car ownership news image
HUEmans ar
There are hardly any news programs in the U.S. on tv or cable stations that are owned and operated by non-Whites.
Why do Whites feel the need to control the interpretation of world and national events for everybody? Is this monopolizing of communication channels dangerous ?
Answer
The monopolization of the airwaves is to make sure White Supremacy/Racism continues and those oppressed do not have an effective voice to communicate with others about their experiences from their point of view.
The 'corporate not racist' argument is a silly one when you acknowledge the reality that America's treatment of Black people, in particular, has been an economic one as well as a social one. It made the Black community the ONLY community in capitalistic America that was prevented from using their own labor to build capital for 200 years (via enslavement and Jim Crow). No other group went through 200 years of that in the United States' democratic and capitalistic society.
Whites have used that long-standing American injustice to build this monopoly on the media. Even 'corrective' actions (Affirmative Action) has been used to further benefit the White community (via White women and White gays, the former being the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action).
Anyone who tries to 'unconnect' race from economics is either ignorant or, if he/she knows better, deceptive.
In addition, 90% of the networks/cable/broadcast are owned by a White person and geared toward White Americans for 'entertainment'. They don't have to worry about coming home and trying to find a news station or tv show that's giving a White perspective on events and situations, even when it's coming to them from the occassional "minority" face. So they don't need to label a channel "WET". "BET" is used to differentiate its 'content' and target audience from the WET channels. So, a logical person would ask, why would a group pick a channel and label it "WET" when more than 90% of the channels are WET??? Many White people will usually use semantics to avoid a hypocritical, racist reality of what is before us. Wasn't it Shakespeare that said "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."? Well, that saying was about semantics and many Whites tend to use semantics when discussing racial matters. We can use that Shakepeare take on semantics to recognize that just because a station is named "TNT" or "TCM" or "IFC" or "WB", doesn't mean it's not a WET. Come, come now.
Anyway, when Black Americans are able to build capital (after such a harrowing American economic start), we know that they face racism in their ability to buy from those in control of the monopoly. And that goes across the board, whether it's a house in a certain neighborhood or a t.v./cable station. Also they face racism on WHAT they are able to buy from those in control of the monopoly. It has been shown that Blacks can obtain a loan for a car easier than we can obtain a loan for a house or business. Media is very important and you'll find the same sort of 'selective' selling and ease operating within that area. Blacks looking to buy music radio stations will have an easier time than those looking to buy talk radio ones. Those looking to buy stations that show nothing but silly videos may have an easier time attempting to buy a station with that sort of 'format' plan than those who are looking to buy a station that delivers news and dramas. Even in the former case, Blacks are finding it difficult to buy and maintain ownership of such stations. This goes back to the lack of capitial we were FORCED to operate with in comparison to White America and the disparity in business-ownership (AKA sponsors) it would've produced from the community, BTW, BET is now owned by Whites.
We know that there are Whites with lower incomes than Blacks who face less difficulty establishing bank accouints, getting loans, buying houses in certain areas, etc etc. So contrary to popular opinion, the color green does not override the consideration of race when it comes to Whites and relinquishing any ill-gotten gains and/or monopoly on media. Green is not the issue, race is. And although it may not 'hurt' a White person to pretend otherwise, it definitely hurts any Black person to do so.
Good news is that we can change our viewing and shopping habits to reflect our disgust with this White monopoly of the media and with the inappropriate behavior of some brain-washed Blacks who choose to act as co-horts in behavior that hurts the Black community.
As far as other groups and their issues with Whites and monopolies, they can speak for themselves. They should address this issue in whatever way it has affected their groups.
As far as Black people though, if you want to learn more about why this problem exists and some solutions we can employ to make things better, read this newsletter:
BET Sold to Viacom article in this back issue:
http://www.harvestinstitute.org/final-harvest_news2001_no.1.pdf
And read the other newsletters there. Very informative.
I gave that link to an African man who I talk to alot. He didn't quite understand how slavery and jim crow affected Black America's wealth and 'opportunities' until he read that. And I like that he forwared it (and cc'd me a copy of the forward) to others in his country so they would have a better understanding of America's real 'economic' structure and how it affects race, ownership of things and the transference of community wealth from one generation to the next.
And to answer your question: Yes. White Supremacy/Racism is DANGEROUS in all of its forms, including the control of media.
The monopolization of the airwaves is to make sure White Supremacy/Racism continues and those oppressed do not have an effective voice to communicate with others about their experiences from their point of view.
The 'corporate not racist' argument is a silly one when you acknowledge the reality that America's treatment of Black people, in particular, has been an economic one as well as a social one. It made the Black community the ONLY community in capitalistic America that was prevented from using their own labor to build capital for 200 years (via enslavement and Jim Crow). No other group went through 200 years of that in the United States' democratic and capitalistic society.
Whites have used that long-standing American injustice to build this monopoly on the media. Even 'corrective' actions (Affirmative Action) has been used to further benefit the White community (via White women and White gays, the former being the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action).
Anyone who tries to 'unconnect' race from economics is either ignorant or, if he/she knows better, deceptive.
In addition, 90% of the networks/cable/broadcast are owned by a White person and geared toward White Americans for 'entertainment'. They don't have to worry about coming home and trying to find a news station or tv show that's giving a White perspective on events and situations, even when it's coming to them from the occassional "minority" face. So they don't need to label a channel "WET". "BET" is used to differentiate its 'content' and target audience from the WET channels. So, a logical person would ask, why would a group pick a channel and label it "WET" when more than 90% of the channels are WET??? Many White people will usually use semantics to avoid a hypocritical, racist reality of what is before us. Wasn't it Shakespeare that said "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."? Well, that saying was about semantics and many Whites tend to use semantics when discussing racial matters. We can use that Shakepeare take on semantics to recognize that just because a station is named "TNT" or "TCM" or "IFC" or "WB", doesn't mean it's not a WET. Come, come now.
Anyway, when Black Americans are able to build capital (after such a harrowing American economic start), we know that they face racism in their ability to buy from those in control of the monopoly. And that goes across the board, whether it's a house in a certain neighborhood or a t.v./cable station. Also they face racism on WHAT they are able to buy from those in control of the monopoly. It has been shown that Blacks can obtain a loan for a car easier than we can obtain a loan for a house or business. Media is very important and you'll find the same sort of 'selective' selling and ease operating within that area. Blacks looking to buy music radio stations will have an easier time than those looking to buy talk radio ones. Those looking to buy stations that show nothing but silly videos may have an easier time attempting to buy a station with that sort of 'format' plan than those who are looking to buy a station that delivers news and dramas. Even in the former case, Blacks are finding it difficult to buy and maintain ownership of such stations. This goes back to the lack of capitial we were FORCED to operate with in comparison to White America and the disparity in business-ownership (AKA sponsors) it would've produced from the community, BTW, BET is now owned by Whites.
We know that there are Whites with lower incomes than Blacks who face less difficulty establishing bank accouints, getting loans, buying houses in certain areas, etc etc. So contrary to popular opinion, the color green does not override the consideration of race when it comes to Whites and relinquishing any ill-gotten gains and/or monopoly on media. Green is not the issue, race is. And although it may not 'hurt' a White person to pretend otherwise, it definitely hurts any Black person to do so.
Good news is that we can change our viewing and shopping habits to reflect our disgust with this White monopoly of the media and with the inappropriate behavior of some brain-washed Blacks who choose to act as co-horts in behavior that hurts the Black community.
As far as other groups and their issues with Whites and monopolies, they can speak for themselves. They should address this issue in whatever way it has affected their groups.
As far as Black people though, if you want to learn more about why this problem exists and some solutions we can employ to make things better, read this newsletter:
BET Sold to Viacom article in this back issue:
http://www.harvestinstitute.org/final-harvest_news2001_no.1.pdf
And read the other newsletters there. Very informative.
I gave that link to an African man who I talk to alot. He didn't quite understand how slavery and jim crow affected Black America's wealth and 'opportunities' until he read that. And I like that he forwared it (and cc'd me a copy of the forward) to others in his country so they would have a better understanding of America's real 'economic' structure and how it affects race, ownership of things and the transference of community wealth from one generation to the next.
And to answer your question: Yes. White Supremacy/Racism is DANGEROUS in all of its forms, including the control of media.
When should I buy a new hybrid car?
Jordan H
I am in the market to buy a new car in the up coming year or two. I want a hyprid becuase of the gas milage ect... I don't really want a super small car Honda insight or Toyota Prius more of a standard size, unless it will get wicked good gas milage. Does anyone know if there will be any new hybrids coming out within the next year or so that I should look for?
Answer
Unfortunately, most manufacturers so not announce their upcoming hybrid release plans. Not all hybrids are created alike (some are more geared towards performance (acceleration and available power) than to fuel economy), and some have more hybrid features than others (full hybrid vs. mild hybrid). So, just because it says hybrid doesn't mean that it has "wicked good gas mileage."
So, you would be best to find the best fuel economy vehicle in the vehicle class that you are looking at. For your choices in the US, I'd suggest:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/
I'm not entirely sure what size of vehicle that you are looking for. The Honda Insight was discontinued in the 2006 model year, so you'll only find that 2-seater in the used market. Meanwhile, the Toyota Prius is currently a midsize hatchback, which is the same size class as the popular Toyota Camry, or Nissan Altima, or Chevy Malibu, or Saturn Aura (all of which also have hybrid versions available) or the also popular Honda Accord (which had a performance-tuned hybrid option available in the past, but is now discontinued and only available used). In fact, of the currently available hybrid vehicles in the US for the 2008 model year, the only ones that are smaller than a Toyota Prius are the compact-sized Honda Civic Hybrid and the Lexus GS450h.
If you are planning on the US Federal income tax credit for your hybrid purchase, the sooner you purchase, the better, as there is a sunset phaseout provision set for after a manufacturer has sold a certain number of hybrids. The Toyota/Lexus credits have passed this sunset already (so no more credits), and Honda is currently in the phaseout period...
More info:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157557,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157632,00.html
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml
Hybrids do cost less in the long term than their conventional counterparts. (Intellichoice used a 5 year ownership comparison in 2006) See http://www.intellichoice.com/press/Hybrid-Survey-2006 and http://www.intellichoice.com/carBuying101/HypeOverHybrids )
While Consumer Reports in 2006 only found the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid would pay off within the same 5 year frame. The Honda Accord Hybrid, the Ford Escape Hybrid, the Lexus RX400h, and the Toyota Highlander Hybrid were also studied. (I'll note that there was a mathematical error in the initial publication of Consumer Reports' hybrid vehicle cost analysis, which a retraction was published later... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11637968/ ) Since this publication, many more hybrid models have become available, so I can't use this to say about hybrids "in general." However, in the US, the Toyota hybrids have sold so many that they no longer qualify for the US Federal hybrid vehicle income tax credit, but Honda and others still have theirs.
Check out the April issue of Consumer Reports if you want reliability information. Here are their top picks for both new and used vehicles:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/top-picks-for-2007-4-07/overview/0704_top-picks-2007.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/used-cars/used-cars-best-and-worst-406/index.htm
and the Prius was just rated top Green Car for the 5th year in a row: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2007/04/top-picks-for-2007-4-07/overview/0704_top-picks-2007.htm
The Prius is also in edmunds' used cars best bets list as well, and their lowest true cost to own list (2007 and 2008).
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/bestbet/articles/index.html
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/tco/2007/index.html
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/tco/2008/index.html
Announced hybrids to keep an eye out for are the upcoming plug-in hybrids due out in 2010, a plug-in capable version of the Toyota Prius and the new Chevy Volt.
The hybrid batteries are typically placed behind the rear seat/above the rear axle, and are not prone to damage in a vehicular accident. (Nor is it easy to cut the bright orange HV cables that run under the car, either.) The hybrid battery is disconnected from the rest of the car when the vehicle is off (SOP for first responders is to turn off/remove key to disable vehicle in an accident) and also when the air bags are deployed. Only a poorly-trained emergency department will not approach your vehicle in an accident. (Emergency Responder guides are available from all hybrid manufacturers for free, and most manufacturers also provide free training sessions when asked.)
The hybrid batteries are warrantied (Full, not pro-rated) for at least 8 years/80,000 miles or longer, depending on manufacturer, out to 10 years/150,000 miles if an AT-PZEV model in a CA emissions state.
Unfortunately, most manufacturers so not announce their upcoming hybrid release plans. Not all hybrids are created alike (some are more geared towards performance (acceleration and available power) than to fuel economy), and some have more hybrid features than others (full hybrid vs. mild hybrid). So, just because it says hybrid doesn't mean that it has "wicked good gas mileage."
So, you would be best to find the best fuel economy vehicle in the vehicle class that you are looking at. For your choices in the US, I'd suggest:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/
I'm not entirely sure what size of vehicle that you are looking for. The Honda Insight was discontinued in the 2006 model year, so you'll only find that 2-seater in the used market. Meanwhile, the Toyota Prius is currently a midsize hatchback, which is the same size class as the popular Toyota Camry, or Nissan Altima, or Chevy Malibu, or Saturn Aura (all of which also have hybrid versions available) or the also popular Honda Accord (which had a performance-tuned hybrid option available in the past, but is now discontinued and only available used). In fact, of the currently available hybrid vehicles in the US for the 2008 model year, the only ones that are smaller than a Toyota Prius are the compact-sized Honda Civic Hybrid and the Lexus GS450h.
If you are planning on the US Federal income tax credit for your hybrid purchase, the sooner you purchase, the better, as there is a sunset phaseout provision set for after a manufacturer has sold a certain number of hybrids. The Toyota/Lexus credits have passed this sunset already (so no more credits), and Honda is currently in the phaseout period...
More info:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157557,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157632,00.html
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml
Hybrids do cost less in the long term than their conventional counterparts. (Intellichoice used a 5 year ownership comparison in 2006) See http://www.intellichoice.com/press/Hybrid-Survey-2006 and http://www.intellichoice.com/carBuying101/HypeOverHybrids )
While Consumer Reports in 2006 only found the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid would pay off within the same 5 year frame. The Honda Accord Hybrid, the Ford Escape Hybrid, the Lexus RX400h, and the Toyota Highlander Hybrid were also studied. (I'll note that there was a mathematical error in the initial publication of Consumer Reports' hybrid vehicle cost analysis, which a retraction was published later... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11637968/ ) Since this publication, many more hybrid models have become available, so I can't use this to say about hybrids "in general." However, in the US, the Toyota hybrids have sold so many that they no longer qualify for the US Federal hybrid vehicle income tax credit, but Honda and others still have theirs.
Check out the April issue of Consumer Reports if you want reliability information. Here are their top picks for both new and used vehicles:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/top-picks-for-2007-4-07/overview/0704_top-picks-2007.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/used-cars/used-cars-best-and-worst-406/index.htm
and the Prius was just rated top Green Car for the 5th year in a row: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2007/04/top-picks-for-2007-4-07/overview/0704_top-picks-2007.htm
The Prius is also in edmunds' used cars best bets list as well, and their lowest true cost to own list (2007 and 2008).
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/bestbet/articles/index.html
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/tco/2007/index.html
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/tco/2008/index.html
Announced hybrids to keep an eye out for are the upcoming plug-in hybrids due out in 2010, a plug-in capable version of the Toyota Prius and the new Chevy Volt.
The hybrid batteries are typically placed behind the rear seat/above the rear axle, and are not prone to damage in a vehicular accident. (Nor is it easy to cut the bright orange HV cables that run under the car, either.) The hybrid battery is disconnected from the rest of the car when the vehicle is off (SOP for first responders is to turn off/remove key to disable vehicle in an accident) and also when the air bags are deployed. Only a poorly-trained emergency department will not approach your vehicle in an accident. (Emergency Responder guides are available from all hybrid manufacturers for free, and most manufacturers also provide free training sessions when asked.)
The hybrid batteries are warrantied (Full, not pro-rated) for at least 8 years/80,000 miles or longer, depending on manufacturer, out to 10 years/150,000 miles if an AT-PZEV model in a CA emissions state.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment