Gibson guitars raided- Not environmentally friendly?

How will Bonnie Raitt and U2 respond?  Guitarists hate to change up their chosen musical instrument.  Even environmentally conscious guitarists. 
Gibson guitars was raided earlier this week over a claim of illegally harvested hardwoods for fretboard manufacturers.  Despite claims of bullying, the federal government has made similar raids against Gibson Guitars in the past, in 2009.

See quote below and click here for video of an interview with CEO Henry Juszkiewicz noted the hypocrisy of the raid and of the Obama administration, who allegedly believes that Americans need to work:

“So the government’s contention is that because American workers are working on that and finishing it, that it is not a finished product and, therefore, initially Madagascar law – and now I guess they’re contending Indian law – says you can’t remove unfinished product from the market. So in other words, if a person in Madagascar had completed the work on that blank, it would be legal. But the fact that American workers are finishing the work in the United States, makes it illegal, as far as their concerned.”

“The government’s position is, that is the law of the land in Madagascar and they are saying that is the law of the land in India. That is not the case. The fact is, we have affidavits from numerous government officials – and this court case, specifically now, is for Madagascar wood. We have affidavits from virtually every govt official saying that it is legal, that their definition of what is legal is a fingerboard blank and its been exported within every certification that is necessary. So they have the arrogance to interpret Madagascar law differently than the people of Madagascar.”

I don't know if the Obama administration would call it "arrogance".  After all, isn't he smarter than the rest of us?

MTV and the liberal media

I happened to come across this gem of an article pertaining to Snooki, the tanned, vertically-challenged star of the hit MTV show "The Jersey Shore".  Apparently, during a phone interview with a Montana media outlet, Snooki first asked where Montana was, and then asked if Montana was an actual State.

I would not expect Snooki to be a Rhodes Scholar, or even a college graduate for that matter.  But to not know basic geography, or to even know that Montana is a State?  Then again, given the current state of our children when it comes to basic geography, I am not completely surprised.

Which brings me to my point.  Why is our educational system suffering?  Why are kids so dumb?  I opine that one reason is our choice of media selections and those we idolize as a society.  And MTV is a great example of a liberal media outlet that needs to go away.

I once participated in a blog discussion on media outlets and MTV was a portion of the discussion.  There was general agreement amongst the participants that MTV was an overall waste of a cable channel.  Yet many of the liberal participants claimed it was a Republican/conservative "style" channel!  Really?  A channel that:

Encourages fornication and pre-marital sexual activity.
Endless partying and a total disregard for personal morals.
That champions having children out of wedlock.
Outrageous excess and the spoiling of children.
And endless videos that exploit women and degrade men.

And let's not forget "The Real World" series, which is about as far away from the real world as we can get.

Does this seem like a Republican/conservative channel to you?

Now, I admit, I have seen very little of "The Jersey Shore".  If you count all the times that I was flipping channels and stopped before moving on to see what was on a channel, and the time I turned on the TV with the show on, and sat down only to find the controller was missing, I have seen about 5 minutes of the show.  Maybe after 6 days of partying, the cast jumps into their tricked out rides and heads over to the local church for some serious worshiping and praying.  I doubt that is the case.

It is futile to try to get these programs off the air.  The outcry about the suppression of speech and the calls for acceptance of all lifestyles would be loud.  And to be honest, I don't want these types of programs off the air, because people should be free to participate in and create programs to their liking.  But when we look back on a generation of dolts who lack basic math, English, science and geography skills, maybe people won't be so quick to point fingers at people other than liberals.

The absolute POWER of Rupert Murdoch?

First, the background-

Living in liberal country, I have had the opportunity to listen to a lot more liberal talk radio.  It is actually a good thing, as I have always enjoyed listening to both sides to make up my mind on an issue, or formulate an opinion.  In Southern California, the progressive/liberal talk radio selections were often poorly produced and featured only a few selected hosts.

So, I have am Green960 on my saved radio selections, and tune in a few times a week.  This weekend I happened to catch "Ring of Fire" radio, and a discussion with author Russ Baker.  I want to say it was Mike Papatonio who was hosting, I am not certain though.  The discussion on on the evil Rupert Murdoch. 

Most of the conversation was spent discussing how Rupert Murdoch is the most evil person in the media world, how he is a bully with unchecked power, and how they would both dance on the grave of his media empire when it is finally killed off.  They were hoping that the hacking scandal and investigation going on overseas will be his undoing. 

You see, rich conservatives/Republicans are to be despised and are up to no good.  Rich liberals/Democrats are given a pass (see George Soros, Peter Lewis, David Gelbaum). 

One item in particular during their conversation caught my attention.  It was in regards to the 2000 election and the infamous Bush v. Gore case.  I have never understood why this case, which is now 11 years old, continues to bother liberals.  We cannot change the past, yet they dwell on this case and that election, like they can.  The conversation was about the election night, and Fox News calling the election for Bush.  John Ellis, a cousin of President Bush ran the "decision desk" for Fox News and apparently, was the first outlet to call the election for Bush.  A few minutes later, a flurry of other news outlets also declared Bush the winner.

Why was this so interesting to me?  Because it shows how mentally inferior many media outlets are.  How easily persuaded liberals are.  How many excuses they come up with.  Why would one outlet's declaration of victory "force" another outlet to declare one as well?  How would this affect the recount, which was started despite the declaration of victory?  One argument was that the declaration made it a righteous struggle of Bush to gain the presidency.  Another was that the plan was to have Bush declared the winner early, so they could hold off a recount.

I find it interesting that throughout his entire presidency, Bush was considered a dolt, an idiot, a fool.  Yet, this dolt/idiot/fool managed to devise a plan to win the presidency in the event of a close race in one State, before the election was completed.  And, he still has the power to control the country 2.5 years into Obama's presidency.  So, is Bush a fool, or a genius?  And what is Murdoch?