Media LIes About Forest Fires

The media keeps fanning the flames of climate change, claiming that forest fires are increasing because of increased CO2. Just another lie in service of an agenda. 

Poverty Around the World is Decreasing Rapidly

Thanks to the media drumbeat of Fake News, people have no idea that poverty is decreasing around the world. 

Tornado Activity is a Result of Global Warming?

How often do you hear the media claim that increased tornado activity is a result of Global Warming?
If tornadoes and temperature were directly related, then the decline in violent tornadoes would be indicating that the climate is cooling, not warming. The real answer, of course, is that the two are not related except in media fantasies.

Income Inequality is NOT increasing

If you turn on CNN or MSNBC you will hear constant reference to "increasing income inequality". If this were true and not just propaganda, you'd expect real data to support that claim. Yet it doesn't. The level of income inequality in the United states hasn't changed in the last 25 years. So, if this wasn't keeping you up at night in 1998, why is it in 2019?

The Gini index, or Gini ratio, is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measurement of inequality. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini.

A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of 1 (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values .

The "Shortage of Women" in STEM Fields is FAKE NEWS

Mark Perry points out that the incessant cry from feminists and progressives that "there is a shortage of women in STEM fields" is not supported by the facts. That the news media is simply parroting the lie would make this a good example of Fake News, wouldn't it?

Obvious and Non-Obvious Facts About GOP Health Plan

First the obvious. If you listen to the headlines (and don't dig through the facts) you're probably under the impression that the GOP alternative to Obamacare would result in millions of people being left "uncovered" by a health plan (the CBO estimates 14 million). Why is that? It's because 14 million people who are currently forced by law to buy a health plan, will no longer buy one when they are given a choice. If you were forced to participate in your employer's retirement plan and the employer then gave you the option to opt out, would you complain that those who made that choice were "left uncovered by the employer"? This should be obvious, so I have to presume the media is not pointing this out with malice aforethought.

But there is a less obvious issue. The GOP plan results in almost $900 Billion in tax and spending savings. Now let's presume for a moment (against all historical experience) that the CBO estimate of 14 million fewer people opting for insurance is accurate. That implies that there are savings of over $60,000 per person left "uncovered" as a result of this change. Do you think we could buy a basic healthcare insurance plan to these people for less than $60,000 in premiums? This highlights not only the inefficiency of Obamacare, but also the fact that the purpose of Obamacare was never to economically provide health insurance to the uninsured. It was to give government a toehold toward taking over the entire industry. Even if the cost of doing so is catastrophically high. Even if people have to lose their doctor and pay higher premiums. To a progressive, that's just collateral damage.