Some cool anti aging foods images:
TV tax, TV licence. TV license. If tourists visit Britain, this is what their dollars will be supporting. “Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn…”
Image by Sir Garlichad
Left-wing, shallow and oh-so politically correct… my verdict on the BBC, by Michael Buerk
Left-wing bias? It’s written through the BBC’s very DNA, says Peter Sissons
The British establishment is possibly the world’s premier body of double speak. Here’s an example;
"The licence fee is not a payment for BBC services (or any other television service), although licence fee revenue is used to fund the BBC."
Note: Bottom posting: All entries in the comments stream are in chronological order, newest last.
British viewing tax funds the BBC’s agenda.
Forcing the electorate to pay for a TV broadcaster who views its output as an opportunity to promulgate its own agenda would seem to be anti-democratic. It would still be undemocratic if the British government at some time changes to an extreme right government. Whether the broadcast agenda is left or right, forcing all the electorate to pay for it by a tax seems to fly in the face of democracy.
British viewers cannot unsubscribe from the BBC’s agenda. Even if they never watch a BBC channel, they still have to pay for the BBC by a viewing tax.
American tourists who stay anywhere in the UK, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, support a broadcaster which disseminates anti-American propaganda on a daily basis. Every hotel, guest house or inhabitant of these countries which has a TV, has to pay a TV licence fee which is used to support the BBC. Tourists’ rents have to cover this TV tax.
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
By SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday Last updated at 21:11pm on 21st October 2006
Sue Lawley led the discussions during the summit.
It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’
In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat – was a guest on the programme Room 101.
On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.
Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show’s actual producer and the BBC’s head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.
In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.
And the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.
Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.
The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.
Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.’
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’.
Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a ‘very senior news executive’, about the BBC’s pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: ‘The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.’
Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: ‘You can’t do that, that’s like the National Front!’
Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who ‘would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King’.
There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.
Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders’, institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.
But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to ‘contextualise’ why black youngsters behaved in such a way.
Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: ‘The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.’
Even though some UK inhabitants strongly disagree with some or all of the BBC’s output, they are unable to withdraw their custom. Even if they never watch a BBC channel, they still have to pay for its broadcasts via a viewing tax called the TV licence. The ultimate threat for non-payment is prison. No matter how far the BBC’s viewing figures may fall, every viewer still has to pay towards the viewing pleasure of tthose who like the BBC’s perspective.
Below is just a small sample. Do a search on BBC bias and be enlightened.
BBC and the twin tower attacks (my subhead)
“I was driving home from work on Tuesday 11th September 2001 when I heard about the Twin Towers Attack. Speaking about it to a relation later that night, I observed that, in the coming days, America would realize who its friends were, and that it would get one or two unpleasant shocks in the process. Less than 48 hours later, the BBC showed just how true that prophecy was.”
BBC and the USA (my subhead)
"America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge. I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture…" BBC’s Washington correspondent Justin Webb
The BBC is a turn-off : It’s official
Strange to see The Observe/Guardian reporting bad news on its’ evil twin, The BBC.
Figures published tomorrow will show that the BBC’s audience share has fallen to its lowest level for years. Industry body Barb (the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board), will report that the BBC’s overall share of viewers dropped from 38.3 per cent in 2003 to 36.62 per cent in 2004, a fall of just under 4.5 per cent.
The corporation’s critics are likely to seize on the figures as proof that the BBC’s share of the overall TV market is now in terminal decline, despite the launch of several expensive digital channels, including BBC3, BBC4 and BBC News 24.
‘If current trends continue, the BBC will account for less than a third of the total TV audience by the end of 2006,’ claimed an executive at a rival broadcaster last night. Commercial broadcasters argue that this would cast doubt on the future of the licence fee. ‘The BBC is locked in a spiral of increasing spend and declining audiences,’ said one rival.
State broadcaster: The governors of the BBC are vetted by the Government (my subhead)
“How the Governors are appointed
BBC Governors are appointed by the Queen following advice from ministers. All Governor posts are advertised in the national Press and on the websites of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and the Cabinet Office
Candidates must apply for the post and those shortlisted are then formally interviewed by representatives from the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) and independent assessors. Recommendations are put forward to the Secretary of State, and then to the Prime Minister. “
A culture of institutional self-regard enveloped the organisation, creating a patrician, paternalistic and often patronising attitude towards the public. Such delusions of grandeur continue today, despite the vibrant market in commercial broadcasting.
Antony Jay. creator of the BBC’s Yes Minister;
TV licence to go up by £30
Jonathan Miller, of campaign group Abolish the Licence Fee, said: "In an age of infinite digital choice, the BBC licence fee is anachronistic, unfair and cruel, the burden falling most heavily on those least able to afford it.
www.bbctvlicence.com/TVL-BBC hiding of identities.htm
Image by SS&SS
Bernanke’s Cowardice Has Sealed Our Fate
The day after the election, the Federal Reserve launched QE2, the second round of Quantitative Easing. This public relations euphemism attempts to hide the fact that the Fed is "printing money" (the Fed actually does it electronically these days). "Cheating, debasing, and inflating," as in stealing from the public, is a more accurate description.
Bernanke indicated that from 600 to 850 billion additional dollars would be created. To put this in perspective, the TARP package was in this range. The total Federal Reserve balance sheet was 9 billion at the end of 2004 and only 9 billion in August 2007. At the end of 2009, it had ballooned to over ,200 billion. This announcement means it is headed to ,000 billion (3 trillion).
Ben Bernanke weakly defended his action with the following justifications:
Further support to the economy is needed.
Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth.
Higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending.
The first two statements are true as stated, but unlikely to be affected by additional QE. The third is partially true, although it is unclear that Bernanke’s action will raise stock prices. Furthermore, empirical data is not supportive of the alleged relationship between stock prices and spending (see the Kass reference below).
Many economists and analysts believe that the Fed actions will not help. Several believe they will actually make conditions worse (two examples are Doug Kass and Pimco’s El Erian).
The Real Reason for QE2
Mr. Bernanke’s justification for committing nearly another trillion dollars does not meet the "smell" test. In prior life, Professor Bernanke would flunk an Econ 101 student for such weak justification (of course, we know no one really gets an F at Princeton, no matter how deserved).
Mr. Bernanke’s performance was a charade meant to hide the fact that the government is now illiquid! Mr. Bernanke instituted QE2 because the Federal Government has reached the point where it cannot pay its bills.
If the Fed does not buy government bonds (print money), checks will stop for programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, military pay, etc.
The Madoff Model of government just ended. There are no longer enough bond buyers or taxpayers to pay for the profligate spending of the US government.
For more than a decade, responsible economists and analysts warned how this situation had to end. That point has apparently just been reached as a result of some of these reasons:
We are increasingly viewed overseas as a profligate, fiscally irresponsible country with no willingness to change.
Our debt levels have become dangerously high, raising the probability of sovereign default.
Our annual deficit is three to four times larger than ever before, and it looks like there is no political will to address it. Interest rates are too low to compensate for the perceived risk.
Foreign countries that supported us are now either unwilling or unable to purchase our debt.
The root cause of the liquidity problem is insolvency. Insolvency is a condition where eventually, obligations cannot be met. Illiquidity then results. QE2 provides liquidity but does nothing to solve the insolvency issue.
Unless the insolvency problem is solved, illiquidity will continue. From a mathematical standpoint, it is possible to solve the insolvency problem. From a practical or political standpoint, it is likely impossible.
Our funded federal debt is almost 100% of GDP. Our unfunded social obligations are about another 0 trillion. The total net worth of the country is about trillion. Government has promised benefits twice what everything in the country is worth. To understand the math, see "Spiraling to Bankruptcy."
Laurence Kotlikoff referred to a recent International Monetary Fund assessment of the U.S. financial condition:
… the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: "The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates." It adds that "closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP."
The government would have to double every tax it collects (including payroll taxes) to run 5% surpluses for decades in order to bring government obligations into manageable range. Such tax increases would plunge the U.S. and probably the world into an economic Dark Age.
Alternatively, current government spending could be cut by about 50%. Managing spending forward so that a 5% surplus is maintained would also work.
Bernanke’s Morton’s Fork
Mr. Bernanke was faced with two choices, neither of which were good. He could have refused to initiate another round of QE, which would have forced the government to make tough decisions. Such action might have put the economy into another Great Depression. He likely would have lost his job and been blamed for any economic difficulties that followed.
He chose the other option — provide the needed funds. As such, he chose to be the Enabler-in-Chief, reinforcing the out-of-control government fiscal policies. This choice likely enabled him to keep his job (for the time being) and made him appear to be the White Knight responsive to economic needs.
Unfortunately for the country, his choice makes matters worse — much worse.
The Road Ahead
With QE2, the government will be able to pay its bills. If the shortfall were temporary, Bernanke’s actions might be considered prudent. Of course, if the shortfall were temporary, the government would be able to borrow in the marketplace.
Without a solution to spending excesses and social commitments that cannot be met, there is no end to our shortfalls. Welcome to QE2, soon to be followed by QE3, QE4…and hyperinflation.
QE2 is just another step toward "banana republic" status. We are on the same road traveled by Argentina, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany, and many others who destroyed their currencies.
These countries did not intend for that result to happen. Each step was justified based on the expediency of keeping the government going. As Hayek pointed out, "I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments."
In every case, including our own, the government had already failed. Its attempt to survive made matters much worse for its citizens.
QE2 may only represent the first step, but its effects alone are apt to be profound. Pimco’s Bill Gross anticipates it will produce a 20% decline in the value of the dollar. If you were China or Japan, would you want to buy Treasury Bonds? Would you continue to hold dollar-denominated assets? These types of considerations trigger currency runs.
Mr. Bernanke has deferred the day of reckoning. His action will not prevent government collapse — it will ensure it, along with collapses in the currency, economy, and likely society itself. This little man, unelected and accountable to no one, has just sentenced the country to an Economic Apocalypse.
Milton Friedman’s concern seems especially appropriate:
The power to determine the quantity of money … is too important, too pervasive, to be exercised by a few people, however public-spirited, if there is any feasible alternative. There is no need for such arbitrary power … Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes – excusable or not – can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic – this is the key political argument against an independent central bank.
How Will This End?
There is no pleasant ending. Political activity over the past fifty years guaranteed that. As Ludwig von Mises observed, "Credit expansion can bring about a temporary boom. But such a fictitious prosperity must end in a general depression of trade, a slump."
The best solution is for Mr. Bernanke to cease and desist his QE policy. That would require the political class to face its problems. It would require a massive rollback of the welfare state and government. It would require resizing government to a level that productive citizens would support. Transitional hardships would occur, including civil unrest and possibly a depression.
The worst solution is the one that Mr. Bernanke has selected. If he stays on this course, fiat money will become worthless. So will Social Security checks, because they will have no purchasing power. All fixed income and savings will be wiped out. The middle class will be financially destroyed.
Markets will cease to function except on a barter system. Food and other necessities will be in short supply, possibly to the extent of health risks developing. Unimaginable civil unrest is likely.
A Greater Depression is assured. Unlike the first Great Depression, citizens would be without any financial wherewithal. Their savings and fixed income will have been stolen from them via hyperinflation. In short, it would be the worst economic hell imaginable.
Mr. Bernanke was unwilling to tell you what is happening. His action has moved us into the eye of a massive storm. Do not be lulled into complacency, for as von Mises stated, "A fiat-money inflation can be carried on only as long as the masses do not become aware of the fact that the government is committed to such a policy."
Now you know, and others will pick up on this quickly. Make like the political elite and protect yourselves from the Category Six economic hurricane that Mr. Bernanke is stoking.
ALSO: IMF—–copy and paste in browser———-http://advisoranalyst.com/glablog/tag/international-monetary-fund-imf/