Bad Science and Bad Journalism are Linked: How Fundamentalist Atheists are Twisting Science to Manifest a Dark Agenda

Every now and then I come across a bad science article. And I come across badly done science with disturbing regularity -- but today I found both in an article at NewScience.com.

It's a "study" about why people believe "crazy" things like creationism and intelligent design. The authors of both the article and the study have barely bothered to mask their contempt and disdain for those who believe in anything other than cold, hard science.

But the science and written logic they bring to the table can be described as mushy branflakes at best. Check out the article and see if you can taste the bias. Here's a sampler:

People continued to agree with false teleological statements, particularly those that endorsed an Earth intended for life.

I was not aware the debate over the beginning of our world was settled. Good to know you can administer a simple true/false test and call people who believe the earth was made for life "wrong".

This is supposed to be science? It seems to be based on more assumptions than religion! [new readers: I don't believe in religion, but I don't believe evolution's reality settles the debate over our origins -v]

Either they're trying to use trick questions or they don't understand the nuance of language. This, for instance, is one of their "false" statements:

Mites live on skin to consume dead skin cells

Well... don't they? The mites are better off living there than anywhere else. Where else would mites rather be?

The supposed scientists may have been grasping for "Mites exist only to remove our dead skin cells" but they utterly failed. And these people are claiming to be able to accurately and fairly judge me, my logical abilities and the validity of my beliefs??!!

Reminds me of this, more accurate, study.

This is also shoddy, biased journalism. I expect more from a mainstream publication like NewScience. Pro-atheism cheerleading is fine and good, but there's a time and a place, just like we expect reporters to keep their Christian, Hindu or whatever views out of newscasts, we should expect the journalists over at NewScience and other consumer science outlets to do the same.

This is not an article so much as an attack on teleological thought, a legitimate philosophy of thought. Here's what Wikipedia currently says about teleology:

A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.

As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of eyesight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).

A classic debate. Y vs. X and yet these supposed scientists are ready to throw telelogical thought under the bus without even investigating whether it might be right. Instead they've decided to do a sort of test to see if you think like a commie--..uh, er... "teleologist" in the hopes of one day "curing" it.

A first round of experiments suggested that adults make more teleological mistakes when pressed for time than when not. Yet Kelemen and Rosset also noticed that no matter how much time they had, test subjects tended to endorse false statements implying that the Earth is designed and maintained for life. [emphasis mine]

This is some of the most biased reporting I've ever seen, but it could be Ewen Callaway is just regurgitating what he was told. Then it would piss-poor reporting. But even more offensive to me as a rational person is the implicit goal laid bare in this study, which is clearly to find a way to eradicate teleological thought.

That's the same kind of thinking that led to the Spanish Inquisition. We don't need any more of that crap. These "scientists" need to learn how to take on their ideological opponents in an intellectual field of battle and quit trying to find ways to cow the populace into submission. If they have proof that the teleological school of thought is wrong, then they should firstly present it, then defend it.

Instead they use mouthpieces like NewScience, which I thought was a reputable publication, but now seems to be nothing more than a bloodbath battlefield between believers and nonbelievers. Here are some recent articles (among the most popular):

• How to spot a hidden religious agenda
  
• Born believers: How your brain creates God
  
• How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam
  

I guess it's all about the page-views and contentious article bring in visitors galore. But then why not try and keep an editorially even hand and write balanced articles? There's a good reason spiritually-minded folks often sound defensive in those forums. They know they're being taunted -- or else they wouldn't be there, trying to explain deeply held beliefs to this generation's most vicious nihilists.

What's even more disturbing is that the atheists rarely stand up and say, "Hey, I agree, but let's keep things respectful and balanced here." Opinion Editor Amanda Gefter is particularly over-the-top. Here's a typical passage:

Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.

Free will has been debated for many millennia, but dear old Amanda won't let us even consider the possibility that... what, quantum physics might be involved somehow? How the hell does she know? She clearly doesn't because she chose ridicule over reason and neglected to back up her claims. If I print out the Wikipedia article on Free Will, it's over 20 pages, but Ms. Gefter dismisses it with a warning: Beware!! Don't read any further or you might turn into a commi- er, I mean "creationist!"

This is all about attacking the philosophical underpinnings of the opponents of strong-atheism, whom include religious folks, anti-religion/pro-metaphysics people like me, and many agnostics and weak-atheists.

It's sad that people can't find any common ground on this issue. It's one of the most pressing of our times, especially with the growth of atheism in the young and urban. But it's still a religious discussion and I remain somewhat aghast that a publication like NewScience would stoop to taking sides in the culture wars. Are they about to fold and need every page-view they can get?

I'd be more likely to read them in the future if they displayed a little more objectivity.

As for the "scientists" who are out to "cure" creationists or anybody who entertains metaphysical thoughts, well, I guess we'd better keep our eyes on them before they try to beat Religion's high score in the killing game. Studying ways to eradicate thought that doesn't conform with the scientific establishment's is really beyond the pale.

I don't think most atheists think this way. Certainly there is some bitterness about Christianity, the dominant religion in my culture, but few would actually seek to destroy it. They just don't want fundamentalist Christians (like those that infested the Bush administration) enforcing prayer in schools, Intelligent Design in schools (ID should be in schools -- the Philosophy Department) and various faith-based activities.

Totally understandable. But let's make sure that we don't end up with the mirror image as humanity gives up its superstitious beliefs. We don't need fundamentalist atheists running amok any more than we need fundamentalist Muslims or Christians in charge. The extremists are the problem, and they hurt whichever side they are arguing for. Please, people, look for common ground in the culture wars!

Go in peace / Science be praised

Do you want the truth? Or do you want to be entertained?

"The American people are today the best entertained and the least informed people on the face of the Earth."

--Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

--William Colby
CIA Director, 1973-1976

Eat The Rich

Europe is not immune from stupidity, greed, fascism and ignorance. It's good to remember that sometimes.

Italy is experiencing a fascist resurgence not seen since the times of Mussolini. It's a wonder that there's so little memory of those hard times, but I guess the war has been over for 60 years and to remember it well you'd have to be 70 or older, but it's still distressing that the authoritarian streak has not run its course. Instead the Italians are rounding up and fingerprinting Gypsies and soon-to-be-Chancellor Berlusconi signed a new law outlawing gatherings of 3 or more people. I don't know how you can go out for a walk with more than one friend without running afoul of this law, but that, we should remember, is the point of fascist laws.

However opposition councillors said it was "reminiscent of Benito Mussolini's edict of the 1920's which banned groups of five or more people".

The ban will not affect courting couples who flock to parks and gardens in the northern Italian city of Novara, where Mr Giordano holds power, but if anyone is caught in a group of three or more they face a fine of 500 euro (£350).

That's a fuckload of money, to me at least. Then again, the point of such laws is to make it impossible for poor ruffians to gather. There will be no such problems if the rich decide to gather. Assuming they even get fined (unlikely) they will be able to pay the fine without a second thought. Wealth, or lack thereof, is the new apartheid.

Speaking of the rich, they have a different outlook on things. Whereas I look as this law and see cheerful fascism, they look at it and see a good, strong, hard-line against lazy trouble-making youths and other undesirables. Put those Gypsies on a train to Dachau for all they care. Having clean streets and no thieving Gypsies around is all that matters.

Fascism is the codification of the rights of the rich and comfortable. These rich-rights are a little more encompassing than normal rights since the rich already have those rights; they want to be secure from beggars (read: "undesirables"), assured of good pay (for themselves), protected from economic turbulence (privatizing profits but socializing losses) and ensconed in communities of like-minded peers (gated communities and absurdly posh condos).

Why? Because they deserve it. Or at least they sure think they do:

One banker said: "It's a fact of modern life that there is disparity and 'Is it fair or unfair?' is not a valid question. It's just the way it is, and you have to get on with it. People say it's unfair when they don't do anything to change their circumstances." In other words, they see themselves as makers of their own fortune. Or, as another banker said, "Quite a lot of people have done well who want to achieve, and quite a lot of people haven't done well because they don't want to achieve."

So you see, the real problem is that the rest of us are lazy, no-talent, whiners who didn't work hard enough or aim high enough.

That might be true of some people, but most of us would be overjoyed to have the opportunity to me $250,000 a year. Shit, if all we had to do was work harder why didn't somebody tell us that?

Oh wait, it doesn't matter how hard you work as a teacher, nurse, construction worker or shopkeeper: You will never make $250,000.

They had chosen a life that would make them rich while others, making different and morally equivalent choices, had abdicated their right to complain. "Some of these are vocational, things like nurses . . . It's accepted - they go into it knowing that that's part of the deal." Another said: "Many people, like teachers, don't do things for the pay. But you won't find a teacher that works as hard as we do." This was categorical, evidence unnecessary. They spoke of heroic all-nighters drawing up contracts for clients in time zones on the other side of the globe, a Herculean effort that justified fat pay. But did they work 10 times as hard as a teacher on £30,000 a year or, in the case of some lawyers and bankers, 100 times as hard? Such disproportionality did not enter their scheme of things.

So I guess the real solution is for all of us to be become bankers and lawyers. Can you imagine a world in which everybody was a banker? It'd be great except that nothing would get done!

For all their talk about making the world work most bankers never lift anything heavier than their laptop computer. They are useless parasites on the neck of humanity. But fire them all and a new crop of greedy junior bankers will arise. The problem is systemic. Why do the bankers get paid so much? Because they can.

All of this talk about the free market and other such justifications is a tired excuse. The free market is not a benevolent hand making everything okay. It's a ruthless mosh-pit of greedy, back-stabbing, amoral snakes all out to achieve dominance at any cost. The bankers are simply superior at being sleazy.

Look at what the rest of the population makes in comparison to those $250,000 (minimum) salaries:


The rich think that they are the uppercrust of humanity because their skills, talents and brains were allowed to rise to the top of the heap. I think it's very much the opposite: Those on the top already have an easy time bringing their offspring to the same level while simultaneously rigging the system to keep the rest of us down.

Money, after all, is a zero-sum game and when you have a lot of it you can use it to create advantages for your kind (swanky private schools with huge tuitions) and disadvantages for those you want to keep down (regressive taxation, pointless wars, decrepit public education systems, etc.). It's almost too easy. They don't even have to think up plausible explanations for why they're so rich and we're not.

"Providing for children" was flourished as a trump card, as if spending on offspring were automatically moral and good, regardless of how other people's children fare.

"I work hard, I've got two boys and I want to provide for them." Providing for children meant buying them access to high-earning jobs, taking trusted routes through school and university.

The worst part about all of this is that most of the rest of us may feel a twinge of jealousy over their wealth but if given the chance to become rich like them or change the system most of us would choose wealth.

There's nothing quite like money for proving to the world that you're better than everyone else, and the only people who believe that more fervently than the rich are the poor.

Media Priorities

Ah, the wisdom of Twitter. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but it's amazing what you can fit in 140 characters... such as a complete evisceration of the mainstream media (MSM) because of their utter, obsequious hypocrisy and the biased, treasonous way they frame and focus on issues. Here it is, from Chuck Olsen:

"If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging the president as... Rev. Wright, it's likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq."

Boom. Pretty much says it all doesn't it?

Here's where he originally found that quote.

The corporate media chooses -- seemingly as one -- what to make a big deal out of. And what to blackout.

The Corporate Media (especially the TV news stations who were caught red-handed) have been feeding us Pentagon-approved talking points through the supposedly-independent retired generals who show up for interviews about the war. Strange that they never invite peaceniks on the air, isn't it? Well, war is big business. You can't expect truth and fairness when the bottom line is at stake.

Quite simply, the Media act as a megaphone for the positions they support and a censor for those they do not. Peace, wisdom, tranquility, free thought.... these concepts are all offensive to the corporate media. They would rather focus on strife, stupidity, distraction and obedience.

All three major cable news networks are wasting valuable air time on Senator Obama's former pastor. Why? Is the story newsworthy? Sure. Is wall-to-wall Wright coverage more important than Iraq or gas prices or the climate crisis? No way. But Reverend Wright is a scary, shouting black man and scary shouting black men equal ratings-sweet-ratings.

We expect to see this sort of race-baiting behavior from Fox News Channel, but CNN and MSNBC have, once again, similarly crossed the tabloid threshold into the very same nefarious Roger Ailes realm by beating this nothing story to death.

They're all the same. Fox News is simply the worst offender. But instead of being an embarrassment to decent journalists everywhere Fox News is seen a pioneer, a bold leader in the (fascist) future of news. Thus, the other news channels simply follow Fox's lead.

Face it folks: Our mainstream media is controlled. Totally controlled. By just five mega-corporations, all of whom have interests vastly different from the average American.

Is it too hard to imagine that these corporations embrace war, hypocrisy and distraction? Five corporations means five CEOs. These reptilian CEOs have a different agenda than the common man. They're often Republican, always rich, usually ruthless and seldom charitable. These five scumfucks control 90% of what we see, hear or read in the press and they've all profited from the war. The only thing that gives us a chance at regaining our freedom is the internet and I assure you this blog and others like it don't have ratings anywhere near that of Fox or CNN.

So when you see the Media trumpeting something, be it Paris Hilton, Rev. Wright or American Idol, just remember that they're showing you what they want you to know and they're hiding the rest. For everything they tell you they're obscuring another ten useful facts with their incessant bullshit.

The media doesn't investigate, they serve the rich; they afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable. They are traitors, liars, demons and filth. I consider Big Media's tacit embrace of the Iraq War before and after the fact to be nothing less than treason.

One former participant, NBC military analyst Kenneth Allard, has called the effort "psyops on steroids." As Barstow reports, "Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions.' … Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war."

If there's any justice in this world they will all burn in the hell they've created. I say we give them all a one-way ticket to Baghdad. Sleep in the bed you've made, Fuckers!

The psychics at The Onion have done it again!

The Onion has a pretty good track record of not only reporting the news before it happens, but making it funny, too. They've been eerily prescient before, but sometimes I forget just how good these guys are!

Just last month I posted a hilarious Onion TV video that featured a supposed al-Qaeda operative arguing with a 9/11 Truther. The video works on many levels, but for me it was funny because the al-Qaeda guy is so obviously spewing Bush administration talking points and desperately trying to claim credit for something clearly beyond their capabilities. He even brings a receipt for flight lessons and brags about his connections to the White House: "Me and Bush, we go out, we hang."

The idea of al-Qaeda stepping up to defend the Bush administration's version of events on 9/11 is pretty hilarious, but come on! That's just over the top, right? It was a good chuckle and then we all moved on.

Apparently somebody thought this wasn't funny enough in fiction so al-Qaeda has made it real!

Osama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al-Qaida terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

Just sit back and soak that in. I didn't make up that quote, amazingly.

One enemy of the U.S./Israel accusing the other of understating the first's evil is funny enough, but this treads onto satire when al-Zawahri says blaming Israel makes Muslims look stupid!

"The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.

Haha!! This is straight out of the Bush regime's racist playbook. Look at the implication: Muslims can be heroes only if they're terrorists! Only a moron or a stooge would admit such a thing about his own people. Sunni or Shi'ite, you'd think Zawahri would try to unify the sects against the Zionists, but instead he plays right into the Bush regime's hands by simultaneously defaming Muslims everywhere (as if every Muslim is just itching for a chance to blow himself up!) and sowing divisiveness amongst his people at the same time. Zawahiri is either a tactical moron or a CIA stooge.

Could he actually expect to sway Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with this argument? Ahmadinejad may be an idiot, a tool and a loudmouth, but he is not a terrorist or a dictator. He is like Putin, a strongman that the people have turned to in order to provide a hedge against U.S. imperialism.

Ahmadinejad knows, like Putin, that the 9/11 attacks were self-inflicted in order to provide a pretext for Bush's endless wars of conquest (and embarrassment). Heck, even our allies in Japan are starting to question the events of that day. In retrospect it looks like an incredible boon to an administration that has done nothing but evil with the goodwill generated worldwide in response to the tragedy.

Many people say the Bush administration is too incompetent to pull off the attacks and subsequent coverup, but I say al-Qaeda is too incompetent to do ... much of anything! Call the Bush team what you will, but they are masters at manipulation and misdirection. They managed to steal two elections and they orchestrated an incredible propaganda campaign to trick the nation into war with Iraq. I remember watching the news back in early 2003 thinking I was living in an endless Twilight Zone episode. And what happened to the treasonous military men, the lying pundits and the architects of this atrocity? Well they're mostly still around and many of them have been promoted!

People need to realize that the Bush administration isn't incompetent when it comes to stuff like Katrina: They just don't give a fuck! ... There's a difference. They look after their own, not a bunch of poor folks who don't vote Republican anyway.

Al-Qaeda is a CIA-sponsored group whose only role is to draw attention away from the real terrorists. This is common knowledge among the elite, although some still cling to a twisted sort of incompetence theory:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

Oh, I think it occurred to them alright. It was the plan all along. You think the CIA can't "take care of" a few jihadis waving around U.S.-made stinger missile launchers? The CIA doesn't just let anybody play with their toys. They can find you. After all, details about members of al-Qaeda are, by definition, in "The Database."

That raises another question: Who the fuck would name their terrorist organization after a "structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system"?!

I have an idea. I'm going to start an organization dedicated to the Liberation of the Great State of Minnesota from the Oppressive Federal Government of the United States of America. I'm going to name this organization..... Pants!

What do you think? "Pants" ... or "Pants!"? ... I'm not sure, does the exclamation point sell it?

Anyway, my point is that it's completely fucking ridiculous. I just made my hypothetical liberation front look clueless, stupid.... and somewhat artistic, I guess. Maybe "al-Qaeda" would make a good, Dadaist band name in Arabic, but it doesn't do shit for a supposedly committed bunch of terrorists.

Let's look at other "terrorist" organizations and what kind of names they have (I'll assign grades based soley on the clarity and effectiveness of the name, not their tactics or ideology):

• The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan - localized, religious and grassroots. These guys know how to name a group. Doesn't lock them into terrorism either. B+
• The Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group - very straightforward; we know right away they're into Islam, fighting and Morocco. However, isn't this a little open-ended? Most groups start with a specific cause... you know, like freeing their homeland or something. These guys just feel "combative", apparently. It should be no surprise they're affiliated with al-Qaeda. B-
• The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine ( الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين ) - very savvy name. They're playing the populism card, plus you know exactly what their goals are. A
• The Irish National Liberation Army - once again, very straightforward. You know what they want and who they represent right away. Would this front be as popular if they were named "fishsticks"? I doubt it. B
• The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord - even though these guys aren't clear about what they want, it's obvious they're into Jesus and swordplay. Kinda makes you wanna learn more about'em too, but not really. I'm giving it a better grade because it rhymes. C+
• The United Liberation Front of Asom - pretty clear what they're after here. I like the unity reference; makes you think they're a big tent liberation front. But like most Americans I didn't know where the hell Asom is (northeast India). A-

I have to give al-Qaeda a D- for their crappy name. I would give them an F, but the randomness of it is pretty funny... except for the whole killing and murder thing. But that's the rub; I just don't buy these guys as terrorist masterminds. They can't even fucking name themselves right, so why would I think they could pull off 9/11? Even if you say, "okay, maybe 'The Base' refers to a military base" it makes no sense because the modus operandi of these guys is supposedly their decentralization. There is no main headquarters. They're ostensibly a loose-knit group of cells that operate independently, yet aren't really controlled by Osama either, who is mostly a figurehead who provides funding (or did... he's probably dead). Let's face it: "al-Qaeda" probably only makes sense if you don't speak Arabic.

If you're still not convinced al-Qaeda is a joke, watch an incredible BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares. You'll be glad you did.

As for me, I will continue to worry about the real terrorist organization plaguing this wretched earth: The Central Intelligence Agency. A look at their record exposes the deep hypocrisy of the United States government when it comes to terrorism:

• You blow up a bus in Whogivesafuckistan? You're a terrorist.
  
• You overthrow a legitimate government and replace it with a puppet government that proceeds to butcher 500,000 of its own people? You're a hero. Here's your medal.

Even The Onion can't make that level of hypocrisy funny.

935 Lies in 24 months, eh? So, uh.... when do the impeachment hearings start?

So yeah, I know this isn't a big shocker to anybody with a functioning brain stem, but the Bush administration systematically lied its way into the Iraq War. A new study by the Center For Public Integrity has analyzed the public statements of administration officials in the run-up to the war and come up with 935 lies in a two-year span.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

Everybody makes mistakes. Accidents happen and people do stupid things... but 935 mistakes? No fucking way.

So Many Lies, So Little Time
This was an organized campaign of deception. It was a fraud perpetrated on the American people and, most especially, on the people of Iraq.

935 LIES! That's 1.28 lies per day for 24 months straight by my calculations.

Take a look at the chart below (click for a larger version). You can see that the lies are concentrated around the pre-war and immediate post-invasion period. The peak lying period was the February before the invasion (which began on March 19, 2003). This was no accident.


This is not just a bunch of anonymous interns leaking statements to the press. The study concentrated on just 8 top officials:

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The study can only look at public statements, so we have no way of counting the many lies whispered into the ears of journalists. It's interesting that Karl Rove was not included in this study, but he's more of a behind-the-scenes operator. Also missing are gobs of military men, mid-level staffers, the whole pundit class on TV and many more folks who are not directly connected to the administration. These 935 lies are just a drop in the bucket, but they all originate from very high-ranking officials.

The Impeachment Fantasy
So now that we've got a study in the mainstream press clearly delineating the fact that George W. Bush made at least 260 false statements in just 24 months, that means the impeachment hearings are just around the corner, right?

Wrong.

The Democrats will wag their fingers and cluck their tongues and do.... nothing. The Republicans have long since sold their souls, but it's the Democrats' betrayal that really hurts America. We need a true opposition party more than ever, but we don't have one.

If you've been reading this blog you probably know by now how Washington really works. Democracy, hearings, investigations, intelligence estimates, blah, blah, blah. It's all just for show. The real power resides behind the scenes. The oligarchy, the establishment, the powers that be -- whatever you want to call them -- have decided that there will be no impeachment hearings. So there won't be.

I don't know what else to tell you. "Write your congressperson"? Fat lotta good that will do, but it doesn't hurt to keep the pressure on.

The Oligarchs' Dilemma
Just try not get too depressed. Yes, American "democracy" makes Pakistan look like an oasis of liberty, but it's not all bad. I've got a feeling that there are some people in the establishment who want to change things. No doubt they're biding their time, waiting for things to fall into place. But we don't have much time. I don't think the Bush team plans to leave office, 'cause if they do they'll have to leave the country, too. Even the oligarchy can't stop a limited investigation into the Bush regime by any successive Democratic administration. They have to continue the illusion of democracy, even if it hurts them in the short term. And that could mean a war crimes tribunal for Bush and crew.

Cheney knows this so it's more likely that there will be another terrorist attack before or shortly after the elections (before inaugeration). Bush will declare martial law, lock down the nation, suspend the constitution and retain power "temporarily" until the emergency has passed. Of course, just like in Musharraf's Pakistan, the emergency will never pass.

If there are any oligarchs still loyal to the constitution, they will have to move quickly. There's a very small window (less than a year now) to execute their counter-coup. Bush will move to arrest the constitutional loyalists on trumped-up charges. Impeachment is the only remedy. We'll need to take to the streets and camp out in every single senator's office and demand justice.

If and when it does happen we'll have to be ready. We need to stand up for democracy, no matter what the cost. The future of America hangs in the balance.

John D. Rockefeller & Alcohol Prohibition

I like to learn a thing or two every day, and today I learned a very interesting thing indeed.

Many people know that alcohol can be used as fuel for cars and farm equipment. It's popular today in the guise of ethanol, but ethanol is largely a red herring. Ethanol is a ghost of what could have been had the Prohibition movement not killed alcohol fuel in its infancy.

Most people are not aware that Henry Ford's Model T came in a variation that allowed the driver to switch the carburetor to run the engine on farm-made ethyl acohol [sic]. This allowed the operator to stop at local farms (equipped with stills) to refuel his/her car during long trips through the backcountry. After all- the gas station wasn't exactly as ubiquitous in those days, as it is now. The Standard Oil Company and its industrialist-founder John D. Rockefeller wasn't too happy with this arrangement. After all, Rockefeller's company had a virtual monoploly on gasoline at this time in our nation's development.

It kind of makes me wonder why we're fighting an illegal war over oil in the desert, thousands of miles away, when we could probably retrofit our cars to run on domestically produced alcohol fuels (which does not have to be corn-based like ethanol).

Like William Randolph Hearst's campaign against cannabis (marijuana), Rockefeller's campaign against alcohol was ultimately successful... for him. Hearst and Rockefeller's respective campaigns were horrible crimes perpetrated against America, the environment and truth, but both men were personally enriched through their scheming.

Since the late 1800's there had been a growing Alcohol Temperance Movement developing among reformers. Rockefeller saw an opportunity in this. It is well-documented that local efforts to curb alcohol consumption were expanded to the national level when high-profile figures like Rockefeller joined in the anti-alcohol efforts. Was he so concerned with the social problems that abuse of alcohol was said to cause?

No... John D. Rockefeller was not concerned with family dynamics in the working classes. But he was influential in changing the goals of the movement from temperance to prohibition. As we know, his contribution to the outlawing of the production and sale of alcohol was successful. Of course, Rockefeller and the oil companies reaped tremendous profits as a result. Remember that the period covered by the 18th Amendment (1919-1933) coincided with the huge rise in the sale and operation of automobiles. America was on the move, and all of these cars were now operated solely on gasoline. By the time that the 21st Amendment was passed, ending the prohibition of alcohol, the standard was already set and worked completely in the favor of the Rockefeller family.

While this is an excellent example of a conspiracy against the American people that is both provable and successful, there is one problem with calling it a conspiracy: Conspiracies require illegal acts, and lying to the American people is not necessarily illegal. Unethical, yes, but unless you were personally slandered there's no chance of legal recourse against such conspiratorial campaigns.

In the end, this is an example of how rich men can ride roughshod over the Constitution and the democratic process and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it.

Indict the Media

If I could indict the Media, I would. They need to be brought up on charges. From lying to protect power, shying away from truth, manipulating elections, to corroding our minds with pointless trash, Big Media has a lot of answer for.

But don't take it from me. Take it from John Hockenberry, former Dateline NBC reporter. Here's a few nuggets:

Entertainment programs often took on issues that would never fly on Dateline. On a Thursday night, ER could do a story line on the medically uninsured, but a night later, such a "downer policy story" was a much harder sell. In the time I was at NBC, you were more likely to hear federal agriculture policy discussed on The West Wing, or even on Jon Stewart, than you were to see it reported in any depth on Dateline.

Yeah, hard news sure is a "downer", but you know what? Life sucks, get a fucking helmet. Put it on the goddamn news, NBC!

Hockenberry tackles GE's acquisition of NBC next, and the bizarre consequences of a company like GE trying to make news the same way it makes lightbulbs or turbines. Six Sigma is a form of quality control popular in the manufacturing sector:

While Six Sigma's goal-oriented blather and obsession with measuring everything was jarring, it was also weirdly familiar, inasmuch as it was strikingly reminiscent of my college Maoism I class. Mao seemed to be a good model for Jack Welch and his Six Sigma foot soldiers; Six Sigma's "Champions" and "Black Belts" were Mao's "Cadres" and "Squad Leaders."

Finding such comparisons was how I kept from slipping into a coma during dozens of NBC employee training sessions where we were told not to march in political demonstrations of any kind, not to take gifts from anyone, and not to give gifts to anyone. At mandatory, hours-long "ethics training" meetings we would watch in-house videos that brought all the drama and depth of a driver's-education film to stories of smiling, swaggering employees (bad) who bought cases of wine for business associates on their expense accounts, while the thoughtful, cautious employees (good) never picked up a check, but volunteered to stay at the Red Roof Inn in pursuit of "shareholder value."

To me, the term "shareholder value" sounded like Mao's "right path," although this was not something I shared at the employee reëducation meetings. As funny as it seemed to me, the idea that GE was a multinational corporate front for Maoism was not a very widespread or popular view around NBC. It was best if any theory that didn't come straight from the NBC employee manual (a Talmudic tome that largely contained rules for using the GE credit card, most of which boiled down to "Don't") remained private.

I did, however, point out to the corporate-integrity people unhelpful details about how NBC News was covering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that our GE parent company stood to benefit from as a major defense contractor. I wondered aloud, in the presence of an integrity "team leader," how we were to reconcile this larger-scale conflict with the admonitions about free dinners. "You make an interesting point I had not thought of before," he told me. "But I don't know how GE being a defense contractor is really relevant to the way we do our jobs here at NBC news." Integrity, I guess, doesn't scale.

No, I guess it doesn't. That might be inconvenient. It might even be considered a defect.

Those "reëducation meetings" were for people like Hockenberry. Occasionally a reporter grows a brain or a spine and those "defects" have to be dealt with. Usually, the best way is to drum him out of the company using boredom and inanity. Chairman Mao would've simply had him shot, but murder is expensive and doesn't enhance shareholder value. Ah, how humanity has evolved!

Next, Hockenberry cleverly tries to use the octopus to strangle itself, but probably only managed to get a negative mark on his next performance evaluation.

But GE had long done business with the bin Ladens. In a misguided attempt at corporate synergy, I called GE headquarters in Fairfield, CT, from my hotel room in Riyadh. I inquired at the highest level to see whether, in the interest of bringing out all aspects of an important story for the American people, GE corporate officers might try to persuade the bin Ladens to speak with Dateline while we were in the kingdom. I didn't really know what to expect, but within a few hours I received a call in my hotel room from a senior corporate communications officer who would only read a statement over the phone. It said something to the effect that GE had an important, long-standing, and valuable business relationship with the Bin Laden Group and saw no connection between that relationship and what Dateline was trying to do in Saudi Arabia. He wished us well. We spoke with no bin Laden family member on that trip.

While, there's no proof that this stunt helped get Hockenberry fired, it probably didn't help.

So what's a guy who likes emerging media and a hard-hitting story supposed to do? Stay the fuck away from the MSM, that's what. So that's what he did.

Benazir Bhutto was obviously assassinated by Musharraf

Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto is dead. She was shot by her assassin, who then blew himself up.

Bhutto's archenemy, Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf, who has the most to gain from her death, tried to make it look as though he hadn't wished for such a thing:

Musharraf blamed Islamic extremists for Bhutto's death and said he would redouble his efforts to fight them.

"This is the work of those terrorists with whom we are engaged in war," he said in a nationally televised speech. "I have been saying that the nation faces the greatest threats from these terrorists. ... We will not rest until we eliminate these terrorists and root them out."

Right, right, right. "Terrorists." Gotcha. Anything bad happens, it's dem damn dirty terr'rists.

Isn't it weird how the terrorists' are so kean to assassinate a politician with no actual power who may or may not have had a shot at the presidency? Especially when the presidency is currently occupied by a secular militant Bush-crony who hated Bhutto?

Hmmm....

Meanwhile, our esteemed president was quick to blame teh terr'rists too:

In the U.S., a tense looking President Bush strongly condemned the attack "by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy."

Undermine Pakistanti democracy? You mean, like by supporting a dictator instead of demonstrators agitating for liberty? I guess that makes Bush a "murderous extremist." Even more interesting is how he already knows that it was some lone gunman ("extremist" is a great catch-all) when there hasn't been an investigation yet.

In fact, all of the neocon/fascist front have already condemned the attack, from Sarkozy to Karzai to Gordon Brown to the Pope. They were so quick with statements you have to wonder if they knew it was coming. And every single one of them has accepted Musharraf's version of events without question.

Interesting....

Of course, Americans are in the thrall of a malicious and corrupt media establishment. There will be no questioning the official version of events.

The Pakistanis at least are not so stupid:

Many chanted slogans against Musharraf, accusing him of complicity in her killing.

"We repeatedly informed the government to provide her proper security and appropriate equipment ... but they paid no heed to our requests," Malik said.

As news of her death spread, angry supporters took to the streets.

In Pakistan it's obvious. The president's most esteemed foe is dead with a bullet in her neck. Do the fucking math.

Musharraf is a military man. The military is the most powerful institution in Pakistan and their intelligence service, the ISI, is a known collaborator with the CIA (some say it's just a CIA puppet). The motive, means and opportunity are all right there. But we Americans -- you know home of the brave, land of the free -- will swallow the Musharraf propaganda like manna because our Dear Leader and his corrupt, oligarchical establishment have their fingers in this wicked little pie.

Pakistan is necessary for the perpetuation of other frauds, including the al Qaeda myth. That's why control of Pakistan cannot be allowed to return to the hands of a democrat. The secret could be revealed, and that is most certainly worth killing for.

This is not the first attempt on Bhutto's life:

Bhutto had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile on Oct. 18. On the same day, she narrowly escaped injury when her homecoming parade in Karachi was targeted in a suicide attack that killed more than 140 people.

That was Musharraf's first "welcome back" message. Now, he has said "goodbye."

Now here comes the lie:

Islamic militants linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban hated Bhutto for her close ties to the Americans and support for the war on terrorism. A local Taliban leader reportedly threatened to greet Bhutto's return to the country with suicide bombings.

That's a straight-up lie. First of all the Taliban has no claim on Pakistan; they are (ostensibly) Afghanis who are more concerned with fighting the Bush-puppet Hamad Karzai. Second, if al Qaeda truly hated Bush and the Americans they would target Musharraf, since he is Bush's closest and most powerful ally in Pakistan. Bhutto's death does nothing but strengthen his hand. The truth is that the CIA and the ISI worked together to train and create al Qaeda for bin Laden as a convenient scapegoat for anything and everything.

Now al Qaeda is getting the blame again. How convenient for a dictator like Musharraf (or Bush) to have a shadowy, ultra-evil organization to blame for everything. How convenient that al Qaeda apparently hates the same people that Bush and Musharraf do. How convenient that al Qaeda never seems to manage to kill right-wing hardliners but has amazing success with leftist pro-liberty politicians. How extremely fucking convenient.

The CIA/ISI/al-Qaeda axis is just a modern day Gestapo. They are an all-purpose assassination squad under control of the evil proto-fascist oligarchs who rule this planet.

It's time for people to wake up and see through the lies. How many more people have to die before we finally learn we're being played for fools?

UPDATE 12/28: The police charged with providing security for Bhutto left their posts shortly before the assassination.

Perhaps more shockingly, an attendee at the rally where Bhutto was killed says police charged with protecting her "abandoned their posts," leaving just a handful of Bhutto's own bodyguards protecting her.

As commenter pk_analyst points out below Bhutto was shot with an AK-47 rifle. Now the spinning, changing storylines and Big Lies come into play. In order to do a proper cover-up the authorities will have to eliminate the gun (many are saying she hit her head on some sort of lever instead of taking a bullet) and throw all the blame on mysertious al Qaeda members who may or may not even exist.

While some intelligence officials, especially within the US, were quick to finger al Qaeda militants as responsible for Bhutto's death, it remains unclear precisely who was responsible and some speculation has centered on Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, its military or even forces loyal to the current president Pervez Musharraf. Rawalpindi, where Bhutto was killed, is the garrison city that houses the Pakistani military's headquarters.

Just to be clear, "intelligence officials" almost certainly means "CIA officials." The CIA is busily spinning the press. This is misinformation, folks. You are being lied to indirectly by your government and somewhat unwittingly by the media. Just so you know.

The media finally covers Ron Paul

Oh wait, it's a total hatchet job:

Paul keeps white supremacist donation

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

The mainstream media (MSM) has no intention of covering the presidential race fairly. They plan to turn it into a horserace and throw the issues out the window.

I've written extensively about this before. From their incredible (and intentional) stupidity to their orthodox adherence to inanity the mainstream press apparatus is nothing more than a treasonous corporate whore. Glenn Greenwald has been covering this issue superbly as well.

It's been fascinating to watch the media blackout on Ron Paul. I mean, Pravda couldn't have done a better job at squashing stories about him, but the internet has provided Paul supporters a platform to spread the word. It's interesting to watch the media desperately try to keep a lid on his campaign even while he's breaking fundraising records.

The media still has to cover him, of course. A total blackout would be rather bizarre and would draw more attention than it would divert. However, the "subtle" blackout we've been subject to is obvious and suspicious nonetheless.

I should point out that I'm not a fervent Paulite. I don't like a lot of his conservative positions, but his opposition to the Federal Reserve certainly caught my attention. Apparently it caught the Oligarchy's attention too, which is why Dr. Paul is not getting any mainstream play.

You'll notice that even the mainstream outfits that do cover Paul tend to do it in their "blog section", which is exactly where I found the link above. That same blog post displays the most common way reporters deal with Paul; draw attention to his supporters and make them seem a little unhinged:

His legions of alert supporters scour the Internet for slights to right, frequently crudely, and any opportunities to promote their strict constructionist candidate. They dismiss the polls as slanted and the money-raising as the real indicator of the 72-year-old ob-gyn's growing national support among disaffected Republicans, Democrats and previous non-voters. The Times' James Rainey examined one Southern California meet-up group for Paul here.

We've written about these supporters here and examined hundreds of their comments here. No doubt there'll be some more to read down below here shortly.

Nice of them to examine the man's supports and their internet activities, but (and maybe I'm old fashioned here) what about his position on the issues?

Oh silly me. I forgot the Media has already decided that we'll be choosing between Hillary and Ghouliani.

But what if I want to live in a democracy?

The Police are Paid to "Protect and Serve" the Rich, Not You and Me

The recent spate of police brutality is no accident. It's not a freak coincidence, it's the way it's always been. Would I sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist if I said that the increasing militarization of the police is a carefully shepherded phenomena designed to slowly ensnare us in a web of oppression and fear? Well, I don't care, because them's the facts, man!

Four Recent Outrages
You've probably heard about the recent tasering of a U of Florida student who tried to ask John Kerry a few questions (but didn't seem interested in hearing an answer). The kid, Andrew Meyer, was being kind of a dick and he overreacted and basically caused that situation by freaking out (notice how the cops lept into action when he mentioned Skull and Bones). He is now famous for pleading "Don't Taze me, Bro!" shortly before he had 50,000 volts applied to his nuts.

This kid's annoying dorkiness doesn't absolve the police/security folks of responsibility. The fact that they tasered a guy who was subdued and on the ground is reprehensible. If you have six cops surrounding a suspect (who should've been escourted out, not arrested) there is absolutely no need to taser him.

Then there's an older video that just made it on Digg showing a police officer shooting an Air Force security officer at point blank range for no apparent reason. There was an investigation and a trial and -- (surprise!) Officer Ivory Webb was cleared on all counts.

Next we have the case of the delinquent granny who was finally brought to justice. Her crime? Not watering her lawn:

Betty Perry is charged with resisting arrest and failing to maintain her landscaping, both misdemeanors.

She was arrested July 6 after failing to give her name to a police officer who visited her home.

During a struggle, Perry fell and injured her nose. She spent more than an hour in a holding cell before police released her.

I bet we all feel safer with Ms. Perry behind bars.

If you think the police can't top that, think again. Next is the case of the wheelchair-bound schizophrenic:

Officers said they arrived to find Delafield in a wheelchair, armed with two knives and a hammer. Police said the woman was swinging the weapons at family members and police.

Within an hour of her call to 911, Delafield, a wheelchair-bound woman documented to have mental illness, was dead.

Family attorney Rick Alexander said Delafield's death could have been prevented and that there are four things that jump out at him about the case. "One, she's in a wheelchair. Two, she's schizophrenic. Three, they're using a Taser on a person that's in a wheelchair, and then four is that they tasered her 10 times for a period of like two minutes," Alexander said.

According to a police report, one of the officers used her Taser gun nine times for a total of 160 seconds and the other officer discharged his Taser gun once for a total of no more than five seconds.

Now, I'm sure that was a difficult situation, but I fail to see why it was necessary to taser an old woman in a wheelchair. Surely a person who can't walk can be restrained fairly easily. In fact, we know she was not a threat because the lady cop managed to shock her for a total of 160 seconds -- almost 3 minutes. And now she's dead.

A Fluke Spurt of Stupidity?
So where did I find all of these stories? Did I go to a site dedicated to monitoring police brutality like CopWatch?

No. I found them all on Digg. All on the same page!

Now, this is no doubt more than normal, but it points to a larger problem in our society: The police are out of control.

And that's exactly the way certain people want it.

The Real Role of Cops
You see, there's a common misconception about police. Some people (mostly white, middle class folks) think that the police are here to "protect and serve" everybody. But notice that their motto doesn't say anything about protecting everybody, or even treating everybody equally. It's conspicuous by its absence, in fact.

The truth is that the police are paid to protect and serve the ruling class and the ruling class mostly needs protection from the underclass.

America is a classist society, just like the U.K. or India. The rich and poor divide is sometimes as stark as the difference between slums and condos. Poor people naturally get angry and even violent when they realize that their situation is completely hopeless. No amount of hard work will get you rich when your only job skills are burger-flipping and bathroom-scrubbing. So sometimes the poor take matters into their own hands and try to steal something from the rich. That's where the police come in. If you rob a house or steal a car you will be arrested; simple as that.

But what happens when the rich steal from the poor?

For the most part: Nothing. The elite can literally write our laws with a few well-placed campaign contributions. They can make their left illegal while they continually try to box the underclass in with obscene violations of the first amendment like free speech zones. The elite ghettoize our inner cities, offshore our jobs, make helpful drugs illegal, send our children to die in pointless wars, kill all those who stand in their way and terrorize the rest of us with servile propaganda and there's not a goddamn thing anyone of us can do about it.

Asside from high-profile cases like Enron, the elite are completely free to run wild and reshape society to their liking. And the way they seem to like it is: The rich can do whatever they want, the poor and middle class must be monitored constantly and arrested instantly if they step out line.

The police subconsciously know this. They know that becoming a cop grants them power over others, but they seem to know not to abuse this power when it comes to rich people.

You don't see a bunch of people in Lexuses getting pulled over on Cops. That's not because they're not speeding and not doing anything illegal. I bet there's a lot of cocaine in a lot of glove compartments in a lot of Lexuses (would that be "Lexi"?). But the cops know better than to fuck with the rich. The rich have lawyers, they have friends in the force, they have resources and most important, they know politicians who can put the squeeze on the captain and get you reassigned to guarding the Taco Bell.

Poor people have none of these connections or resources.

It's fine with the rich if you want to oppress poor folk; in fact it's pretty much encouraged. The rich know that by giving the cops special privileges they can secure the fealty of the police. So the police are permitted to act like they own the place as long as they don't step on the toes of the elite -- the only people who outrank the cops in our society.

So the real role of cops in society is to protect the elite from the underclass, which includes the middle class, but the middle class is mostly pacified by TV, material goods and beer. The police are free to get their jollies off by knocking a few heads together as long as they don't beat up the son of somebody powerful. The elite like how the cops are hated and feared by the poor and respected and feared by the middle class. This gives the elite free reign since the cops fear and respect the upper class, the only group of people more powerful that themselves.

The Militarization of the Police
Gang members know the police as just another gang; a more powerful one, but a gang nonetheless. But the people who control the police (the elite, if you haven't been paying attention) are increasingly arming the police as if they were a standing army. The militarization of the police has occurred mostly over the last 50 years and is spurred by two bullshit ideological wars: The War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

The police in most major now have enough armament to invade and occupy a small country. Hell, we could've sent our cops to Iraq and they probably would have done a better job at containing the populace since they're more thoroughly trained for that sort of thing than the army. That's no accident. The cops are an army; an army of the elite. Their enemy, let there be no doubt, is you.

The plan is to make America into a fascist state: Amerika. They started slowly and carefully, and as they've gained strength the police have gradually been let off their leash, but the end result is inevitable: a police state.

It's not like this hasn't happened before. In the late 1800s and early 1900s this country was consumed by labor strife. The Socialist Party was founded to look after worker's right and communism was gaining strength because the Robber Barons' form of capitalism was so completely corrupt that there was no difference between the Government and Big Business (sound familiar?).

Hand of the Oligarchy
The Rockefellers basically controlled this country like it was theirs. When they had labor troubles they simply called in the police. The police busted heads and smashed the ranks of the striking workers and forced them to return to work for pitiful wages. The idea that the police can act as an arm of the Oligarchy is unfortunately not a new one. Things got better for awhile, but now we seem to headed right back to where we were a hundred years ago.

If anything the propaganda is a hundred times better now; many people think the police are there to protect everyone, but that simply isn't the case. In many poor neighborhoods, if you call the cops they might show up four hours later. The nicer your neighborhood, the quicker the response. Many poor folks don't even bother calling the cops. This, again, is not a new phenomenon: in fact, that's how the Mafia got its start. The Italian and Irish Mobs began because a person of Italian or Irish descent could not expect to be treated fairly under the law. They knew that they had to take care of each other or nobody would; certainly the cops were more likely to beat you over the head with a baton than listen to your tale of woe. Like our current gang troubles the Irish Mafia was made possible by Prohibition. When a popular product is made illegal it can be extremely lucrative for those on the wrong side of the law; so much so that they can buy influence on the other side of the law and corrupt the entire system in the process.

Now the blacks are the new Irish and they have no pull with the cops, even though many black people are on the force (just like with the Irish). The difference is that the cops look after each other first, regardless of ethnicity. Once you are a cop you belong to a special club which is virtually above the law. As long as you don't violate the Blue Code of Silence you can expect to reap the rewards of being superior to the underclass.

Tale of the Tasers
The weapons a cop receives are a totem to his power over others. Normal people are not allowed to openly carry dangerous weapons around, especially as the second amendment has been eroded. An officer's gun identifies him as a member of a powerful group and symbolizes his social superiority and separateness from the masses.

Tasers are the new nightsticks. Cops will use a taser at the drop of a hat because it makes compliance push-button easy. It should be noted that taser are not nonlethal; they are "less lethal" which is how I would describe a knife versus a gun. In no way are tasers harmless; they've been responsible for hundreds of deaths in the last few years.

Between tasers, pepper spray, nightsticks and ray guns the police have all sorts of "less lethal" devices to ensure submission. Add in handguns, shotguns and the heavy artillery used by SWAT teams and you have enough firepower to conquer a major rebellion... which seems to be the plan.

The Oligarchy seems to be expecting trouble from us, the unruly populace. I can only wonder why, but perhaps they know how foul and oppressive their policies are. If so, they can't plead ignorance to our plight; they are in fact responsible for it. The Oligarchy has no love for democracy; they clearly prefer fascism; it's so much more convenient. Sadly, many Americans agree.

But you know, "oligarchy", "fascism", "democracy" and "freedom" are just big, abstract concepts. At the end of the day it all comes down to what we experience in the world. This video is but a small example of the arrogance and violent entitlement that many cops feel:



Cops see their badge as a license to take the law into their own hands. Don't like the customer service you've received? Pepper-spray'em and arrest'em. If any of us did the same thing we would be in jail for a long time, but this cop got off scot free. There's justice for you; Amerikan-style.

Was Pat Tillman eliminated to silence a powerful anti-war voice?

It's looking more and more like Pat Tillman was murdered -- executed if you will. The incredible revelations were revealed in a new AP story that doesn't draw any conclusions, but whose fresh details paint a picture of an Army-wide cover-up and an execution-style assassination. From Yahoo:

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

10 yards away? How do you fuck up so badly that you manage to put 3 bullets -- in a tight grouping -- in the head of a fellow Ranger? It doesn't seem very likely, especially when there was zero evidence of enemy fire. That means that they were not in the fog of war and the confusion that follows from it.

It's also worth noting that the Tillman story has changed several times. First, he was killed by enemy fire. Then he was killed by friendly-fire. Now it seems the "friendly" might have been aiming right at him.

Who would want Tillman dead, and why? Prison Planet has some theories:

The evidence points directly to it and the motivation is clear - Tillman abandoned a lucrative career in pro-football immediately after 9/11 because he felt a rampaging patriotic urge to defend his country, and became a poster child for the war on terror as a result. But when he discovered that the invasion of Iraq was based on a mountain of lies and deceit and had nothing to do with defending America, he became infuriated and was ready to return home to become an anti-war hero.

As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion, Tillman famously told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, "You know, this war is so fucking illegal," and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. Far from the gung-ho gruff stereotype attributed to him, Tillman was actually a fiercely intellectual man with the courage of his convictions firmly in place.

Tillman had even begun to arrange meetings with anti-war icons like Noam Chomsky upon his return to America before his death cut short any aspirations of becoming a focal point for anti-war sentiment.

This is the last thing the Bush/Cheney administration needed. Could they have possibly given the order to assassinate Tillman and then cover it up?

Former presidential candidate Wesley Clark said he thought the orders to whack Tillman must've come from the very top. Tillman could've become an anti-war voice much more resonant among men and conservatives than Cindy Sheehan. He represented a threat precisely because of his service, his life story and his fierce, questioning intelligence. The latest (and most pathetic) propaganda seems designed to paint Pat as an atheist to undermine America's trust in him:

But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed.

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

If there was no enemy fire, why were they on the ground? How do we know this account wasn't completely fabricated? I think Congress needs to talk to the doctors and investigators who attempted to pursue the homicide angle, but were stymied.

How come all of these anti-war people tend to die mysteriously?

How the Media and the Democrats are Betraying America on Impeachment

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; they'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?

Class War with a Pink Gun

I happened to read this story about rich girls' Sweet 16 parties in a month-old copy of Time.

The protagonists' excesses alone make for lurid, enjoyably outraged viewing. (Surely one celebrant's decision to dye her poodles pink should have prompted a call to the A.S.P.C.A.) A precocious celebutant makes her entrance via helicopter. A self-proclaimed "divo" (like diva but different) rents out the mall to stage a faux fashion show (prompting a backstage catfight over a limited supply of bustiers). There are hired dancers, a raj-like litter hoisted by hand-picked hotties and an apparent contractual obligation for someone to arrive in a stretch Hummer. I had no idea so many stretch Hummers even existed. No wonder we had to go to war in Iraq.

The series is like an infomercial for class war, and should the revolution come, an episode guide will provide a handy, illustrated list of who should go up against the wall. My Super Sweet 16 had its third-season premiere last week, building up to the broadcast with a drumroll of conspicuous consumption: four two-hour blocks of episodes drawn from the show's previous seasons. To witness such unself-conscious acquisitiveness in one sitting is like eating an entire normal-kid birthday-party sheet cake, wax decorative candles and all. There's the same queasy sense of monochromatic excess because all the shows are alike, from the fake panic that the party may not happen to the scary-sexy dry humping on the dance floor. And no matter what the nominal theme of the party--California beach party, Moulin Rouge, the color pink--each guest of honor is really after only one thing. "I feel famous. I love it," says one. Another: "I definitely felt like I was famous." Yet one more: "I felt like such a star." The teenagers take on all the tics of fame, from tiny dogs to referring to oneself in the third person. We are all Paris Hilton now.

Not all of us, Ana. Not all of us by a long shot.

The pure god-awful greed and selfishness of these teens (and their feel-guilty-about-working-too-much parents) is appalling and disgusting.

You know, rich people and Republicans often accuse people of "waging class warfare" if somebody dares to point out how excessive and venal the rich act, especially their children. That's such a bullshit argument. It's the rich who are waging class warfare, not the poor. The rich are the ones who create poverty (it's called "not sharing" to the Nth degree) by exploiting workers, keeping minimum wage low generally structuring society and government so that it enriches themselves instead of everybody else. Those of us who are in the middle class should feel lucky we live in such a great country, I suppose, but it's really just a comfy version of poverty compared with the awesome wealth of the upper class. I mean, they can buy lear jets. Fucking lear jets, man. That costs more just to maintain in a year than most of us make the whole year.

So if anybody ever accuses you of waging class warfare by pointing out how selfish and nihilistic the rich kids are behaving, tell them to fuck off and get a clue. The rich are the ones who start all of our wars, figurative or otherwise. Not us peasants. We have no power as they like to point out when we try to change things (otherwise, politicians love to assure us that we have the power. Is that why so many of us are working for minimum wage?).

Well fuck Paris Hilton, that shrewish demon slut. We all know how vacuous the rich girls are now. They've been spoiled rotten by the money they never earned, so in a way I'm not jealous of them at all. But it would be nice to have a huge stash of resources to fall back on when times got tough. I'd like to have a house by a lake or river or ocean. But if acting like spoiled little shits is the price, I'll take poverty, thanks. I guess even being rich isn't free.

MTV is such a filthstream of elitist fascism and meta-satanic imagery that I doubt I could ever watch this show for more than 5 minutes. This is how Satan would raise his daughters; so spoiled you can smell her a million miles away. Obviously, the show is fake and staged, but the bullgod-worshipping creditcard-celebrity is real. Just buy happiness, kids!

My parents used to dislike MTV because it had suggestive videos and weird music. Now I hate MTV because it has corporate fascism, wealth-worshipping depraved materialism and shitty, shitty music, when it has music at all, which is during commercials.

I can only assume that the devil himself is the guy running MTV. It's that bad. I'd rather watch the pope take a shit for 12 hours than watch a half hour of MTV. I'd watch the pope thing even if it had praying and a toilet-cam. Now that's fucking gross, right? That's how bad MTV's sex-obsessed materialism grosses me out. It actually makes me feel ill. And not Beastie Boys ill; the bad kind.

//||baaarrrfff!!||\
Reasons why I don't have a TV, number 3143.

I guess you could ask why I get so upset over materialism and flagrant displays of sickening money-flaunting. Honestly, I don't know. I guess I'm just a spiritual person and so materialism seems like the enemy to me. Especially given my Gnostic outlook.

The weirdist thing to me, though, is the fact that the poor kids will watch these shows religiously. And that's their fault. If you're stupid enough to watch eMpTV, then you deserve to feel bad about yourself. Hell, that's the whole point of MTV.

So why the fuck do they watch it? Cheap thrills, I suppose. Now turn the channel before I vomit.