News-Record.com

Smokers are modern day lepers with money to confiscate. Easy targets for politicians.

It is another misconception that raising the price of cigarettes will decrease demand. Addiction is addiction no matter the cost.

Wonder what will happen when tobacco money runs out? You reckon they will stop all the social programs, they have started with this money?
Heck no.

State and federal guvmint hates smokers and want you all to quit right now.

State and Federal guvmint loves money from smokers and wishes you would continue to smoke.

So. Funny.

"if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime"

- Pres. B.H. Obama, Feb. 24, '09

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/

"The rate of adult smoking in the United States is, in fact, directly related to household income, dropping in linear fashion as income rises."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117214/Cigarette-Tax-Affect-Low-Income-Americans.aspx

"not one single dime."

Six dimes? Yeah, but no single ones.

http://www.wbaltv.com/health/19043056/detail.html

One should wonder what kind of outcry would've occurred if Big Tobacco had raised prices by 62 cents per pack across the board. I bet there would've been some outrage and some "gouging" comments.

A question-

Can anyone think of any good reason why Obama's bow to the Saudi king wasn't even briefly discussed on ABC, CBS, or NBC? Well, I know why NBC wouldn't, but hopefully you see the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

Why do I have to read about U.S. news in papers from Australia? Does anyone still want to defend selective media coverage? Is it still considered news if it's calculated with the intent of public relations vs. informing?

good morning, the few of y'all. i've been around this site for only a few days,but i believe i've discovered something significant: there are continuing posts by mainly just a few right-wingers! and gosh, i don't understand why there are so few comments from the progressive masses. are they (the left-wingers) befuddled by the continuing trolling of the right-wing political oratory herein? i don't understand it. come on progressives and liberals, give a little intellectual shout out to neocon, dog bite, ghost, dan, et cetera, et cetera. enough said. i'm exhausted. have a good day.

rbennet--

"Can anyone think of any good reason why Obama's bow to the Saudi king wasn't even briefly discussed on ABC, CBS, or NBC? Well, I know why NBC wouldn't, but hopefully you see the point."

I don't know why. I don't watch any of those. Too much politics in the news.

Since Obama bow, did any previous presidents bow? If there are other presidents that bow. Why did they bow?

Yvonne said:
It is another misconception that raising the price of cigarettes will decrease demand. Addiction is addiction no matter the cost.

Sorry Yvonne, but that is just not true.
Studies show that for every 10% increase in cost of cigarettes, youth consumption decreases 7% and overall consumption descreases 4%.

Funding chlidren's healthcare with taxes from a product that you want to tax out of exsistance is stupid. That makes about as much sense as saying: Lets tax everyone whose name begins with a "Y". First of all; there is not that many of them and second; if you tax it there will be less of them in the future. What pet project would you want to fund with that kind of a tax?

BW,

I would gladly pay more taxes if it meant people would stop polluting their lungs, the air and the lungs of those around them. Also, if it meant children could have health care. God has blessed me and I believe in sharing what I have to share.

Wouldn't it be funny if, as the number of smokers decreased, corresponding health care costs dropped as well? Considering that there's a documented link between smoking and not-so-great health....

Roger,

You got a link to your bow-discussing Aussies? I'm interested in what they think.

My opinion...well, is that it doesn't matter. It's just a bow, possibly a calculated move to show that America respects Islam and its followers, something Obama has been keen to show in efforts to dissolve some of the hate between us.

Besides that, I don't know if you have a point outside of your stated 'selective media' bias, but I suspect that you do, and if this is case, would prefer it stated outright.

"Addiction is addiction no matter the cost."

You are absolutely correct Yvonne, that applies to govt. addiction for more tax money. I've said this before, govt. is just as addicted to tobacco as smokers are.

"i'm exhausted. have a good day."

Gosh well, gosh I'm like gosh, really exhausted today too by gosh. I mean like, gosh, I stayed up late watching those gosh darned Tarheels like, gosh, win national championship. And then gosh by golly worked in Charlotte all day. Maybe those gosh darned progressives did the gosh, same thing too. I'm well, gosh, tired now.

I'll change one of your words, Brainwashed Again:

"Too much politics *is* the news."

Clinton got close to a bow in 1994 and the NY Times rode him about it. Remember, Clinton's wasn't a full Obama-bow, but just an almost:

"It wasn't a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan."

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/the-world-the-president-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html

The press is protecting Obama's image, and, if he falls, their early (and calculated) protection is going to make that fall much, much worse than it needs to be.

Past that, the press is supposed to function as an unofficial balance of government, not a cohort. The 1st Amendment wasn't thrown in there arbitrarily. It exists partly because the people need to know what our elected officials are doing.

It looks like USA Today's website has at least talked about it. Someone who receives the printed version can tell us if there is any more.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/04/65048811/1

I do have the Australian source, rahrah, but I'll challenge you to find and read about Obama's bow on ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN's websites. If that's the point that your last paragraph aims for (if you're hoping for a "closet Muslim" post you won't get it from me), then see what they're telling you. Or not, I suppose. As I've heard it put, it's The Matrix. Take the right pill and you'll be able to go in and out of it at will. Or take the other pill and never know that it exists.

Let me know if you find anything regarding my challenge. Seriously. That's not just a joking phrase. I mean it. Tell me if you find anything where they've reported on it.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported it:
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/448297/obamabow420-420x0.jpg

And the Saudi Gazette reported it. With the same photo:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009040233882

And yet our own press didn't. In addition to the Aussies (who speak Australian, I believe), it would be interesting to know what average Saudis think of the photo and gesture.

These Saudis:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/09/saudi.arabia.lashes/

Or maybe even average Americans...

Another FWIW-
I appreciate your sloughing it off with "it doesn't matter" and/or "to show that America respects..."

But neither matter because the president has an entire office dedicated to protocol:

http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/

"Diplomacy in Action"

"...the office is responsible for... overseeing all protocol matters for Presidential or Vice Presidential travel abroad, working alongside the White House."

And *that* matters. Protocol. An entire office to tell him how to smile and nod and shake hands. And bowing to a king, any king, is likely not protocol.

An entire office. I suspect that reporting on it would require that same office to have to confirm what protocol is, and then it would be discussed. There is no win. Did he hear and ignore, disregard, or forget protocol? Or was he not told? Shame about that meeting with the Queen, though, and all the protocol from that.

***Read and understand the next sentence***
I'm not so concerned about Obama bowing (he's bold and inexperienced and stupid stuff will always happen with that combination), but I am concerned about the non-reporting. What else is being withheld from us? Fear their coordination.

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."
- Thomas Jefferson

Our president bowed down to the king of another nation and no prominent U.S. news agency reported it.

gosh, dan, did i upset you? i'm sorry.

Everyone knows the real logic of taxing tobacco products is because tobacco users who vote are a minority compared to non- tobacco users. The majority are all for raising taxes on minorities the same way the Poll Tax was leveraged against minorities in the '60's.
If you don't have the numbers then screw you because you are worthless to us politicians.

"I'm not so concerned about Obama bowing ... but I am concerned about the non-reporting."

If you're not concerned about the actual bowing...why is it such a big deal that it goes unreported?

I mean, if something is insignificant...why make news out of it?

Something isn't adding up with your complaint.

"What else is being withheld from us?"

I don't know. Maybe he snores.

as for your challenge...it's not on the FoxNews website as of right now, so I won't even waste my time looking at msm.

As for the places I get my news and analysis, Salon's the only place that mentioned it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/04/08/bow/

The Economist is usually not very reactionary, which is why I like it, and doesn't mention it. But they do have the following which is pertinent to this letter's actual subject.

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13432302&source=features_box4

Slate doesn't seem to say anything but has this, which reminded me of some of your posts regarding Obama's language:

http://www.slate.com/id/2215631/.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/04/08/bow/

Lastly, it wasn't on the Daily Beast's cheat sheet and Tuesday is the one day I watch cable news. Neither Bill O'Reilly, Olbermann, Hannity, or Maddow mentioned it while I was flipping between them all.

I guess this means...they're not concerned either? I'll wait and see if Glenn Beck cries about it though.

From your Salon link:
"The silence of the major media was a disgrace"

But you write "why is it such a big deal that it goes unreported."

No, you're right rahrah. Nothing to see here, citizen. Move along. Hey, did you see that lady in the red dress?

Your choice. Not some broad you, but you. And every one of us. What we show we'll accept now will become the norm for tomorrow.

It's not just media apathy that's disgraceful. It's their shameless shilling for the democrats in general, and the little messiah in particular.

Remember the barbs and ridicule Bush 43 endured from our 'press' for the peck on the cheek and the hand holding of the Saudi king?

gosh no truman, I'm fine.

"I'm not so concerned about Obama bowing (he's bold and inexperienced and stupid stuff will always happen with that combination)."

Yet every major news outlet must report it.

"Yet every major news outlet must report it."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/26/toning.obama.arms/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/23/entertainment/main4886519.shtml?source=RSSattr=Entertainment_4886519

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/us_world/Mrs-Obama-Sometimes-Fails-as-Cover-Girl.html

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6986019

It's just as newsworthy as Michelle's toned arms, I'd think. But I'm out of touch.

Has John Stewart mentioned Obama's bow yet?

OMG, Michelle's arms. More newsworthy than anything else!

Look, you and I don't control the news (as you're probably aware).

Personally, I'm glad to not hear talking heads screaming about insignificant things in 23 second time slots. They say that we, as humans, can hold a maximum of 7 seven things in our minds at once for consideration. The news cycle isn't that skilled, and last week was busy week.

But, then, there are reasons that I don't get the bulk of my news from NBCCBSABCFOXCNN, just as there are reasons that you're reading Aussie newspapers.

Heck, for whatever reason, traditional media has been in a downslide for years. How many newspapers are going out of business? What are the ratings for evening news shows? For me, it's been 24-hour news that's turned me off to the rest of it. Watching Wolf Blitzer narrate LIVE! footage showing a gaggle of adoring fans waiting for some politico-celebrity's plane to land so he can deliver his stump speech isn't particularly exciting for me.

There's a media vacuum and what the 'traditional media' does or doesn't report won't bother me. I'll read my favorite weeklies, scan through my crazy leftist blogs, even turn Hannity on sometimes while doing homework, and then listen to Jon Stewart poke fun at them all at 2300.

So whether traditional media reported it or not, here we sit, talking about this stupid bow. Obviously, whatever nets we cast out each day dragged in this old rubber boot and I'd bet that it's similar for folks who would care that Obama bowed to a Saudi Royal, be they secret-muslimers or just protocol freaks. They already know. They read it on Michelle Malkin's blog. Those who didn't? They're just Obamapologists anyway (like me).

So has John Stewart has made fun of any of Obama's flubs while representing our entire nation? Links aren't necessary. I trust your yes or no. Speaking Austrian comes immediately to mind, but, even without the bow, there were some comedy-gold opportunities and easy criticisms to be made.

Keep me posted.

And it's what plants crave.

Hasn't mentioned the bow.

Overseas Trip:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223861&title=00bama-international-man-of

Other criticisms? (you decide):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=222759&title=new-euphemisms-redefinition

http://www.comedycentral.com/funny_videos/collections/Honda/index.jhtml

Wow. Bush jokes still? Weird. And was that Austrian I heard?

I appreciate the "redefinition" clip, though. I'd say that was close to criticism.

Lots of (R) jabs in that last one. And making fun of names. Hip. I do appreciate that he drew attention to the anti-filibuster tactics and hypocrisy of both parties.

Weird he'd make fun of the way that one guy talked.

Most of all I can't believe he missed this. Talk about comedy gold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKTej_VJZ0M

Obama's lips move when he reads to himself! That's so awesome and easy to make fun of. Let me know when Stewart or SNL has a skit about it.

But I can see why his show is so popular. It's like talk radio but with youth and pictures.

...does some decent interviews from time to time as well.