Category : MSM

Taking part in a televised debate can be a make-it-or-break-it moment for any presidential candidate. But what if you’re not allowed to debate at all?

A diabolical Catch-22
As many of you are aware, not all candidates are allowed to debate in a given broadcast debate. This has been a problem for years. During the last presidential election both the Libertarian and Green party candidates were actually arrested trying to get into a debate they had been explicitly banned from!

Most candidates are excluded from the debate simply because the Media (big M) deems them minor/unknown/unpopular candidates. Well, of course they’re unknown; they’re not allowed to debate on national TV!! Bit of a Catch-22, wouldn’t you say?

A most insidious and foul Catch-22, I would say. Here’s why: We supposedly live in a democracy. It’s not really a democracy, it’s a republic (that’s a story for another day), but we like to pretend that the people really have a say. The hidden reality is that the bosses of the major television stations are making decisions that define the course of our nation, and they’re doing it from private boardrooms sequestered on the 100th floor of a skyscraper, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it because they aren’t elected or accountable to anybody but the company’s shareholders — ya know… other rich people.

Why should the CEO of CNN have such power? Why should he (and it’s almost certainly a he) determine who will and won’t be the next president of the United States before the people ever get a chance to vote in a primary?

Isn’t that censorship? Isn’t that more like an oligarchy than a democracy? Why do we let them get away with it?

Well, until recently most people didn’t even know about the problem. And we didn’t have the power to make a difference anyway. But things are changing.

Social Media saves the day
Social Media has finally offered regular people like you and me a voice. Sites like Digg, while not perfect, have enabled users to vote (you know, like a democracy) on what stories they think are worthy.

Two candidates, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, owe most of their young supporters to the users of two social media sites: Digg and Reddit. Without those two sites neither candidate had a hope in hell of cracking the oligarchy and getting significant, objective coverage by the mainstream media (MSM).

Why does the media censor and ostracize certain candidates?
The candidates that find themselves locked out of televised debates tend to have a few things in common: They tend to be unpopular or unknown (but that is not always the case). Their campaigns are usually poorly funded (maybe because it’s hard to raise funds if you get no coverage) and sometimes they have views that are contrary to the political mainstream.

But sometimes the political mainstream is very much at odds with the desires of the voting public. A perfect example is the continued prohibition of cannabis (you know: “marijuana”), an issue on which the politicians are most definitely out of step with most of America, which favors medicinal pot by an astonishing 78% margin. Net candidate Mike Gravel recently came out in support of legalizing cannabis, which he says should be for sale in liquor stores. For a mainstream, “media-approved” candidate, such a position would be political suicide. Why?

Perhaps the media has been shaping our political landscape for such a long time nobody can even remember a time when they weren’t. Perhaps there are certain forces at work behind the scenes that determine what is considered politically acceptable and what is considered “extremist.”

It’s hard not to see the media as a controlling, suppressing force when they blatantly censor certain candidates. Ron Paul’s performance in the recent Republican debate at the Reagan Library was hailed by many observers, but when it came time to review the field and do some analysis ABC News made a curious omission: Ron Paul.

He wasn’t even available as an option for viewers to vote for. He wasn’t mentioned anywhere in David Chalain’s analysis. If not for a web uprising (involving Digg and Reddit) Ron Paul would probably still be excluded. When ABC finally backed down (after deleting a storm of comments asking, “Where’s Ron?”) Ron Paul ran away with a landslide victory in the online poll. The numbers are incredible (and no doubt skewed by a reaction to the censorship). Paul clearly has a massive groundswell of public support…. but in the corporate realm he has apparently earned only hand-waving dismissal and contempt.

What are we supposed to think of this? When there are 10 candidates at a debate and viewers are only allowed to vote for 9 of them is that not censorship? Is that not electioneering by a major corporation?

And when they back down and include the suppressed candidate and he wins the poll, how do they respond? They write an article in which they find people to scratch their heads and say, “who knows how this Ron Paul got popular. Must be sumthin’ to do with them internets.” Then they conclude he has no chance of winning and that this is just an exercise in teenage rebellion (or something) and wave their hands, content that they will never have to talk about him again.

Democratic candidate Mike Gravel has experienced the exact same treatment, but on the other side of the aisle. Gravel and Paul are both painted as “extremists” within their respective parties, so we’d can conclude that Paul is a right-wing extremist and Gravel is a left-wing extremist, right?

Not quite. Both candidates are populists, espousing “common sense” positions that many average Americans hold, but which are not endorsed by many mainstream politicians. Both are opposed to the Iraq War (and always were), both question Prohibition, both are wary of a pre-emptive strike against Iran and both are suspicious of the corporate media that excludes them from debates. In short, they have a lot in common with the public they are trying to represent.

Meanwhile, the Media’s favorite Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, goes around saying fascist shit like this:

We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.

Is that what most Americans believe? Wasn’t America founded by overthrowing the “lawful authority” of the British? And this “Freedom is about authority” stuff sounds like a parody of George Orwell’s 1984… but Rudy was being serious! “You have free speech so I can be heard”?!! Saturday Night Live couldn’t parody Rudy any better than he does himself.

Which candidate is really an “extremist”? Which candidate is fundamentally out-of-line with the thinking of mainstream America? Well, maybe America really does want fascism instead of freedom, but the noise on the internet would seem to indicate otherwise.

Media Control and Manipulation
It seems like ancient history now, but it was actually the recent past when the mainstream media controlled every avenue of information and expression in this country. Nowadays we can talk about these things and send our message out to a wide audience, but as recently as 12 years ago it simply was not possible for a middle class person to route around the MSM. Suddenly most people can afford machines that are more powerful than a printing press, and allow common people to talk to each other without the Media’s filter. That’s why the Media is so upset about blogging and social media — they’re so used to having an absolute stranglehold over the conversation in this country.

The Media is used to controlling:

  • what information citizens receive
  • what information citizens are allowed to share with one another on the national stage
  • discussion and framing of issues in mainstream press
  • which issues receive national coverage (and which are ignored)
  • who gets to talk about the issues in the press (and who doesn’t)
  • how political actors are portrayed (villain or hero or neutral)

Social Media smashes that control grid and puts power in the hands of the many, rather than the few. This is a recent development so the full ramifications are not yet clear, but one thing we are finding out is that the Media has been using their incredible power to highlight certain candidates and suppress others.

The media has a paternalist streak that is really out of place in this day and age. The Washington Post thinks they know best and they aren’t afraid to tell you that they already know Gravel & Paul are not going to be elected, so why don’t we just eject them from the debates already?

The Democratic debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren’t helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he’s a former senator from Alaska) on the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he’s a libertarian House member from Texas) among the Republicans.

Thank goodness for our dear corporate masters. If they didn’t come in any set things straight we’d have to learn somebody’s name and what they stand for. MY GOD! The very idea exhausts me.

Sarcasm aside, this sort of thing has been going on for generations. That’s why an editorial like the one above doesn’t seem odd to them; this is standard operating procedure! The Media has identified the candidates they don’t like (the ones that aren’t easily bought/co-opted) and now they’ve decided to tell you, Dear Voter, than you needn’t concern yourself with these troublesome miscreants. Big Media will make things simple for you by excluding them.

…But wait a minute. Isn’t this a democracy? Don’t the voters decide who is voted off the proverbial island?

Well, now you know better. That is not the way America works. America is run by a ruling class of oligarchs no different than the ones who control Russia. The difference is the American media freely admits that oligarchs run Russia, but they would sooner give their mansions to the poor than admit America is the same. The exact reverse scenario plays out in Russia where the Russian (government/oligarch-controlled) media is free to disparage America and mock its corrupt institutions, while speaking ill of Russia is a good way to get your broadcasting license revoked.

The awful truth is that America has long been controlled by the rich, just like most nations throughout history. They have remade American society and government to suit themselves and they have grown very comfortable on their throne.

What is an Oligarchy?
Stephen Fleischman, himself a former mainstream media man, tackles the reality of the Oligarchy in an article for Counterpunch:

My dictionary says an oligarchy is a form of government where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of the society. As Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, puts it, “Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed.” Does that sound like the administration of George W. Bush?

Why, yes it does! That must be a weird coincidence. … right?

I wish I could tell you more about the Oligarchy, but it operates in secret and prefers that most citizens do not even know it exists. In fact, by using the mainstream media the Oligarchy is able to program us so that even if we are provided with irrefutable evidence of the existence of said Oligarchy, many will still deny it and disbelieve it.

You’re probably wondering “How?!”

Have you ever been called a “conspiracy theorist?” Well, it tends to end any meaningful discussion of the facts and immediately puts the onus on the accused to defend himself from the charge leveled at him. The Media has a few “magic words” like this at their disposal. It’s amazing how effective they can be. Nobody wants to be called a conspiracy theorist… but isn’t that just an ad hominem attack? It’s no different than calling someone a poopy-head.

I suspect there may be more to it than that. In a future post I’ll look into how the Oligarchy exploits its control of the media for fun and profit.

What should we do about it?
At a certain point we in the ‘net community need to stand up and say, “To hell with you guys. We’re hosting our own debate and we’ll invite everybody!” We ju
st need to set up a website with a group of people dedicated to hosting the cyber-debate; we’ll get some buzz going and then what candidate will say “no” to a chance to get his/her message out to such an elusive audience?

The media can’t be trusted to define, design and delineate the ground rules for our national debate. Candidates are having trouble getting their message across because of the media’s filter. It’s time to cut out the middle man.

Dick Cheney involved with Hookergate?

Wayne Madsen is reporting that Dick Cheney is a possible client of the DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s “escort service” — which translates in my mind as “high-priced hookers.”

The individual, who is definitely “newsworthy,” reportedly engaged the services of Palfrey’s escort firm while he was the CEO and maintained a residence off Chain Bridge Road in the Ballantrae neighborhood in McLean, Virginia, a few blocks from the headquarters of the CIA.”

WMR has confirmed with extremely knowledgeable CIA and Pentagon sources that the former CEO who is on Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s list is Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton during the time of his liaisons with the Pamela Martin & Associates escort firm. Palfrey’s phone invoices extend back to 1996 and include calls to and from Cheney.

Madsen’s confirmation appears to rest partially on the fact that Cheney had a residence in the Ballantrae neighborhood. I have independently confirmed that Cheney did in fact have a house in that neighborhood starting in 2000.

For example, on Jan. 12, 2000, Vice President Richard B. Cheney bought a property for $1.35 million on Chain Bridge Road, one of the top-end streets in McLean — one of the richest parts of Fairfax County, which is one of the richest counties in the United States.

Watch the corporate media bury this story at the bottom of the Potomac.

5-23-07 UPDATE: The story gets weirder. Palfrey’s lawyer has issued a non-non-confirmation leading Roll Call writer Emily Heil to say that “Cheney isn’t not on the list.” What that means is unclear, but I’ll keep an eye on this story. Wayne Madsen, for his part, stands by his reporting and has a new update with additional details on how the 20/20 story was killed by Disney-owned ABC execs, apparently under pressure from the White House.

Like I said, we need blow jobs to sink the Bush administration. Apparently starting a war on false premises is A-OK with the American public. Sex is a different story.

Information Liberation points out the media silence in the wake of the recent Ohio State National Guard revelations:

The 1970 killings by National Guardsmen of four students during a peaceful anti-war demonstration at Kent State University have now been shown to be cold-blooded, premeditated official murder. But the definitive proof of this monumental historic reality is not, apparently, worthy of significant analysis or comment in today’s mainstream media.

After 37 years of official denial and cover-up, tape-recorded evidence, that has existed for decades and has been in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), has finally been made public.

It proves what “conspiracy theorists” have argued since 1970—that there was a direct military order leading to the unprovoked assassination of unarmed students. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents show collusion between Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes and the FBI that aimed to terrorize anti-war demonstrators and their protests that were raging throughout the nation.

The cover-up is over, but the media are still clinging to their code of silence.

Why? Well, that seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it? The circles of power are small and chummy. They all know each other and so the masters of the media are very much a part of the ruling elite. It is in their interest to keep us ignorant and distracted.

One day we shall awaken…

Apologize to Al Sharpton for your sins!!

Are you white? Are you somewhat sympathetic to Don Imus and his situation? Have you ever said an offensive word? Well, it’s time to apologize to Al Sharpton.*

Now that Imus has been fired this little witch-hunt is apparently over. Is anybody else scratching their head, wondering what this little kerfuffle was all about? Obviously, Imus is a moron and used some shitty language, but I have trouble believing the Rutgers basketball team is really crying themselves to sleep at night. Who the fuck cares what he thinks/says?

Despite the thin-skinned temperance of the basketball players, I can at least understand why they are upset and demanding an apology (and groveling, 30 lashes, some ass-kissing and a book deal), but what I’m confused about is why Imus needs to apologize to Al Sharpton? … I thought Jesse Jackson was the emperor of black people.

Man, South Park totally called this one. Yes, Imus is a fucking moron (as is Micheal Richards), but this whole scenario seems like a media-generated distraction. I mean, Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress and he still has a job. George Bush lied to Congress, America and the world to lead us into war and he still has a job. WTF?

I think our priorities are pretty fucked up in this country. Whatever happened to “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me”? Apparently, the Rutgers basketball team does not subscribe to this philosophy. Meanwhile, Bush’s words led directly to broken bones, shattered skulls, crushed vertebrae, lacerated flesh and all the other attendant injuries related to dying in a fraudulent war over oil. But is the media whipping up a shitstorm over that? Incredibly, no. They are not as fawning as before, but they still treat him with unaccountable respect. He deserves to hang like Saddam, but the MSM is still treating his polices and speeches deferentially. The media could easily launch into a witch-hunt to bring down this administration. It has just demonstrated it has the power, in the case of Imus, despite Imus having the support of 63% of Americans. Bush, meanwhile, has the support of only 30%. That’s quite a disparity. Can somebody explain to me how this could happen? Certainly Bush didn’t call anybody a “nappy-headed ho” but he did lie to us repeatedly in order to lead us into war, a war that has left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, along with 3,000+ American soldiers. Near as I can tell Imus has not killed anybody. What gives?

Does it make me a cynic if I believe this witch-hunt was manufactured by the media to provide a well-timed distraction at a point in time when the Bush regime is increasingly on the run? Or does it make me a realist?
__________

*Apology not necessary if you are black and/or a rapper. If you are a rapper, you can call any woman a “ho” and it’s okay. Snoop said so.**

** I can’t believe I agree with Michelle Malkin on something. I feel so dirty. I’d better go apologize to Al Sharpton.

When E. Howard Hunt died a few months ago, there was speculation that he would leave behind a confession. At first, it appeared he had not, but now Rolling Stone is running with a story based on a confession Hunt made to his son, Saint John Hunt (who fucking names their kid “Saint”? A fucking narcissistic fuckhead, that’s who).

The confession is compelling, but Hunt is a well-known liar. Indeed, his confession is his own version of a limited hang out. He claimed to have refused to take part in the plot, but his own lies tripped him up, as he also claimed to know the command structure (from LBJ on down) and who was the the marksman on the grassy knoll. It’s pretty clear he was up to his ears in this thing. My favorite part of the Rolling Stone piece is when Hunt’s son shreds his dad’s alibi like grated cheese:

“And then, like an epiphany, I remember ’63, and my dad being gone, and my mom telling me that he was on a business trip to Dallas. I’ve tried to convince myself that’s some kind of false memory, that I’m just nuts, that it’s something I heard years later. But, I mean, his alibi for that day is that he was at home with his family. I remember I was in the fifth grade. We were at recess. I was playing on the merry-go-round. We were called in and told to go home, because the president had been killed. And I remember going home. But I don’t remember my dad being there. I have no recollection of him being there. And then he has this whole thing about shopping for Chinese food with my mother that day, so that they could cook a meal together.” His father testified to this, in court, on more than one occasion, saying that he and his wife often cooked meals together.St. John pauses and leans forward. “Well,” he says, “I can tell you that’s just the biggest load of crap in the fucking world. He was always looking at things like he was writing a novel; everything had to be just so glamorous and so exciting. He couldn’t even be bothered with his children. That’s not glamorous. James Bond doesn’t have children. So my dad in the kitchen? Chopping vegetables with his wife? I’m so sorry, but that would never happen. Ever. That fucker never did jack-squat like that. Ever.”

It is pretty funny, imagining him at home with the wife, helping out with the cooking. Hah! This guy was a misogynist asshole, not Julia Child. If he ever used a knife for something it was to cut somebody’s fingers off, not make a dainty meal for the kids.

Anyway, that’s not to say his confession is unimportant. Even a partial confession is vastly more than what we had before: denials, denials, denials. His history as a liar makes it suspect, of course, but I think St. John’s story is compelling. He alone knew how to extract this information from his father (read the whole thing for Kevin Costner’s half-assed attempt).

This has to be one of the biggest bombshells in recent memory. These revelations will make the cover of every major news-magazine and the headline of every newspaper, right?

Wrong.

The story is over a week old and no major media have picked up on it yet. And they won’t.

I’ve been telling people for years that the mainstream media is utterly controlled by the Oligarchy. If this example doesn’t make that clear, I don’t know what else to tell you. I mean, it’s not like the allegation/confession even has to be true to be newsworthy. The media has covered all the people claiming to be the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s orphaned daughter. They can’t all be right (the parade of people claiming to have fucked Anna Nicole is like one of those clown cars at the circus).

This is newsworthy. That is not really up for debate. If somebody confesses to murdering the president, that’s fucking newsworthy. So why the deafening silence?

The media is part of the conspiracy, that’s why. The media was one of the biggest parts of the cover-up right after the fact (and some would say, before it). Shooting the president is fairly easy. Getting away with it is damn near impossible… unless you control the levers of power. The rich and powerful men who make up the Oligarchy are the same men who own and operate the mainstream media. These levers of power are known by many names: Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc. But they all serve the same master.

Is there anything else the Media isn’t telling you? (and how would you know?)

This is an Electric Monkey Pants Intergalactic News Network special report!

Porn-star Ron Jeremy has confessed to masterminding the attacks of September 11, 2001 along with his long-lost brother Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. “We did it,” Ron Jeremy wrote in his confession, calling the mysterious collapse of the towers “the money shot.”

Also confessing was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (or “KSM” as he is known to lazy Americans). KSM had long eluded capture by the Americans by disguising himself as a grizzly bear. Later it was revealed that it wasn’t a disguise; he is just really, really hairy. He twice escaped captivity by pretending to be a dog with rabies, but was recaptured while picking nits and lice out of his fur.

Calling themselves the Hairy Brothers of Destruction, Mr. Jeremy and KSM confessed to a long list of crimes against humanity.

Authorities also seized a hard drive containing details of several assassination plots (including attempts to kill the Pope, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter’s gardener), and hundreds of gigs of midget porn, bestiality porn, and pictures of Ron Jeremy rubbing KSM with sandpaper in what appears to be an attempt at hair removal.

The deranged duo admitted to being tortured by federal agents, and hinted at Abu Ghraib-style torture involving being stacked in a pile of naked men and being led around on a leash. They also indicated that they kind of liked it.

While enjoying a breakfast of bacon and eggs the confessed masterminds of 9/11 assured their interrogators that they were devout Muslims and that their confession was not coerced: “Karl Rove didn’t call me and ask for a confession in exchange for 30 Brazilian hookers. Nothing like that happened, at all” Mr. Jeremy assured his captors, who then fed the revelations to several unquestioning, servile reporters, including this one.

KSM supplied a type-written note that listed all of the crimes the duo is responsible for masterminding. The list includes:

  • the bombing of U.S. Cole
  • the decapitation of Daniel Pearl
  • the planting of explosives that brought down WTC 7
  • farting in the interrogation room — twice
  • the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia
  • jump-starting Paris Hilton’s career
  • the Democrats’ strong showing in the November elections
  • happy-slapping
  • Abu-Ghraib (specifically: getting the Americans caught)
  • Hurricane Katrina
  • eye-boogers
  • killing Anna Nicole Smith
  • causing President Bush to appear stupid and clueless on TV
  • the Hindenburg disaster
  • pimples
  • the estate tax
  • the illusion of global warming (to scare hippies)
  • the Oklahoma City bombing
  • Watergate
  • killing Jesus Christ (and Old Yeller)

Ron Jeremy supplied an identical list, but he crossed out “Paris Hilton” and wrote “virneeral dizees”, then crossed that out and wrote “VD.”

The above information was provided to reporters on the condition that we not mention Alberto Gonzales, the word “impeachment” or the many inconsistencies in the official 9/11 story for 3 weeks. Naturally, we agreed because we just repeat whatever they say anyway.

[ed.: wait... were we supposed to repeat that last part?... i'd better call karl. hold till then]

This has been an Electric Monkey Pants Intergalactic News Network (EMPINN) special report!

I noticed this little tidbit on Slashdot, which is explained in more detail at the San Fran Chronicle:

Analog TVs will no longer receive a signal come Feb. 19, 2009, unless users update their hardware to receive a digital signal.

Federal officials announced details Monday about how that transition will work, saying the government will help consumers buy the necessary equipment to upgrade to digital — a converter box that attaches to the TV set.

The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) said it is setting aside $990 million to pay for the boxes. Each home can request up to two $40 coupons for a digital-to-analog converter box, which consumer electronics makers such as RCA and LG plan to produce. Prices for the box have not been determined, but industry and consumer groups have estimated they will run $50 to $75 each. [emphasis added]

Yes, that’s right. The government is going to pay you to keep watching that boobtube. The government is subsidizing mind control devices in order to ensure the passivity of the populace.

As a person who hates TV and doesn’t own one, it really pisses me off that my tax dollars are being spent on this boondoggle. I’ve long had a nagging suspicion that TVs have always been subsidized to some extent because the powers that be wanted a window into the lives of their subjects. It’s worth noting that in 1984 the TV’s watch you.

TV is bad for you. It’s bad for your mind, your body and your soul. Why is the government subsidizing something that, by almost all accounts, is detrimental to our health? Children spend 44.5 hours per week in front of screens — as much time as I spend at my job — and the government is not only unconcerned they’re funding this? Don’t you see something wrong here?

The Romans had their bread & circuses and Americans have their TV. This is about pacifying the population. If we didn’t have TV to numb our brains people might start to wake up to all the nefarious shit going on around us. Ideally, TV would be an excellent medium to tackle these social ills, but the mega-media-corps rarely seem to do so, especially when their own bottom line is at risk.

Instead, we will all continue working all day, going home to veg for a few hours and then waking up and doing it again… and with our softened brains we’ll never have time to ponder why a highly-advanced country like ours works so much, yet has so little to show for it (besides bigscreen TVs). With American Idol on we’ll never deduce that the rich are stealing from us through inflation, real-estate boom & busts, taxes and other financial trickery that make it possible for the middle classes’ earning power to actually decline over the last 30 years despite the rich getting fantastically richer.

We are being FUCKED. But most people are too hypnotized to notice.

Even as the grassroots impeachment movement gathers steam, the mainstream media and the Democrats are doing to their best to mock, derail, ignore and sabotage the efforts of concerned Americans across this great country.

Did anybody choke over the preceding paragraph? Did you think that Democrats would be eager to avenge the impeachment of Clinton? Well, you’re wrong. The Democrats are avoiding the issue like it was radioactive. And the media, well, we all know the liberal media is… liberal. Right? Wrong. The media is not left or right, it’s corporate. The media does whatever sells, folks. Their only true ideology is profit. As the Propaganda Model states, the media does not sell news — they sell us, the consumers of news, to the businesses that pay for ads and PR. We are the product.

Who perpetuates the myth of the liberal media anyway? Oh, that’s right… The media does! Especially the Bill O’Reillys and Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world (there seem to be a lot of these folks. How did they manage to find employment in the big, mean liberal media machine?).

Despite their lies, the media is certainly not liberal, but the lie has become self-perpetuating so that people think “if the media does it, it must be liberal!” thereby allowing conservatives and corporatists to define liberals with their own labels and bias. It’s a really neat trick. Goebbels would be proud. The left-wing is so weak and pathetic that it mostly just nods its head and cowers in the corner lest Bill O’Reilly raise his voice again (of course, these are just the liberals the media allows us to see). In reality, the media skews conservative on many things, including the war, the economy and the prospect of impeachment.

Let’s take a look at this Reuters article on Vermont’s grassroots impeachment effort and see how the media distorts things to serve a certain point of view.

More than 30 Vermont towns passed resolutions on Tuesday seeking to impeach President Bush, while at least 16 towns in the tiny New England state called on Washington to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

Known for picturesque autumn foliage, colonial inns, maple sugar and old-fashion dairy farms, Vermont is in the vanguard of a grass-roots protest movement to impeach Bush over his handling of the unpopular Iraq war.

Notice how Vermont is portrayed as pastoral. The subtle message is: “These backwards-ass hicks think they can impeach the president. Isn’t that cute?”

Now that we’ve established that Vermont’s voters are bunch of tree-hugging, bean-curd-eating hippies we proceed to “The Big Lie”, which Reuters needs to work on a bit since it really sticks out like a sore thumb in this piece. See if you can spot it:

After casting votes on budgets and other routine items, citizens of 32 towns in Vermont backed a measure calling on the U.S. Congress to file articles of impeachment against Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and for engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges.

Five Vermont towns passed similar resolutions last year.

The idea of impeaching Bush resides firmly outside the political mainstream.

The new Democratic-controlled Congress has steered clear of the subject, and Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold’s call last year to censure Bush — a step short of an impeachment — found scant support on Capitol Hill, even among fellow Democrats.

Did you find it? It’s the mostly-unsupported argument in the middle. “The idea of impeaching Bush resides firmly outside the political mainstream.” THIS IS A LIE. A big one, too. If the reporter/propaganda-spewer (Jason Szep) had done any research (and I believe he must have), he would’ve noticed that Americans overwhelmingly support impeachment. From the Zogby poll:

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new Zogby poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

This is “firmly outside the political mainstream”?!!

Well, in the reporter’s defense it must be said that the Democrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM) have done everything in their power to keep it out of the political mainstream. This is done via articles such as the one we’re talking about, wherein people supporting accountability are mocked as pastoral peasants, slandered as left-wing nutjobs or talked down to like illiterate boobs. So much for the free and impartial press.

The Democrats are certainly party to this travesty. They have betrayed the very Americans who voted for them.

Not surprisingly, Democrats supported the consideration of impeachment by a broad margin (76 percent) while Republicans opposed (66 percent). However, 29 percent of Republicans told Zogby pollsters that they supported Congress examining impeachment over Iraq.

It should be noted that AfterDowningStreet.org had to commission this poll because the Media certainly wouldn’t do it themselves. If we had waited on them for such a poll, we’d still be waiting.

Despites the media’s lies of omission and distortion impeachment is gathering steam across the nation, not just in Vermont as the article tried to imply. New Mexico, Washington state and cities across the nation are moving towards, or have already passed, resolutions supporting impeachment. The Media doesn’t want you to know this.

As for the Democrats, their spinelessness is appalling, especially considering what happened less than 10 years ago. Funny, I don’t remember people taking to the streets to demand Clinton’s impeachment. In fact, polls showed most people opposed impeachment for Clinton. I would’ve liked to see Clinton impeached for other reasons, but the charges he was impeached for were pretty trivial, and it was clearly a political witch-hunt. This time around the polls favor impeachment, but the Media is nowhere to be found whipping up impeachment fervor, and the Democrats, far from leading the charge, are carrying up the rear. They’re being dragged into this fight by the common folk, and many of them show no signs of supporting impeachment. It’s as if Bush were there best buddy all of a sudden. Suspicious, wouldn’t you say?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The Mainstream Media is a corporate-controlled institution that the oligarchy is using to promote and maintain fascism. Bush, as a fascist, is their hero. The MSM and Bush led us into this bloody war in Iraq, hand-in-hand; t
hey’re practically attached at the hip. They would sooner spit on their own mothers than encourage the impeachment of their pretty-boy fascist führer. The Democrats are controlled by the same oligarchy and their part is to basically “rollover and play dead” for the fascist Republicans. We must feed the war machine with our babies. The economy depends on it, since so much of it is rooted in the military-industrial complex.

So what can you do about it? Well, start by supporting the organizations out there that are spearheading the impeachment effort. Quite frankly, there are so many that I have a hard time keeping track of them all. Here’s a quick list of some of the bigger ones:

AfterDowningStreet
Vote To Impeach
Impeach Bush Coalition
Impeach For Peace
ImpeachPAC
The Four Reasons
The World Can’t Wait

Apathy is not a strategy. What are you doing to change the world?

The BBC has been in the middle of a blogger firestorm the last couple days after clear and incontrovertible evidence appeared, showing that the Beeb had reported the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building — better known as World Trade Center 7before it actually collapsed! Check out the screen grab below (I’ve circled WTC7):

The BBC engaged in some quick (and pathetic) damage control but failed to calm the boiling outrage erupting around the world. In so doing they revealed that they’ve lost all of their tapes from 9/11 and doefully ask somebody to send them a copy, plz. (I’m not fucking kidding. Check the link):

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it.

I don’t even know where to begin.

Okay, Beeb… so you’re telling me that nobody fucking bothered to save or secure any of the tapes from an entire day of broadcasting — a day that, even for the Brits, would have to rank as one of the most important in a generation at least, and then you meekly ask for a copy as if it’s our job?! What the hell?! Then you claim incompetence (just like the Bush regime)?! Well, your excuse is so fucking pathetic I’m inclined to agree that you are a bunch of morons.

Do you believe them? I don’t. This is bullshit. I’m starting to think that the BBC, and all the other major news organs, are in fact part of the conspiracy — after the fact.

So how did the Beeb get the news that the WTC7 building was about to collapse? Well, that certainly could be fairly innocent on their part. If a “trusted source” informed them of the collapse, they would be inclined to report it, and not bothering to check and see that the building is still standing does reek of incompetence. However, they seem quite competent at getting videos removed from YouTube and GoogleVideo. Strange for a news organization that was supposedly trying to get their tapes back.

I managed to find a clip on YouTube that hasn’t been taken down yet. It’s got a full 25 minutes of the BBC’s feed from 9/11, so you’ll have to fast forward ahead to the 15 minute mark to see the footage in question.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0]

What are we to make of all this? Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. The corporate-controlled media is lying to us. Every day, with every breath, and every death in Iraq or from the growing numbers of dead or dying first respondersthey’re lying to us. They know which way the evidence points, and they’re doing everything they can to cover it up. After the BBC’s litany of pathetic excuses they had the gall to mock those of us who question the official story:

If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

So they’re not only mocking those of us genuinely concerned about the events of 9/11 (if we don’t learn what really happened, how can we prevent another one?), they’ve sunken so low they’re using a Bush regime apologist’s anonymous comments on YouTube to make their case. FUCKING PATHETIC.

What’s even more intriguing is how the BBC flak, Richard Porter, seems more interested in carrying water for the Bush regime than he does in showing his news organization as a competent and trustworthy news source. In fact, he goes out of his way to make the BBC appear utterly incompetent — no doubt because it helps the Bush regime with their own claims of incompetence rather than malfeasance. Instead of acknowledging legitimate questions about that fateful day he does all he can to back up the official story (which, by the way, is a conspiracy theory no matter how you slice it). I say again: FUCKING PATHETIC.

That’s it. You’re done, Beeb. I had you in my bookmarks, but you’re gone now. You’re fucking gone. You are nothing more than an agent of evil to me now. I will give you the same amount of trust I give the Bush regime — less than zero.

I’m calling for a BOYCOTT, folks. We can’t let our media LIE to us and get away with it. Going back to them and reading their deception-stained news would be like an abused wife going back to her drunked and violent husband. Enough!

What’s the number one thing a news organization is supposed to do? Tell the truth, right? When a news outlet refuses to do that, what good are they? They’re about as useful as a knife in the eye. They’re about as helpful as gonorrhea.

I’m calling for a boycott until such time as the BBC fires that arrogant, pandering fuckhead, Richard Porter, head editor of world news… AND launches a full and impartial investigation into the tragic events of 9/11 — giving all theories equal credence until the evidence makes clear which is most likely. And not a trashy hit-piece like that Conspiracy Files piece of shit (which was debunked about 5 minutes after it aired).

It really pains me to do this. The BBC has a lot of quality programming and some of their shows have really hit hard and exposed lies and crimes in government. However, they are tainted meat to me now. I can’t eat the rest of it just because it looks okay — how do I really know? Trust is such a fragile thing, and getting it back after losing it is not easy. Good luck, BBC. I hope you do the right thing.

I was going to write a long, profane screed about this, but now I’m glad I didn’t because it turns out that Wil Wheaton of all people has already done it for me. Check it out.

In a shocking example of protest (that went unnoticed by the media for days) a Chicago man named Malachi Ritscher set himself on fire on a Chicago street to protest the war in Iraq:

At 6:30 a.m. on Nov. 3 – four days before an election caused a seismic shift in Washington politics – Ritscher, a frequent anti-war protester, stood by an off-ramp in downtown Chicago near a statue of a giant flame, set up a video camera, doused himself with gasoline and lit himself on fire.

Aglow for the crush of morning commuters, his flaming body was supposed to be a call to the nation, a symbol of his rage and discontent with the US war in Iraq.

“Here is the statement I want to make: if I am required to pay for your barbaric war, I choose not to live in your world. I refuse to finance the mass murder of innocent civilians, who did nothing to threaten our country,” he wrote in his suicide note. “… If one death can atone for anything, in any small way, to say to the world: I apologize for what we have done to you, I am ashamed for the mayhem and turmoil caused by my country.”

There was only one problem: No one was listening.

It took five days for the Cook County medical examiner to identify the charred-beyond-recognition corpse. Meanwhile, Ritscher’s suicide went largely unnoticed. It wasn’t until a reporter for an alternative weekly, the Chicago Reader, pieced the facts together that word began to spread.

Jeeze, what do you gotta do to get peoples’ attention nowadays? Apparently setting yourself on fire just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Lame jokes aside, his point is well taken. We are over in Iraq, killing people for no apparent reason. They certainly don’t represent a threat to us. But the bastards have somehow placed their country on top of our oil!

Don’t worry, Cowboy George will get it back. I wonder if he can repair the dead and burnt flesh of a man who was so opposed to Bush’s policies he killed himself.

Bush eats a kitten, gets boost in polls

Glenn Greenwald has pointed out how the media silently covers Bush’s tracks by changing their own stories to hide evidence of Bush’s bald-faced lying:

At some point, the Post changed what was the accurate reporting — that Bush expressly acknowledged that he “misled” reporters because he had “indicated that he had made the decision to replace Rumsfeld before the elections” — by claiming in the new version that he merely “contemplated” Rumsfeld’s exit before the election. Worse, the Post deleted entirely the accurate statement that the President “appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters.”

I don’t see why he’s incredulous. Bush has been protected like a princess by the press from day one. This is certainly not his first blatant lie, and the media has ignored most of those as well.

Hell, Bush could eat a baby kitten live on TV and the networks would censor it from all subsequent broadcasts, deny that it was a big deal, and then accuse anyone who made a stink about it of suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. No doubt some neo-cons would manage to smear the kitten’s good name by implying that she was a terrorist sympathizer. Democrats in Congress would be conspicuously silent and once the networks had completed their Orwellian re-writing of history no one would be able to prove that there even was a kitten.

Now, let’s all just assume that the photo above is just a really good Photoshop job.