liberal viewpoints, are much better informed and factual in their approaches. Like Hannity, Olbermann is at times a bit overly strident for my taste, and Matthews' frequent interruptions of his interviewees is irksome at times. Maddow may well be the best of the three, in terms of her research and analytical skill. She is a former Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in politics from Oxford.


Catherine 4 years ago

Fascinating. It's obvious that the authors of this post did not actually read what Holdren wrote, yet they declare Beck and Hannity liars. Fact check for yourselves people. Holdren and his co-authors were writing about possible solutions for over-population. Forced sterilization, permits to have children, forced abortions, euthanasia, parental right to murder their children up to one year old or so. No where in their writing did they ever express that this might be morally wrong. Although they did say that it might be a hard to sell to the ignorant masses. You're being duped by the Mr. Deeds.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Catherine, your comment is inaccurate on its face. I haven't read Holdren's book. Have you? "writing about" is a far cry from advocating forced sterilization, etc. I'll stick with Politifact. Thanks for your comment. Fox News is an outlet which spews right wing propaganda, not news.


Wizard Of Whimsy profile image

Wizard Of Whimsy 4 years ago from The Sapphire City

FYI Dept: Right Face

‘The Fox Effect,’ by David Brock and His Colleagues'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/books/review/the...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago Author

Thanks, Wiz. Good link.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working