Almost daily I read the World, Political, Health, Social and Tech news from various news feeds. Often I will read the entire article, watch the linked video and then share it with friends, or, just post it to facebook. I have made several observations while traveling along this path. It is as though these news sources are all coming from completely different societies, and the people I share them with are largely silent about what they’re seeing.

In The News

World: talks a lot about why global governance is important.
Political: abstractly talks about which party is better.
Health: talks about fitness fads.
Social: talks about the latest apps and games and staying connected.
Tech: talks about the millions in investments to startups and iPhone vs the Android.

There’s no substance to it any of it. The news is very, very, obviously for entertainment purposes, not actual information distribution. What is there to gain from these talking points? They are just that – points to talk about. There is a very strong emphasis on being entertained as opposed to being educated and informed. Evidence of this point is ample – you may have noticed I left out the category of Entertainment, which takes precedence over all other ‘news’ categories. There is a greater desire to learn about celeb drama than there is about real world issues such as the Gulf.

And don’t bullshit me as say that there is nothing you can do as an individual about the Gulf (or any other large issue). As much as that might be true it is then equally true about any bit of celeb news too. The difference between the two is the fundamental shift in the way people view the news and information, and ultimately human evolution:

a.) If the news is short, entertaining and accepting of what the reader is currently doing or is interested in, then the reader becomes a consumer of it. This is a lot like social drinking or social smoking. It is simple, and the group’s acceptance of it makes it easier to justify partaking in it. Not much thought or effort required.

b.) But if the news is long, is text rather than video, or not in line with the reader’s predefined paradigms, interests or habits, then the reader is already disinterested. A lot of the time they reveal themselves to be an opponent of the idea AND the source. “Hey, did you read that article I sent to you?” “No, it was too long, I didn’t have time.” and/or, “You’re a fool for believing shit like that. Are you one of those conspiracy guys?”

c.) However, if the reader has the attention span/interest to commit to something with substance (usually controversial and rarely part of the mainstream), and the reader is a proponent of it (in agreement), the reader usually will not make their agreement public. That creates the risk of them being categorized as conspiracy theorist. Good old peer pressure in action.

Question: Where are all of the critical thinkers? Where are those people who are not afraid to hold an idea that is contrary to popular belief? It is that kind of thinking, it is that kind of person, who leads society forward. You don’t even have to be right – you just have to be honest with yourself and have the guts to say, “I can think for myself, and Mel Gibson doesn’t matter! I don’t need to be told what to eat, buy, wear, think or feel.”

Anyone with children wants the best for their children, however no one seems to look at that idea in reverse: If it is not good enough for children, then why is it good enough for You?

Track provided by Jah Jah at http://www.mcjahjah.com and http://www.myspace.com/mcjahjah

Work for Ron Paul and prepare for third party if necessary at http://www.AlexJones2012.com

Alex Jones exposes Google ban on ‘hate’ merchants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=regzSbjYw-Q

Gary Franchi Exposes Federal Reserve on PBS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oELV35omv-0

Turn in your Neighbor for $1000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRyw1JnAstg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzixgXR3cCg

A seven month old baby has miraculously survived being shot after the parents killed themselves and their two year old son, citing fears over a lack of government action on global warming.

Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, are said to have shot their young son in the back, killing the toddler instantly.

Neighbors called the police, after complaining of a stench coming from the house.

Police broke into the property and discovered the horrific scene three days after the shooting, the Latin American Herald reported Saturday.

Still alive, but covered in blood, the baby was rushed to the hospital where it was revealed that the bullet from her father’s handgun had somehow missed all the child’s vital organs, lodging itself in her chest.

In a suicide note, reportedly discovered by police, the couple cited their extreme fears over the effects of global warming.

The couple were said to have expressed anger at the government in the letter for not doing more to avert a worldwide environmental crisis.

The baby is now under observation in a hospital in the town of Goya in the north of Argentina.

Doctors have told the media that the child is out of danger and should make a good recovery.

The tragic story is clearly an isolated incident, yet it highlights the fear with which some people are receiving the constant drumbeat about anthropogenic global warming.

Clearly this couple were either already very much deranged or were so terrified that they ended their own lives believing that they were contributing to the destruction of the planet.

It is not surprising to hear of an incident like this, particularly in the face the  concerted agenda to link global climate change with overconsumption and overpopulation, offering up depopulation policies as a possible solution.

Linking environmental policy to agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.

One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.

In 2007, the group also published a report announcing that children are ‘bad for planet and ‘having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanor in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

The same talking point has been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.

While you may think ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.

Last December’s Copenhagen Summit even heard suggestions from Chinese delegates for a global population control program to tackle global warming.

Alex Jones’ Films Endgame and Fall Of The Republic address the hijacking of the environmental movement in more detail.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 1, 2010

Naked body scanning will now be compulsory at two of Britain’s biggest airports after the government announced people who refuse to let security thugs ogle their genitalia will be treated like terrorists and barred from flying.

“It is now compulsory for people selected for a scan to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly,” reports the BBC.

That ‘s right – no optional pat down as we were told, if you think that having strangers leer over your naked body is an invasion of privacy and refuse, you’ll be treated the same way as a suspected terrorist.

Manchester Airport’s head of customer experience, Sarah Barrett, told the BBC that the scanners do not allow security staff to see passengers naked. This of course is a complete lie. The images produced by the scanners provide high resolution crisp images of your genitalia. This was confirmed by London Guardian writer Helen Carter who investigated trials of the scanners at Manchester Airport and said genitals were “eerily visible” in the images.

Indeed, as we have previously highlighted, when the scanners were first introduced at Australian airports in 2008 it was admitted that the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible. “It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said Melbourne Airport’s Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.

Despite objections on the grounds that the images produced violate child porn laws, the UK government has simply gone ahead anyway and overturned a previous ban on under 18′s being forced to use the scanners. This will now give free reign to the kind of control freak thugs who like to sexually harass 13-year-old girls to ogle your naked daughter’s breasts while sitting alone in a back room enjoying themselves.

“A rule which meant under 18s were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government,” according to the BBC report.

This now sets the precedent for every other UK and US airport to follow the same guidelines, meaning that if you want to escape from Airstrip One or the United States of Amerika, you must submit to a virtual strip search. There seems little doubt that the naked scanners will eventually be rolled out at other transport hubs and after another staged terror attack, on the streets, in shopping malls, at sporting events and any other places of public congregation, as has already been proposed.

Three years ago, leaked documents out of the Home Office revealed that authorities in the UK were working on proposals to fit lamp posts with CCTV cameras that would X-ray scan passers-by and “undress them” in order to “trap terror suspects”.

Dutch authorities have also announced their intention to use mobile body scanners in “high risk areas” and “mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches.”

Experts agree that naked body scanners would not even have stopped accused underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding Delta Flight 253. Maybe the fact that he was on a terror watch list, had no passport, and was accompanied by a suspicious well-dressed man should have provided some kind of warning.

The blatantly staged Christmas Day incident has been ravenously exploited to the full by the same mouthpieces for the military-industrial complex that own a stake in the body scanners, and now we the browbeaten public are being forced to suffer yet another disgusting indignity as we move one step further to a society that outstrips George Orwell’s worst nightmare.

Months later YouTube completely removed the Alex Jones channel and performed a major site sweep of any and all content relating to Mr. Jones, citing copyright infringements and in some cases with no explanation at all. Mr. Jones responded to the false accusations by asking his massive syndicated radio show audience to contact YouTube and protest. YouTube heard the message loud and clear and has reinstated Mr. Jones’ channel… At least for now.

Well, these videos are of the Alex Jones radio show. Judge for yourself. This is the first of 4 parts, which you might be able to get if YouTube allows you:

The Newly Spun-off Cable Company Will Impose Premium Rates On Big Users Of Broadband

By Tom Lowry

Web users, the meter is running. In a strategy that’s likely to rankle consumers but be copied by competitors, Time Warner Cable (TWC) is pressing ahead with a plan to charge Internet customers based on how much Web data they consume. Starting next month, the company will introduce tiered pricing in several markets.

In April, Time Warner Cable will begin collecting information on its customers’ Internet use in the Texas cities of Austin and San Antonio and in Rochester, N.Y. Consumption billing will begin in those cities later this summer. In Greensboro, N.C., the billing changes will begin sooner. Spun off from Time Warner (TWX) this month, Time Warner Cable had been testing a plan to meter Internet usage in Beaumont, Tex., since last year.

By charging a premium to the heaviest broadband users, much the same way cell-phone providers collect fees from subscribers who exceed their allotted minutes, Time Warner would upend a longstanding pricing strategy among Internet service providers. Typically, phone and cable companies charge flat fees for unlimited access to the Web. “We need a viable model to be able to support the infrastructure of the broadband business,” Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt says in an interview. “We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension.” Time Warner Cable has 8.4 million broadband customers.

FOUR PROPOSED BROADBAND TIERS

Consumer advocates and Web site owners say tiered Web-use pricing limits customer choice and could stifle innovation by crimping demand for high-bandwidth services such as online video and music. Cable and phone companies say they need flexibility in setting prices for use of large, expensive, heavily used broadband networks.

In the case of Time Warner Cable, customers will be charged from $29.95 to $54.90 a month, based on data consumption and desired connection speed. Customers will be charged $1 for each gigabyte (GB) over their plan’s cap. Time Warner Cable offers four cap levels of 5, 10, 20, and 40 GB. A download of a high-definition movie typically eats up about 8 GB. A recent report from Sanford C. Bernstein suggests that a family on the 40 GB plan that streams 7.25 hours of online video a week (a fraction of the 60 hours Americans spend watching TV in a week) could end up spending $200 per month on broadband usage fees. And that’s just for video viewing, before factoring in such Internet activities as music downloads and photo sharing. “To put it mildly,” says Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, “the decision to limit data consumption can be expected to have profound implications for [consumer] behavior.”

But Time Warner says most people are not using that much data. The company’s trial in Beaumont, Tex., lasted several months. Of the 10,000 broadband customers enrolled—about 25% of the company’s total for Beaumont—about 14% exceeded their cap and had to pay additional fees that averaged about $19 a month. Time Warner Cable also discovered that the top 25% of users consumed 100 times more data than the bottom 25% of users, suggesting an enormous gap in usage patterns.

COMCAST: A WARNING, THEN NO SERVICE

As more and more people download TV shows and movies, particularly those in high-definition, broadband networks are facing enormous strain, providers say. Time Warner Cable has said its strategy is intended to alleviate some of that strain. But critics worry that the pricing will discourage broadband use and impede new online media businesses before they even have a chance to flourish.

AT&T (T) is currently conducting its own broadband pricing trial, also in Beaumont. Comcast (CMCSA), the nation’s largest cable operator, has taken a different approach, capping residential bandwidth usage at 250 GB a month. Customers who exceed it get a warning phone call from Comcast. A further problem can get a subscription canceled.

For Time Warner Cable’s Britt, instituting broadband pricing is a bold move just as he takes the helm of a newly independent company. Fully spun off from Time Warner, the cable company’s shares started trading on Mar. 30. Britt’s first big challenge may be to sell the upsides of aggressive broadband pricing to his investors. “It’s an intriguing idea if you didn’t have such a competitive landscape out there,” says Rich Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Research. “There are so many other alternatives for consumers when it comes to broadband.”

Lowry is a senior writer for BusinessWeek in New York.

A net-neutrality activist group has uncovered plans for the demise of the free Internet by 2010 in Canada. By 2012, the group says, the trend will be global.

Bell Canada and TELUS, Canada’s two largest Internet service providers (ISPs), will begin charging per-site fees on most Internet sites, reports anonymous sources within TELUS.

“It’s beyond censorship, it is killing the biggest ecosystem of free expression and freedom of speech that has ever existed,” I Power spokesperson Reese Leysen said. I Power was the first group to report on the possible changes.

Bell Canada has not returned calls or emails.

The plans made by the large telecom businesses would change the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and must pay to see each individual site beyond a certain point. Subscription browsing would be limited, extra fees would be applied to access out-of-network sites. Many sites would be blocked altogether.

“We had inside sources from bigger companies who gave us the information on how exclusivity deals are being made at this moment between ISPs and big content providers (like TV production studios and major video game publishers) to decide which web sites will be in the ‘standard package’ offered to their customers, leaving all the rest of the Internet unreachable unless you pay extra subscription fees per every ‘non-standard’ site you visit,” Leysen said. “We knew the source to be 100% reliable, but we also knew the story would be highly controversial if we released the information. We did it because we knew that we’d get more official confirmations once we’d come forward with it. And indeed that is what happened. Dylan Pattyn, who is writing the soon-to-be published article for Time Magazine, received confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and TELUS after we released the information.”

The plans would in effect be economic censorship, with only the top 100 to 200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package. Such plans would likely favor major news outlets and suppress smaller news outlets, as the major news outlets would be free (with subscription), and alternative news outlets, like AFP, would incur a fee for every visit.

“The Internet will become a playground for billion-dollar content providers just like television is,” said Leysen. “It won’t be possible for a few teenagers in their parents’ basement to start a small site like E-bay that then grows out to be the next big thing anymore. Right now the Internet belongs to those with the greatest ideas. In the future, it’ll belong to those with the biggest budgets.”

With plans in Canada uncovered, I Power thinks that companies in the United States and other nations are also planning similar actions.

“By 2012 ISPs all over the globe will reduce Internet access to a TV-like subscription model, only offering access to a small standard amount of commercial sites and require extra fees for every other site you visit. These ‘other’ sites would then lose all their exposure and eventually shut down, resulting in what could be seen as the end of the Internet,” Leysen said

Such a subscription plan could possibly restrict free speech far beyond even the current restrictions set by the governments of communist China. Not only would browsing be limited, but privacy would be invaded, as every web site viewed would likely be recorded on a bill in a manner similar to a phone bill.

Why would the ISPs institute such a plan? One word: money.

“This new subscription model is commercially far more beneficial to them than how it is now,” Leysen said. “If Fox wants to launch a new television show online, they’ll have to pay big money to all major ISPs to ensure that their new show will be offered and pushed in the ‘standard package’ of sites/services/channels that people will get through their Internet access. Plus ISPs will also gain extra revenue out of people trying to access the rest of the Internet, as they’ll pay extra subscription fees for every web site they visit.”

But it’s not just the big ISPs that stand to gain.

“Marketing and big budget ‘content-pushing’ just doesn’t seem to work on the Internet, and this is something that several industries want fixed. ISPs know this and will benefit greatly by fixing this for the marketing and entertainment industry,” Leysen said.

The ISPs are said to be confident they can institute such plans through deceptive marketing and fear tactics.

“The Internet will be more and more marketed as a place full of child pornography and other horrible illegal activity in order to get people on their [the ISP’s] side once they start restricting it and make it ‘safer,’” Leysen said. “Unless we really make a stand for this and make sure that mainstream media thoroughly covers the issue, the whole thing will be eased in with proper marketing to make sure that most mainstream customers won’t make a big deal out of it. They will only realize what was lost long after it’s gone.”

For more information about this story see http://ipower.ning.com

For more information about Internet freedom: savetheinternet.com