Y'all recall the Hellary ad where she is well coiffed , and in pearls and suit when she answers the 3 am telephone call to save the world? Where the little girl is sleeping safely in bed because Ms Clinton is there to protect her? Well now - it seems that little gal was filmed in that sleep more'n ten years ago....
Local Obama supporter shocked to see herself in Hillary ad
07:02 PM PST on Saturday, March 8, 2008
One of the actors in the Hillary Clinton ad was shocked to see herself, especially because she's a fierce supporter of Barack Obama.
The so-called "red-phone ad" was played all over the country and helped turn the tide for Hillary Clinton leading up to her big win in Ohio. The ad shows a sleeping child and asks voters who they would want to see answering a 3 a.m. emergency phone call to the White House.
For the rest of the story go to: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_030708WAB_hillary_ad_KC.328ab14f.htmlThen there was that big announcement by Gordon Brown, the new liberal Prime Minister of England who announced that he is banning all grocery store plastic bags because they are killing hundreds of thousands of sea creatures and destroying the earth!! Gadzooks! He wasn't going to let that happen! The the London Times did a little research and guess what:
Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.
The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds.
Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags, saying that they were “one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste”. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him.
But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a “bandwagon” based on poor science.
Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.
They “don’t figure” in the majority of cases where animals die from marine debris, said David Laist, the author of a seminal 1997 study on the subject. Most deaths were caused when creatures became caught up in waste produce. “Plastic bags don’t figure in entanglement,” he said. “The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.”
He added: “The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species.For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.”
The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.
For the rest of this story, go to:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3508263.ece
Now folks, I offer these two examples as a tribute to the Internet in general , and to Bloggery in particular. Back when our only source for "facts" were TV and the 'Cronkites' of the world or the New York Times and their slant --- we had to see the world through their slanted prism.
But no more ---- and we are all the better for it!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment