OJ

The last time OJ Simpson was in trial, it was a media goldmine. Every news station was covering each development in the trial. It went on for months and the final verdict was that OJ was not guilty. So, in a way, it ended on a good note. This time OJ broke into a hotel, stole property that he claims was stolen from him, and kidnaps someone at gunpoint. Now he gets caught and is sentenced to 33 years with the possibility of parole after 9. This one was a media sensation but not nearly to the extent of the previous one. Why is that? Did it lose its mystique? Did people think that because he was a football player that he could get off of this one if he could literally get away with murder? OJ Simpson is not that smart of a man so I doubt he would have been able to pull off a heist without getting caught.

There is another side to this story that no one is talking about. OJ Simpson claims that the sports memorabilia that he stole was originally stolen from him. If that was the case, then what happened to the other guy, the original perpetrator. Why were those items stolen from OJ Simpson in the first place? One picture that was stolen by OJ Simpson was a picture of Simpson's son at 5 years old in the oval office standing next to Gerald Ford. Who would want that picture other than OJ Simpson or his son?

I think that because OJ Simpson lost his previous trial that he was portrayed as the bad guy and no one in the media cared to listen to his side of the story. I'm sure the judge listened to it, but I doubt she was using both ears. She knew what crimes he was accused of and she was a woman. OJ was accused of murdering a woman. There were no African-Americans on the jury (the two that were chosen were dismissed). I'm not saying that there is some kind of scandal here but I am saying that no one really cared to listen to OJ, A.K.A. The Juice. (Orange, not steriods).

Do the Big Three Deserve 34 Billion?

Do the Big Three automakers deserve the 34 billion dollars that they are asking for? I personally believe that they don't. I don't think that anyone who has mismanaged a multinational, multibillon dollar a year company deserves one cent of government support. HOWEVER, there are as many as 1 in 7 jobs in this nation that are dependant on the auto industry so the real question is do they need it. and the overwhelming answer to that question is yes. On one condition, the government says that they aren't going to give it to the current CEOs and other board members, they are going to install a sort of puppet government to allow them to oversee the processes these companies are doing on a day to day basis. There is no reason why Ford had to spend almost 2.5 billion dollars designing a 2010 Ford F-150 with a 6.7L V8 engine that gets 12 miles to the gallon in the city. That is totally uncalled for. This truck does not meet the new guidelines that the EPA has set and no one is actually talking about it. No one is talking about how Ford, GM and Chrystler have awful hybrid departments. Sure we are living in the information and technology age but there is only so much information and technology a driver can use. Being able to check your stocks and the scores of tonights Celtics game on your GPS screen is a major distraction. Although, if you are paying attention to the falling Dow Jones then you might not notice how bad your gas mileage is...

So much for black Friday

The day after thanksgiving is affectionately named black Friday. This name was given to it by businesses who gained massive profits to push them from being in negative to positive profit. What happened this year? Nothing really changed. It wasn't any different than any other shopping day. The people didn't go out in storms to buy everything they've wanted all year. Except for in new York where a woman got trampled to death by charging shoppers. Why didn't people run out and spend their money? Because all of this talk about financial ruin and everyone saying save your money. Money is a very sensitive subject with millions of Americans now a days and when a so called money expert says to save your money that's what people do. Apparently money experts and business experts are not the same because not spending money is not going to fix the problem. People need better money management skills. That's what the media should be pushing. They should be having segments about smart money managements instead of constantly instilling fear in everyone by saying America is going collapse.

A giant problem

Plexico burress shot him self in the leg at a Manhattan night club. His teammate Antonio pierce tried to hide the gun. The doctor that burress went and saw digned off on paperwork that had a false name on it. Now the doctor is arrested, Pierce's SUV is impounded and burress is done for the year after signing a 5 year contract extention. This is a mess. The giants are 11 and 1 and he goes and does this. The media that is covering this should chastize everyone involved to the fulles extent andthe have been doing that. Espn has been ripping into these players. I don't understand, however, why the doctor does not receive more media attention. The doctors issue isn't something that they would cover on espn but other channels should be covering this. That kind of corruption cannot be accepted in the medical profession. As an aspiring doctor, this disgusts me.

A Quiet Windfall for U.S. Banks

While everyone on the planet with some sort of access to the news was focused on the $700 Billion dollar bailout plan, congress was left unsupervised. While the world had their backs turned to congress, they went ahead and changed some tax laws. This new tax law gave banks a tax break that would save as much as $140 billion dollars. This is actually a great idea. Let the banks save money so we can afford the rates that they are assigning and now more of that bailout money can go to Detroit to save GM, Ford and Chrysler because if they go down, so is this country.

There was a major reason why it was purposefully left out the news. There was a fear that of this tax break was announced then it may have unraveled the mergers that happened and it could have send the economy even farther down than it went.

There are now lawmakers and tax lawyers who are furious over this tax break. I don't totally understand why but on MSNBC.com they seem to bash this new law and they don't actually say what it is. I think that this story should get more coverage because it will really test a lot of people. It will test the media to see if they will admit to something that they missed. It will test The Bush Administration to see if they can provide a logical explanation and it will test president-elect Obama by letting us know that he is up to speed and ready to take over this office.

Is there still a war going on?

I understand that the election is a pretty big deal and the outcome will determine the course of this country for the next four years, but what happened with the Iraq war? There is no media coverage what so ever on it. Throughout the month of October there was more coverage on Ares and Obama or Palin's $150K wardrobe splurge than the wars we are involved in. Afganistan has gotten very little coverage since the start of the Iraq war and even less since the start of election season. Iraq was a 6 o clock news staple before election season and now its barely a thought on the back burner in the mind of the TV media. There are a few websites, however, that still update and report on the war faithfully. MSNBC.com has an entire section devoted to the two different wars. I'm sure that these sections don't get as many hits as the election '08 tab but at least MSNBC is reporting something that is going on. Good news from Iraq usually helps stimulate the economy and seeing the economy plummet during "shock-tober", its amazing how the news of the improving conditions over in Iraq weren't reported on instead of Tina Fay perfect impression of Sarah Palin. This would be a perfect example for how different news media have to cater to different audiences. TV channels can't be dedicated to one topic but websites can because the cost to maintain a website is mere pennies compared to television.

Whatever the case and whichever the medium that gives us news, I wish that it was a little more well-rounded.

VEEPS!

This was one incredible debate. Both Senator Biden and Governor Palin brought it at their best. Biden smiled for the entire 90 minutes and Palin got in a few winks and of course she had a shoutout to the 3rd grade class that gets extra credit.
The expectations before the debate were parallel to each of the VP candidates personalities. Joe Biden is known for being a know-it-all with lots of years notched in his belt. Sarah Palin is known…well…she’s not really known and because of that expectations were very low for her. There were millions of people across the country who were convinced that she was going to run off stage crying. They were proven terribly wrong.
It is now 24 hours after the debate and there really hasn't been a clear "winner" announced by the news media. I think that’s how most of the country feels. Biden did what the media thought he was going to do, except for the gaff part of it, and Palin exceeded expectations. MSNBC.com in their politics section has a story headlined "Palin didn't win debate, but didn't lose either" and that pretty much sets the national tone.
This debate will be recalled again if the McCain/Palin campaign wins the election because the media will say that this VP debate was the turning point in the campaign. However, if Obama/Biden win, this debate will come up in the media by them saying that Joe Biden's experience really shined through.

In my opinion, just to interject it here, I think Sarah Palin did a great job. Just as a tie went to Obama because of his lack of experience in the first presidential debate, a tie here goes to Palin because of her lack of experience.

Who's really to blame?

http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/shocking-video-democrats-covering-up-fanniefreddie-scam-that-has-caused-our-economic-crisis/

I am not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. I don't believe that the government is out to get us. But when video like this pops up, from C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2, it’s hard to ignore. Franklin Raines. CEO of Fannie Mae. The man who is responsible for driving that company into the ground is Obama's financial advisor. Back in 2004, the republicans warned of a possible economic crisis and the democrats blew it off and said that everything is fine. The media had little or no coverage about this. The major issues back in 2004 were the war in Iraq and the rising cost of oil. My how things don't change. So, the republicans called for a heads up on this issue and now they are being blamed for this issue. How does that work? The media really needs to do some research and start to portray things correctly. It’s incredible how everything gets slanted or tilted to one side. There is no such thing as bipartisan politics anymore.

Why is the media pinning this on the republicans? Is it because they were the last hold outs on the bill and they didn't get what they wanted? What the republicans wanted in the bill doesn't matter because the democrats are the majority in the house. If all of the democrats voted yes and only 60 republicans voted yes, which 65 did, then the bill would have passed. Of course, the media has to pin this on the republicans because it was Bush's proposal. He already has a 30% rating and he's out of office in a few months, so it’s better than pinning this on McCain or Obama.

Why hasn't this affected the two presidential candidates? They both supported the bill, and apparently millions of people who support both candidates are vehemently opposed to it. But the media can't bring that fact up because it'll cause a low voter turnout.

So who's really to blame? Do we listen to the media and blame the republicans because it was bush's proposal or do we listen to what actually happened and blame the democrats for not acknowledging the problem when it first surfaced? Take it how you want, but this whole economic fiasco hasn't been too accurately portrayed.

The Great 08 Debate?

On september 26th at 9pm John McCain and Barack Obama held their first debate. The main topic was supposed to be foreign policy but it quickly shifted to the economy because of the current situation on wall st. I didn't watch the debate at all. I listened to it on the radio station NPR. Judging by what I heard, I would say McCain won. The coverage of the debate was almost predictable. MSNBC said Obama won and Fox said that McCain won. CNN said it was a tie and that the tie goes to Obama. There was no "knockout punch" to quote MSNBC. This is why the news stations started to talk about things like McCain not looking Obama in the eye. One line that McCain had that most of the major news channels interpreted as a gaff was when he said that Pakistan was a failed state. I don't see that as a gaff because before their current government, there were a failed state. A failed state is one where the economy is weak and the citizens are not prospering in any way. That was generally Pakistan's state. Obama seemed to revive the strategy where you just agree with your opponent. McCain has actual numbers to back up his stats during the debate and Obama just knows how to talk. And if you add the fact that he's younger, that translates into a win for Obama.

GM is not the only SUV king

One of the major hot button issues of this current decade is Global Warming. There are millions of people who say it’s happening and there are millions of people who say it’s all a load of BS. Most of the people who are Pro-Global Warming believe that there are two major causes. The first being the explosion in the auto industry sales of SUVs and the second being the growth of the amount of deforestation that has been going on around the world, primarily in the world’s major rainforests.

General Motors, GM, is the company that owns brands such as GMC, Chevy and Cadillac. They have this undeserved reputation for being the car company that is the major catalyst for global warming because they produce most of the massive and opulent SUVs. This reputation has caused Americans to begin buying foreign cars. The catch is, they are buying foreign SUVs. It is true the Toyota and Honda make sedans and coupes that are faster and more fuel efficient than comparable American sedans and coupes. But the SUV market is a different story. What the media fails to report on is that Toyota's line up of SUVs and Pick-ups have the WORST average fuel economy of any major auto maker, including GM and Ford. GM is the auto maker that makes more hybrid SUVs than any other car company on the planet. If this country is going to continue to buy SUVs, which is going to happen because families are growing in average size, then they really have to do their homework and find out what are the most cost efficient autos in both reliability and fuel efficiency. This is only going to happen if the media begins to properly portray American Companies as the true pioneers they are. GM was the first company out with a full size SUV. Ford made the Model –T but the category of sport utility vehicle was not introduced until Chevy, a sub-company of GM, introduced the Suburban. It was targeted, as implied from the name, to the “soccer-mom’s” who needed the room in the car to shuttle the kids around and for the dads who didn’t want the dreaded mini-van. Many companies soon followed with their own versions of SUVs. When this current “oil crisis” happened, GM realized that they were going to be targeted and blamed for this because of their creation of a new category. So they quickly introduced the hybrid SUVs, which were a complete flop. Hybrid SUVs took off when Toyota introduced their version of the hybrid Highlander. The reason that the Toyota caught on and the Chevy didn’t is because since the introduction of the Suburban, the media slammed GM for creating inefficient automobiles. This doesn’t just hurt GM but instead it hurts the ENTIRE United States economy. With more SUVs being demanded from overseas manufacturers, American automakers were forced to spend copious amounts of money in both the Research & Design department and the Advertising department just to try and win back the customers that had so faithfully stuck by them through the roughest of times, even the Great Depression.

I have created a quiz using data from each carmakers own websites using their reported MPG ratings. The answers are at the end. You'll be shocked at the answers.


1) What company makes the pickup truck with the lowest V6 fuel economy?

A. Chevrolet
B. Honda
C. Toyota
D. Dodge
E. Ford

2) Which company makes the minivan with the lowest V6 fuel economy?

A. Toyota
B. Saturn
C. Nissan
D. Chrysler
E. Ford

3) Which gets the best mileage?

A. Toyota Sienna AWD minivan
B. GMC Acadia AWD SUV
C. Toyota Tundra crew cab pickup 4WD
D. Honda Pilot AWD
E. Hummer H3 4WD

4) Who has the WORST full-size truck and SUV fleet EPA average?

A. Toyota
B. General Motors
C. Chrysler
D. Nissan
E. Ford

5) Which company increased infrastructure and capacity to more than double full-size truck and SUV manufacturing capacity in the United States last year?

A. Nissan
B. Toyota
C. Chrysler
D. Ford
E. General Motors



Ready for the answers?

1) B - Honda - the Honda Ridgeline offers V8 fuel economy in a V6 package

2) A - Toyota - the Toyota Sienna gets the worst fuel economy of any minivan in the United States, and is on the list of ten "meanest" vehicles on the greenest/meanest list based on category. Who knew a minivan could be “mean”?

3) C - GMC - The GMC Acadia SUV in AWD actually gets better MPG than the other vehicles on that list. It also does it while offering a 272 HP V6 under the hood. Wow. An SUV that is powerful AND fuel efficient.

4) A Toyota - the Tundra and Sequoia get the worst MPG in their class no matter how you slice up the data. Toyota did nothing to improve the EPA figures on its 4.7L V8 - and interestingly the bigger, beefier 5.7L V8 gets 1 MPG better highway mileage than its smaller cousin.

5) B - Toyota - not only does Toyota get the worst fleet economy for full-size trucks and SUVs, but they increased their manufacturing capacity last year 2X by building a new plant in Texas, and sold almost 200,000 Tundra pickup trucks last calendar year. And it doesn’t matter if it’s built in Texas, It’s still a Japanese truck.

And you thought Toyota and Honda were green? Do a little research. It’s time to start supporting the American Economy and buying American cars made in America. I think that the media should do their own research and actually report the facts instead of reporting all of the information that is it given. This current economy would be much stronger and the dollar would still be the best currency in the world if this information was relayed to the public through the media.