Friday, June 11

There Are Not Plenty Of Fish Left In The Sea 

When you look at the world politically presidentially wise, who do we have that supposedly represents us from the opposite sides of the boxing ring: John Kerry and George W. Bush? Who made this situation come to be reality? Probably just a few people. Who, as Americans, are we and what do we want?

We do far more amazing and talented things for this country than those clods ever possibly could for us.

As we are defeated, what do we do?

I'll tell you what we should do, and that is to raise hell.

It's an impossible impasse at which we have arrived but yet we are being directed to cross it to our own detriment.

We are the victims, not them. Why do we have to go through this every four years? Let's tear down that impasse.

That means MASS OBJECTION. In other words, I object SOO strongly to what you are giving us that I am going to disrupt this whole terrible dilemma for which you are largely responsible, Democrats.

Recently I spoke to a young man who had supported Howard Dean. Then Howard Dean was destroyed by the "liberal media". This young man I spoke to, as a consequence to what he has been served up by the Democratic National Party, simply is not going to vote this year.

Well, THANK YOU, Democratic Party, for giving young people a candidate they could never possibly vote for.

You mindless, muddled, fearful jerks!

When a young person describes himself as a "moderate" and in the same breath then says he'd support Howard Dean 100%, then, Democratic Party, you've just lost a hell of a lot of young people, I'd say hundreds of thousands of young people.

"Howard Dean's supporters were mostly liberal". WRONG, media. That's a myth created by the few that own New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post!

Howard Dean's supporters were from a very broad spectrum of the American public. His supporters came from people who NEVER voted..

They came from voters who were both young and old.

They came from voters who were young and who were almost all Republican but who had never voted.

And last but not least, Howard Dean's voters came from people that were Republicans but who could not find a candidate today they could support, except of course for Howard Dean. This amazing list includes my father who voted for Reagan and Bush #1 and has not voted for a Democrat in the past 40 years. He said he would have voted for Howard Dean.

Guess what? My father's not going to vote for a Democrat at all in 2004. And neither am I, nor the rest of my family, nor my friend.

That's 7 votes you've just lost, Democrats!!!

  (0) comments

White House Decided to Put Troops At Risk 

Our pals at the AP report that the White House was told that there were two paths to take, and one would put roops at risk. Guess which one they chose?

The State Department warned the White House two years ago that rejecting international standards against torture when dealing with detainees could put U.S. troops at risk.

A department memo from Feb. 2, 2002, surfaced Thursday as President Bush said he ordered U.S. officials to follow the law while interrogating suspected terrorists. Bush sidestepped an opportunity to denounce the use of torture.

'What I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law,' Bush told reporters at the close of the G-8 summit in Georgia.

Asked whether torture is ever justified, Bush replied, 'Look, I'm going to say it one more time. ... The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you."

Yes, very comforting. So was the memo authorizing him to act as a king and ignore the other branches of government. Was this before or after the formation of the shadow executive branch that no one mentions?

See, we need to torture people but prevent others from torturing us. No one said we would play fair. We're America, and he's President for Life Bush.

  (0) comments

Thursday, June 10

The Reagan Years: Twisting the Truth For The Record 

As Reagan's casket was being flown to our nation's capitol, the chief editors of the Washington Post probably decided that they had better address what was becoming a reader backlash of dangerous proportions who were voicing their outrage and disgust with the recent, newly revised, hopeful and uplifting articles in praise of the Reagan era. So it ran a short story on Page 8 of today's paper about how the people of Central America remember Reagan.

The entire article is essentially a quote vs. quote tennis game of fairly innocuous remarks of those who loved Reagan (who now are in power) and those who hated him (who are not in power because the other side won with U.S. backing).

But having just read a book on U.S. foreign policy objectives in Central America during the 1980s and the media coverage or lack thereof, I think it's important not to quote people involved in the struggle for power who took sides during bloody Civil Wars, but to examine how the the U.S. media covered it all during that decade when Reagan escalated violence in the region.

The following selection is from "Necessary Illusions" and the chapter entitled "Adjuncts of Government". The author, Noam Chomsky (MIT Professor of Linguistics), begins with a quote from Senator William Fulbright, who said in 1966, as the Vietnam War was in full swing, "It is very interesting that so many of our prominent newspapers have become almost agents or adjuncts of the government; that they do not contest or even raise questions about government policy."

Prof. Chomsky has spent practically all of his lifetime analyzing the media and how they cover U.S. foreign policy around the world. This is how he responded to Sen. Fulbright's claim in 1989:

"These remarks are not precisely accurate: the media do contest and raise questions about government policy, but they do so almost exclusively within the framework determined by the essentially shared interests of state-corporate power. Divisions among elites are reflected in media debate, but departure from their narrow consensus is rare. It is true that the incumbent state managers commonly set the media agenda. But if policy fails, or is perceived to be harmful to powerful interests, the media will often "contest government policy" and urge different means to achieve goals that remain beyond challenge or, quite often, even awareness.

To illustrate, I have reviewed a few samples of the media's contributions to the government project of "demonizing the Sandinistas" while praising the violent terror states backed or directly installed by the United States in the region. With all the skepticism I have personally developed through studying media performance over many years, I had not expected that they would rise to this challenge. When writing in 1985 about the Reaganite disinformation programs concerning Central America, I did not compare Nicaragua to El Salvador and Guatemala to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the charges (where they were not outright lies); that seemed an insult to the reader's intelligence. Instead, I compared the allegations concerning Nicaragua with the behavior of the "model democracy" of Israel during the same period and that of the United States itself in wartime conditions, showing that the Sandinista record was respectable by these -- admittedly, not very impressive -- standards. But my assessment of the media was naive. Within a year they had succeeded in portraying the murderous U.S. clients as progressive if flawed democracies, while the Sandinistas, guilty of no crime that even begins to approach those of Washington's favorites, had become the very embodiment of evil."

You can read the rest of the chapter at Zmag's web site:


  (0) comments

Wednesday, June 9

Bush Team Gets Away With It 

The AP is telling us that the 9-11 Commission Report won't blame anyone:

"The commissioners who spoke to the AP said the panel wants to avoid blaming individuals to avert charges of partisanship that could undermine their work.

'We're going to say everything we need to say, but there's not going to be a political gotcha,' said Republican commissioner Slade Gorton, a former senator from Washington. 'It's very important that it be factual and leave major conclusions to the people of the United States. There are huge numbers of facts which are not in dispute.'"

You know, let Americans draw their own conclusions, like with UFO's and the Kennedy assasination.

Yes, no reason to blame Rice for not reading any reports or doing anything. Wasn't Bush's fault that he acted like he knew it was coming. Not that Ashcroft had his laundry list of Patriot Act laws written and ready to implement. Couldn't be Wolfowitz or Cheney who wrote a report hoping for a "Pearl Harbor" style calamity to unite the population on a war camapign. Nope. Nada. Not them. Don't want to be partisan.

Everyone knows that if you lay blame where it belongs and it all belongs with this administration, then it is partisan, and that can't be allowed.

  (0) comments

Tuesday, June 8

Worried Village People 

The people of Sea Island, Georgia are scared s***less. Why?

Because, as the BBC reports today, "leaders of the G8 member countries are gathering in Sea Island, Georgia, amid tight security for the start of their annual summit."


Every time the G8 comes to town it's as if everybody starts following the signals beamed out from their television to now be afraid.

Local news and radio stations run propaganda about possible terror attacks, gangs of "violent" anarchists and protestors, daily images of stores and private property being pelted with rocks.

And the locals buy it all. They shut down, board up, lose two days' of business all for what? So they can allow the rich and powerful rulers of the world to scare them into running into their homes like little moles running into their holes.

The police display their swanky full-length "Darth Vader" uniforms. Hey, did you ever wonder where George Lucas got the look for his Stormtroopers? It wasn't the Nazi outfits, it was riot police.

Anyway, back to Sea Island, or on second thought, who wants to go there? Thanks, rich and powerful rulers of the world, for letting me know to stay away.

  (1) comments

Exxon Says Independence From Oil A Myth 

The AP tells us that Exxon knows we must always use oil. There is simply no other alternative. We have used it since the dawn of humankind and will use it forever into the future:

"The idea of American energy independence is a myth and the United States must maintain 'constructive relationships' with oil-producing countries for its own prosperity, the head of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil Corp. said Monday night.

'We do not have the resource base to be energy independent,' Exxon Mobil chairman Lee R. Raymond said in a speech in which he outlined some of what he called the 'hard truths' about global energy markets."

Yes, a myth. You know, a made up story that we place false meaning in. The hard truth is we must use oil. It is the only way to heat up water to turn to steam to make electricity. It is the only way a vehicle can be powered. Homes are exclusively heated with oil and always will be.

Coke also made a statement. "The idea of Pespi independence is a myth," it began.

  (0) comments

Monday, June 7

Kucinich, the only Democrat that still cares? 

While the nation's media mourns Reagan's death, there's a lone campaigner still running for delegates, and at 70 delegates and counting, Dennis Kucinich may have a platform for this year's Democratic Convention.

It's been reported in the Washington Post (and I know I'm not supposed to link to those guys anymore), that the honorable Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is making it a point to continue to campaign in the sectors of our country considered down and out.

Before enthusiastic, mostly teenaged, throngs of people, Kucinich drives his point home, i.e. there should be a Department of Peace, a la non-violent principles taught by Gandhi, and that this nation should get the hell out of Iraq immediately.


So yes, Democrat, there is a Democrat and his name is Kucinich, Dennis Kucinich and he's running for President.

  (0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?