Showing posts with label Bill O'Reilly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill O'Reilly. Show all posts

Friday, October 08, 2010

An Alternative to Tyranny: Restore the Fairness Doctrine

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The right wing is lying to you again. They have rolled out the media, which they now own, to tell you, to brainwash you, to intimidate you into believing that if the Fairness Doctrine is restored, you won't have free speech anymore. That is an egregious, bald-faced lie!

You don't have free speech NOW but only because you no longer have access to media. You might have had effective free speech if the Fairness Doctrine had not been trashed by Ronald Reagan, Reagan-heads and wing nuts.

Today --the airwaves are no longer yours; the 'airwaves' are owned by about five or six huge conglomerates which oppose fairness because, it is absurdly and fallaciously said that it would infringe their rights of 'free speech'. The only rights that have been infringed are YOURS!

What about your rights?

I can answer that: you are 'outta luck'! What had been your rights are denied you and given to big corporations with but a stroke of a pen! That just five or six corporations may exercise 'free speech' while you, a real living, breathing person may not is the inevitable, perhaps defining result of fascism.
When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from preelection plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti-John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn't triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair backpedaled because its stock was tanking.

The staunchly conservative broadcaster's plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair's stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04).

But if fairness mattered little to Sinclair, the news that a corporation that controlled more TV licenses than any other could put the publicly owned airwaves to partisan use sparked discussion of fairness across the board, from media democracy activists to television industry executives.

--Steve Rendall, The Fairness Doctrine: How we lost it, and why we need it back
I wish Randall had entitled his article: FREE SPEECH: How we lost it and why we need it back! Fact is, there is no freedom of speech if it is reserved to just one percent of the population. That is the case today!

And it was so easy to deny you both free speech and fairness! Access that had been yours by right of free speech [First Amendment] and affirmed by law [Fairness Doctrine] was denied you with the stroke of Ronald Reagan's pen!

Huge corporations, now called 'real people' by a deluded, psychopathic SCOTUS which believes that only the very, very, very rich have rights like free speech. Because you are not rich, you must be silent. Because you cannot afford the millions of dollars it would require to buy the 'time' that is wasted by the likes of demagogues Billo Really? and Rush 'Lard Ass' Limbaugh, an opposing view, or even a correction of outright lies, is simply not possible.

Big Brother lives!

As a major market News Director, I administered the Fairness Doctrine which ensured that everyone, every group had a voice on the very airwaves that the Communications Act of 1934 said belonged to the people. Just try to get on the air today. Telling them that you worship and adore the marble bust of Reagan won't make any difference. You are just as out of luck as the rest of of us.

The domination of media by corporate power is a defining characteristic of fascism. A Fairness Doctrine was necessary to prevent the corporate/fascist powers form dominating public airwaves. It worked! Labor once had a voice! Dissenters once had a voice!

Progressives/Democrats once had a voice! Labor had a voice! And today --you don't have a voice! I don't call this outcome 'free speech' and I am incensed by the orchestrated campaign of lies that tell you that the 'Fairness Doctrine' is anti-free speech! George Orwell must be rolling in his grave!

That only legal abstractions may exercise free speech on what had been your 'property', I call a violation of the First Amendment. There is no 'freedom of speech' if only one percent, a ruling one percent of the total population, may exercise it.
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) that required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public importance and to do so in a fair manner. Issues of public importance were not limited to political campaigns. Nuclear plant construction, workers’ rights, and other issues of focus for a particular community could gain the status of an issue that broadcasters were required to cover.

Therefore, the Fairness Doctrine was distinct from the so-called “equal time” rule, which requires broadcasters to grant equal time to qualified candidates for public office, because the Fairness Doctrine applied to a much broader range of topics. In 1987, after a period of study, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC found that the doctrine likely violated the free speech rights of broadcasters, led to less speech about issues of public importance over broadcast airwaves, and was no longer required because of the increase in competition among mass media.

The repeal of the doctrine did not end the debate among lawmakers, scholars, and others about its constitutionality and impact on the availability of diverse information to the public. The debate in Congress regarding whether to reinstate the doctrine continues today. In the 109th Congress, bills such as H.R. 3302 were introduced to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. In the 111th Congress, the proposed legislation related to the Fairness Doctrine would prohibit the FCC from reinstating it.

--CRS Report for Congress
Trashing the Fairness Doctrine is but one of many lingering harms inflicted upon us by one Ronald Reagan. Reagan is no hero. Read the Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters. Reagan ARMED Iran which was --at the time --an enemy of the United States. By law, that makes, Reagan a traitor. See FINDLAW or the Cornell University Law library online. As we have come to expect from right wing regimes, the laws that apply to you, do not apply to the rich, the powerful or to those entities newly 'created' people by SCOTUS:
In terms of abstract doctrine, the law of treason condemns anyone who owes allegiance to the U.S., who adheres to U.S. enemies, and who gives them aid and comfort by an overt act to which two witnesses testify. As courts have applied that doctrine, however, it threatens any citizen or resident of the U.S. who publicly expresses disloyal sentiments. The Internet has made it cheap, easy, and dangerous to publish such sentiments. It hosts many an expression that an eager prosecutor could cite both as proof of adherence to U.S. enemies—a subjective state of mind—and as proof of an overt act giving them aid and comfort—an objective fact to which any two of the expression’s readers could testify. Even if no prosecutions for treason arise, the alarmingly broad yet ill-defined reach of the law of treason threatens to unconstitutionally chill innocent dissent.

--Tom W. Bell, TREASON, TECHNOLOGY, AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Clearly, Ronald Reagan and many throughout our government at various times since the right of the rabid 'right wing' have committed treason as it is legally defined. Should you try it, you will be prosecuted. That different laws, standards and procedures apply to you even as you are denied a voice upon what had been publically owned airwaves is tyranny!

I have defended the Fairness Doctrine on principle. But there is yet another case to be made. The Fairness Doctrine is essential, it is 'needed' as a practical matter. That so many have never heard of the Fairness Doctrine and at last as many misunderstand it, it proof that the corporate media has not and is not informing the population. Cynically, the ruling elites, just one percent of the total population, prefer to keep you ignorant, uninformed. Better to deny your rights; better to enslave you; better to effect the corporation domination which has, in fact, enriched a ruling one percent of the total population.


Edward R. Murrow: Restore the Fairness Doctrine


Dennis Kucinich on Fairness

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

How Much Was Fox Paid to Shill Bush's War Crime in Iraq?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The many lies told by Fox and Bill O'Reilly are probable cause to suspect Fox of criminal complicity with the Bush regime. It is reasonable to suspect that Fox is called Bush's "propaganda ministry" because it is Bush's propaganda ministry. Bush may yet stand trial for war crimes and mass murder. But what of his enablers inside his 'propaganda ministry'? It is reasonable to ask how many members of the Fox board, how many executives, how many on-camera shills share Bush's guilt for having perpetrated a murderous lie upon the American people and the world.

It boils down to a legal term: quid pro quo --the word given a 'transaction', an agreement that an item or a service is returned for something of value. Certainly, throughout Bush's war of aggression against Iraq, a war crime in which some 4000 US service personnel were sacrificed upon a bald faced lie, the relationship between Fox and Bush has been symbiotic and conspiratorial. Fox is thus motivated to convince you that 'conspiracies' do not exist though most US case law and SCOTUS decisions have to do with conspiracies of one sort or another.

There is probable cause to suspect, that Bush and Fox achieved agreement upon a quid pro quo! Fox is Bush's propaganda ministry and, if so, the members of the board of directors and key executives may be considered war criminals just as Goebbels was so considered during the Third Reich.

To be fair, FOX has not confined its venal reporting to a decade that will be recalled as the era of Bush atrocities and war crimes! Fox was under investigation by the ITC (Independent Television Commission) back in the 90s, specifically nine complaints by viewers of Sky Digital satellite, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, the evil godfather of Fox! Fox's jingoistic support of Bush's war crime in Iraq, however, cries out to be investigated by a federal panel with powers to subpoena.

Fox does not merely slant the news; it makes it up! Keith Olbermann and Robert Greenwald expose the truth about Fox lies. Fair and balanced? I have a better slogan for FOX. BUNKUM AND BULLSHIT!

If I were on a Federal Grand Jury investigating Bush's capital war crimes, I would insist that 'we' issue subpoenas to Fox execs, perhaps Murdoch himself! In support, I would argue that no investigation of Bush's war crimes could possibly be complete unless the propaganda matrix that made it all possible is likewise investigated thoroughly. We would want to ask them --while they are under oath --just what is in it for Fox to make up news favorable to Bush?

What, for example, was Fox paid to orchestrate billions of dollars in 'free' publicity in support of Bush's war crimes in Iraq? To what 'quid pro quo' did Fox agree for its support of an oil war known to be obscenely profitable for the Military/Industrial complex? We know how the armaments manufacturers 'get paid' for supporting wars of aggression and other war crimes! I want to know how media whores and parasites get their share of the kill!

I want to ask Rupert Murdoch --while he is under oath --how he benefits personally by presiding over a news organization that makes up the news.

A timely subpoena might cough up thousands of emails revealing how Fox conspired with Bush to defraud Americans and the world. There is a bigger story here than a single memo. What is Murdoch's specific connection to the Bush crime syndicate? Who got paid? When? And how much? How? What was the quid pro quo?

Murdoch-owned Fox wants you to think its cover 'patriotic' --but it's not. Lies told to enable a traitor are treasonous. There is nothing patriotic about lying to the American people and the world in support of and on behalf of war criminals! There is nothing patriotic about conspiring to grease the wheels for Bushco's theft of Iraqi oil! There is nothing patriotic about sending US troops to die for Bush's vainglorious visions of conquest and oil theft. There is nothing patriotic about Fox's support of Bush's disdain for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, documents that Bush was sworn to uphold and did not! Bush, in fact, put his hand on the black book and lied through his teeth.

At market rates for network air time, Fox has most certainly supported Bush to the tune of $billions$. FOX's foray into NFL football came at a price --almost 2 billion dollars. The move made upstart Fox a major player with CBS, ABC and NBC. Are we to believe now that Murdoch has simply given away valuable network air time to the likes of war criminals? Murdoch is not suspected of having compunctions. The point is --Murdoch is in it for the bucks.

Media is now 'unfair' because the 'Fairness Doctrine' came under attack during the Reagan years. By 1990, the FCC had abandoned many rules and procedures that might have prevented broadcasters from using their stations in service to blatant propaganda or ideology. This Reagam-era mania for 'de-regulation' made it possible for Murdoch to build an entire network around outright lies!

The objective of the 'Fairness Doctrine' was, rather, the preservation of all points of view, a requirement enforced by an FCC mandate. De-regulation, however, eliminated guidelines for non-entertainment programming. The FCC justified it all with bureaucrat-speak. Fox was thus 'set free' to propagandize and brainwash! The era of the 'media whore' was ushered in.

Bill O'Reilly stated: 'Flat out lies should be confronted.' 'Confronted' is surely O'Reilly-speak for 'embraced'. 'O brave new world, that hath such people in it'!
Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I’ve been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began.

Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents. Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad. Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war. The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets [ ]s.

March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.

March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."

[After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me to tell me I was unqualified to assess defense matters because I wasn't a "defense analyst" (never mind that the article wasn't on the war, and the "real" defense experts made one wrong prediction after another on this war). It's interesting how these sniveling Frumsters cheer on the college-uneducated Hannity and Limbaugh when they make defense analyses supporting the neocon view. I do know enough to say that the informed Bevelacqua's suggestion that a MOAB would be used on a bunker was puzzling to say the least (given the reports of less-than-dazzling performance of daisy cutters outside caves in Tora Bora). Anyway, later reports confirmed that GBU-28 bunker busters were used during The Decapitation That Apparently Failed.]

March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.

[Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network. She began one segment with a "Hi there!" – in no response to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York. Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the wind. Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g., Bagh-DAD’). The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like her not for her professionalism – she has none – but because of her innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she's a typical young piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands fantasize about.]

...

"... stating that "marketplace solutions can be consistent with public interest concerns," [FN100] that "significant amounts of nonentertainment programming of a variety of types will continue on radio," [FN101] and that "stations will continue to present such programming as a response to market forces." [FN102] In the same proceeding, the Commission eliminated the requirement that stations conduct ascertainment studies to determine the problems and needs of their communities. [FN103] It dismissed concerns that free market competition would tend to limit broadcasters in their assessment of community problems to those of the economically significant segments of the community, [FN104] and left the methods of assessing community problems and needs to broadcasters' "good faith discretion." [FN105] In this proceeding, the Commission also eliminated its commercial guidelines, [FN106] stating that marketplace forces would more effectively curb excessive advertising [FN107] and that "[n]o government regulation should continue unless it achieves some public interest objective that cannot be achieved without the regulation." [FN108] [Pace University School of Law, Summer, 1990. Marc Sophos] Also [Deregulation] [Fairness Doctrine] [Fox Bias]

The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel, broadcast on Sky Digital satellite, also controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

Dale Steinreich, Fibbing It Up at Fox
Admittedly, I did not follow the following 'non' story. But, as I am writing about Fox, it may be appropriate here.
NEW YORK - Fox News dropped its lawsuit against Al Franken on Monday, three days after a federal judge refused to block the liberal humorist from using the Fox slogan "Fair and Balanced" on the cover of his latest book. ...

"It's time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he's normally accustomed to," Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.

-- Fox News Drops Lawsuit Against Al Franken
Hey, Fox! I am using two perfectly good English words that you 'claim' belong to you. Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced! Fair and Balanced!

So ---sue me!

Fox has a 'blog' (wink, wink) called 'Embed producers'. It proves that Psychopaths Rule the World. I wonder -- How Much Was Fox Paid to Shill Bush's War Crime in Iraq?. Embed Producers is not a blog! It's idiots paid by Fox to write bullshit! What a career!

Saturday, January 12, 2008

What If Bill O'Reilly Really Were On the Supreme Court?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
If I’m on the Supreme Court, as I should be, I say what is the down side of having somebody prove who they are [when they come to vote]?

--Bill O'Reilly, Quoted on Think Progress, emphasis mine, EC

If Billo were on the Supreme Court, he might harass Ruth Badar Ginsburg as he, in fact, harassed a Fox producer:
"So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda' kissing your neck from behind...and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'd just put it on your p***y but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business..." --as quoted in a sexual harassment suit filed against him by a Fox News producer, 2004 (Source)

OCTOBER 13--Hours after Bill O'Reilly accused her of a multimillion dollar shakedown attempt, a female Fox News producer fired back at the TV star today, filing a lawsuit claiming that he subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. Below you'll find a copy of Andrea Mackris's complaint, an incredible page-turner that quotes O'Reilly, 55, on all sorts of lewd matters. Based on the extensive quotations cited in the complaint, it appears a safe bet that Mackris, 33, recorded some of O'Reilly's more steamy soliloquies. For example, we direct you to his Caribbean shower fantasies. While we suggest reading the entire document, TSG will point you to interesting sections on a Thailand sex show, Al Franken, and the climax of one August 2004 phone conversation. (22 pages)
Here's a link to the lawsuit. The Fox liar network apparently "settled out of court" --Fox-speak for they paid her to shut up!
"And guys, if you exploit a girl, it will come back to get you. That's called 'karma.'" --in his book, "The O'Reilly Factor For Kids," 2004 (Source)
If Billo ever got SCOTUS, you could count on him to write one or two word decisions: ridiculous, SHUT UP!!!

For case law, Billo could not be expected to cite anything more challenging than Perry Mason or Judge Judy. Justice Billo will dispatch free speech: AN ATTACK ON ME BY THE LOONY LEFT! But it doesn't get any loonier than Billo Blowhard, the loudmouth that proved mankind evolved from simpler forms of life. Eat your heart out, Kansas school boards! Billo proves Darwin. Billo is the aggressive ape from which Bush evolved. There's your proof!

If Billo somehow gets on the high court, he will address what he must surely believes are flaws in our judicial system that confines justices to the law --statutes, case law and precedent! A Justice Billo will open things up a little. He will cite anything --probably comic books or worse: his own FAUX Network! A better source are instances of his own stupidity, many of them documented by Media Matters, Billo's favorite website.
During the December 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly questioned the decision by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards to have actor/director Tim Robbins travel with him on the campaign trail, saying," Tim Robbins is such a radical guy. Why would John Edwards use him? I don't get it." He then played an excerpt from Robbins' December 12 speech in Iowa City, Iowa, in which Robbins said, "What if, instead of 24/7 coverage of the most recent pop star's fall from grace, we were to see 24/7 reporting of veterans returning from Iraq?" In response, Fox News contributor Jane Hall said Robbins' "criticism of the media ... is valid," to which O'Reilly replied: "But Von Ribbentrop in the Nazi hierarchy made valid points, Jane."

Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim Von Ribbentrop was indicted for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. Ribbentrop was found guilty on all counts and executed. The tribunal found that Ribbentrop had "participated in aggressive plans against Czechoslovakia"; "played a particularly significant role in the diplomatic activity which led up to the attack on Poland"; was aware of or helped plan attacks against other countries, "urged the Italians to put into effect a ruthless occupation policy in Yugoslavia and Greece," and "played an important part in Hitler's 'final solution' of the Jewish question." The tribunal concluded that Ribbentrop "was in sympathy with all the main tenets of the National Socialist creed." O'Reilly did not cite any "valid points" made by Ribbentrop.

--Media Matters

Justice Billo will cite the Bible and specifically the book of "Revelations" which he thinks was written: "WHAT --FIVE THOUSAND YEARS AGO??"

Until Justice Billo assumes the high court, we'll just have to content ourselves with Justice Scalia's absurdities which pale compared to Justice Billo. Years ago, I denounced Antonin Scalia's backward thinking, his proclivity to mistake premises for conclusions, his fondness for the circulus en probando fallacy.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote "to count first and rule upon legality afterwards is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."

--CNN Transcripts, December 11, 2000, Supreme Court Bush v. Gore

It matters not to Scalia that since 5th Century B.C.E.. the citizens of Athens dared to count all the votes BEFORE putting leaders in office. Unless my profs lied to me, that's the way elections are supposed to work. In a Brave New World, however, computers have made vote theft at lot easier, more efficient, more...uh...well more "white collar".

In 1948, poor Luis Salas of central Texas, whom I met and interviewed about his role in the historic "election" of LBJ to the US Senate, had to resort to digging up the names of dead people and writing them in by hand on a paper tab sheet. It was dirty work, but somebody had to do it. There was an election to steal!
"If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.'" –FOX News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, after San Francisco voted to ban military recruiters from city schools, Nov. 8, 2005 (Source) (Read more stupid Bill O'Reilly quotes)
As a justice of the Supreme Court, Billo should be required to apologize prior to his confirmation for how he lied to the nation about Bushco:
"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?" -on finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, March 18, 2003 (Source
Now --if I were a judge, I would give O'Reilly a "Judge Judy" sentence. He would be ordered by the court to apologize to the Iraqi people. He would be required to go to Iraq and apologize personally, individually, to the people of that nation who have suffered over one million unnecessary deaths, murder at the hand of Billo's hero, the war criminal: George W. Bush!
You’ve got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night and they can vote." –to "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart, Sept. 22, 2004 (Source)
Justice Billo must have been referring to his own "dopy show".

People are catching onto Billo. Following is a streaming player with several Billo "confrontations" in which his tactics --strawmen, bullying, misstating positions, loaded questions, et al --are increasingly evident. These interviews are notable in that Billo is finding it harder to get away with it. People who fight back are winning. Many guests are making Billo look like the lying idiot that he truly is.

Billo, in you and in George W. Bush, is found every prejudice, every fallacy, every pernicious, hateful lie that has undermined and militated against every good thing that was ever in any way associated with the US by anyone at any time. Billo, you are vile! You shame even the shameful Fox network!


The 'Cowboy' on Facebook

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Share

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

Friday, June 08, 2007

GOP: Sick People Desparately Seeking Scapegoats

The GOP is a sick party of sick people. Nasty, mean-spirited and delusional, it blames its favorite phantom menace, liberals, for all our nation's woes though liberals have not wielded real power since the New Deal. How rational, therefore, is this perpetual, tiresome GOP jihad? Republicans may very well be "nuts" but that misstates the situation. What we are witnessing from outside America's increasingly radical, imperialist party is the ugly puss that oozes from an open sore: Republicanism, desperately seeking scapegoats.

Bush's tar baby, Iraq, has become the GOP tar baby, not easily scraped off. Thus the GOP is the party of monumental failure, a party that will most surely preside over the dissolution, the fall, the complete collapse of the "great" American empire. It is no wonder that Republicans now blame one another and the Democrats. The GOP will try to suck democrats into the quagmire. That is to be expected; it is the nature of evil that it tries to compromise its opposition. Still - a murderer bears more responsibility than those who merely fail to stop him.

Democratic regimes, moderate to a fault, have provided little relief from right wing oppression and orthodoxy that has all but killed America. The myriad of sins heaped on "liberals" and "secular humanists" by goppers is most certainly a deliberate campaign of frauds and lies -the kind we come to expect from the party of George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales[See: Senate Conservatives Refuse To Put Gonzales Under Oath], Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich and Jack Abramoff. But what, I want to know, is the GOP still pissed about?

Joe Klein, Who Claimed Liberals "Hate America," Now Slams Progressives' "Bile"

By MARC McDONALD

Time magazine blogger Joe Klein is upset with the way the progressive blogosphere is treating him these days. In his latest piece, "Beware the Bloggers' Bile," Klein expresses bafflement that he's been criticized by liberal bloggers recently.

Klein writes that much of the progressive blogosphere these days is "is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance."

Klein expresses dismay at his critics and tries to play up his supposedly liberal credentials. He writes that he's being unfairly targeted. As far as he's concerned, "the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered."

Wow, that's a pretty heavy charge.

There's only one problem that the supposedly reasonable and "unfairly" criticized Klein fails to point out.

The fact is, Klein himself has been guilty of the most vicious, Rush Limbaugh-like attacks on liberals in recent years.

Here's an example (as reported last year by Media Matters). On April 11, 2006, Klein declared that Democrats wouldn't find success among voters "if their message is that they hate America -- which is what has been the message of the liberal wing of the party for the past 20 years."

Let me see if I understand this correctly: Klein claims liberals "hate" America. And then he turns around and claims that the progressive blogs are guilty of "intolerance" and Rush Limbaugh-like tactics because they dared to criticize him.
And what is Bill O'Reilly so pissed off about when clearly the sorry state of American society is his fault and that of Fox, the propaganda arm of the GOP and the GWB specifically:

Anger and bile pour from Bill O'Reilly's every pore. O'Reilly is mad at a world that his targets could not possibly have created or influenced except marginally. In fact, we liberals have more reason to be angry at much, much more than has O'Reilly. Delusional, paid very well to lie, Billo obliges with more lies. Typically, he blames the phantom menace for the hell of his creation.

Certainly, recent GOP vehemence is of a radical sort, substantively different from Barry Goldwater and, more recently, Pat Buchanan, who, from time to time, experiences moments of critical lucidity rare in a Republican.

PJB: Does ‘The Decider’ Decide on War?

Why does Congress not enact the resolution Nancy Pelosi pulled down, which declares that nothing in present law authorizes President Bush to launch a pre-emptive strike or preventive war on Iran – and before launching any such attack, he must get prior approval from both houses of Congress?

If we are going to war, is it not imperative that, this time, we know exactly why we must go to war, what exactly the threat is from Iran, what are the likely consequences of a US attack on a third Islamic country and what are the alternatives to war?

-Pat Buchanan

All makes sense when one realizes that the GOP does not hold power legitimately. The election of 2000 was a fraud and the GOP leadership must know this. They planned it. Secondly, GOP members are not angry because liberalism failed but, rather, because it succeeded. Clinton, specifically, but every other Democrat as well will never be forgiven for proving the GOP to be wrong about almost everything.

If "liberals" and Democrats are to be faulted, it is for not having opposed the GOP more effectively, more strenuously. If you listen to the GOP, however, you would think the Democrats had actually accomplished something. I wish they had. Democrats might have been justified in shouting in the face of GOP criticism: "Bring it on!"

The nation may be as truly screwed up as the GOP thinks it is but it is only the GOP who's had a chance to do the screwing. Indeed, the nation is screwed up -by the GOP. Democrats have had neither the time nor the money to do much and, true to form, it hasn't.

The GOP meanwhile has done much --to America, not for America. The GOP stole enough votes and sold enough souls to screw both the nation and the world. And to our everlasting chagrin they have succeeded but not admirably.

The responsibility for the fall of the American empire and its imminent financial collapse must be laid at the feet of George W. Bush and a record of over twenty years of incompetence [See: Time Archives], frauds, and just downright mean-spirited evil! I'm talkin' GOP! I'm talking about the gang of crooks who screwed us, the nation, and now the world.

As the race for the White House heats up, the many failures of the Bush coup d'etat are manifest. GOP candidates will naturally try to distance themselves from the failed emperor even as they try to tar the opposition with an old canard - "liberal". There is little else in their bag of tricks save another terrorist attack.
A WHILE before 11 September the American historian, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, suggested that despite the "absence of international checks and balances" in the modern unipolar world, the United States would not "stroll too far down the perilous highway to hubris . . . No one nation is going to be able to assume the role of world arbitrator and policeman" (1). Like many American intellectuals, he remained confident about US democracy and the rationality of decision making. And Charles William Maynes, an influential voice in US foreign policy, asserted: "America is a country with imperial capabilities but without an imperial mind" (2).

But now we must face facts: a new imperial doctrine is taking shape under George Bush. Now is reminiscent of the late 19th century, when the US began its colonial expansion into the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, the first steps to world power. Then the US was seized by great imperialist fervour. Journalists, businessmen, bankers and politicians vied to promote policies of world conquest.

-Philip S Golub, Westward the course of Empire, Le Monde Diplomatique

To be fair, American criticism of empire is not the sole province of left or right. Arguably, Pat Buchanan, remembered, primarily for his "hate speech" to the GOP National Convention in Houston in 1992, has often been as critical of American imperial ambitions as Gore Vidal who rails from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him.

- Pat Buchanan, GOP National Convention Speech, Houston, 1992

For Vidal, , is but a tragic reprise of the fall of Rome. Vidal's term "national security state" denotes and sums up the oppressive nature of the Military/Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. In his Decline and Fall of the American Empire, Vidal attributes the creation of the American empire to a conspiracy between Democratic President Harry Truman and Senator Arthur Vandenburg who told Truman that he would have to scare the hell out of the American people in order to pull it off. Indeed, I cannot remember a time in which the American people have not been afraid of something -commies, black people, immigrants, drugs, porn, Russians, terrorists and most absurdly of late: Michael Moore, french fries, and the Dixie Chicks.

In the meantime, we seem almost accustomed now to a White House increasingly disconnected from reality, a new Nero, whom early Christians most certainly believed was the Anti-Christ.

Additional resources:









Spread the word:

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Bill O'Reilly may not be a journalist...but he plays one on TV!

I believe Fox when it declares itself "fair and balanced". It balances one lie against another. That's very fair to liars and actors who wannabe journalists.

The programming executives at Fox are the real geniuses. You can bet they know how to read and spin media stats. Understanding that the funniest clowns are those who take themselves most seriously, they pulled off a master stroke: they hired Bill O'Reilly.

What a knee slapper! O'Reilly is brilliant as the pompous windbag who thinks he is a journalist. The whole thing is a modern sit-com.

O'Reilly is at his best when he shouts down his betters, the finishing touch on his loudmouth lout persona. He plays it brilliantly!

I sincerely hope that Fox is paying him what he is really worth.

Let's look at some specific episodes of this sitcom cum news show. In this episode O'Reilly thinks he has duped Keith Olbermannn into skewering him on "truly evil" people.

Don't worry, Keith. It's all an act. Think about it. No one could possibly be as obnoxious as the "Bill O'Reilly" character that "Bill O'Reilly" plays on TV.

The next episode might have been described in TV guide as "Our O'Reilly is so inflated, it's coming out of his ears and possibly his pompous ass".

NEWSFLASH: THIS JUST IN. INTELLIGENT LIFE HAS BEEN DISCOVERED AT FOX!

In the next episode, Olbermann raises a possibility that our favorite lout sounds drunk on the air! An episode sure to make the 25th Anniversary special with a special guest appearance of Krusty, the Clown.

In an episode called "Bill O'Reilly gets crazy", Bill really does "get crazy". Irony can't top a crazy guy playing the part of a crazy guy.

The fact is the US war against Iraq is a war crime, a violation each of several Nuremberg Principles. It also violates US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes, a capital crime.

Here's an update from The World Can't Wait organization:

The Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime

YOUR GOVERNMENT, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.

YOUR GOVERNMENT is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

YOUR GOVERNMENT puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

YOUR GOVERNMENT suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

YOUR GOVERNMENT enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

People look at all this and think of Hitler - and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

Millions and millions are deeply disturbed and outraged by this. They recognize the need for a vehicle to express this outrage, yet they cannot find it; politics as usual cannot meet the enormity of the challenge, and people sense this.

There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing." People who steal elections and believe they're on a "mission from God" will not go without a fight.

There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into "leaders" who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.

But silence and paralysis are NOT acceptable. That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn - or be forced - to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it.

-The World Can't Wait
Let's hope Bill continues to yell at folk and interupt them. He discredits himself with his tactics and provides the rest of us with a few laughs. We haven't seen this kind of comedy since TV's so-called "Golden Age". I haven't heard so much yelling since Ralph Kramden told Trixie: "Bang, zoom, straight to the moon!"

At last, stop taking Bill O'Reilly seriously. Watch it for the yuks! O'Reilly couldn't possibly take himself seriously. He's a clown. It's an act. He's destined for the Clown Hall of Fame.

As Buzzflash pointed out, "Ronald Reagan taught the GOP what a B-actor can do for playing the part of a candidate and then acting the role of president for 8 years...Thompson may have been a senator and Republican counsel to the Watergate investigation, but his real asset to the GOP is that he's an actor."

O'Reilly, however, has outdone them all. He's a windbag playing the part of a clown playing the part of a windbag!

And, as we used to say on the news set: THIS JUST IN....

Another update:

The Most Biased Name in News

Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt
I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel."--Rupert Murdoch (Salon, 3/1/01)
Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996, a curious thing happened: Instead of denouncing it, conservative politicians and activists lavished praise on the network. "If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01). George W. Bush extolled Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01). The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.

When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side. Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

Yet, at the same time, the network bristles at the slightest suggestion of a conservative tilt. In fact, wrapping itself in slogans like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," Fox argues precisely the opposite: Far from being a biased network, Fox argues, it is the only unbiased network. So far, Fox's strategy of aggressive denial has worked surprisingly well; faced with its unblinking refusal to admit any conservative tilt at all, some commentators have simply acquiesced to the network's own self-assessment. FAIR has decided to take a closer look.
"Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment."

--Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor, 3/23/01)

Another update:

Fox News covers Iraq war the least.

A new Project for Excellence in Journalism study finds that of the three major cable news networks, Fox News has given lowest percentage of coverage of the Iraq war. It has also devoted twice as much time to the Anna Nicole Smith story as have MSNBC and CNN.






Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Choreographed Victory, Dishonorable War

Americans must go abroad to learn the truth about America, about Bush's war of aggression against Iraq, about the nature of a failed and illegitimate regime. The truth is rarely spoken in the American media if at all. The truth is Bush's tar baby war is lost.

Bush still talks of winning, a tactic designed to divide his opposition into cheerleaders for war or "defeatists" should they fail to climb on board the Bush war and propaganda machine. It's a despicable tactic and only a failed party or a failed regime would resort to it.

The litmus test is al Qaeda. The fact that al Qaeda has become active in Iraq but only after the US attack and invasion is evidence of the US de facto loss. Violence has begotten violence. "Terrorists" have been made stronger. Al Qaeda has even penetrated the "safe" Green Zone.

There is a price to be paid for waging vainglorious war and losing. Monies blown up fighting phantoms and civilians in Baghdad is money that might have been spent improving education in a nation whose President perpetrated an Education hoax called the "Houston Miracle".

It's time to make a point about the liars at the Fox Network. According to Fox, things are just hunky dory in Iraq.

I believe Bill Moyers. I cannot believe Fox. I wouldn't bet on Native Dancer if the tip came from Fox. Fortunately, Fox can be summed up in a single word. Bullshit!

Fox credibility is typified by one Bill O'Reilly who, despite the controversy, continued to accuse American troops of the Massacre at Malmedy.

Here is what really happened as reported by an eyewitness:
On December 17th, men from Battery B of the 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion were ordered to move from Schevenhutte, near Aachen, to St Vith in the Ardennes. Their route took them near to the town of Malmédy.

...

Clearly outgunned by the Germans, the men from B Battery surrendered after Sternebeck's attack. Peiper himself went to the Baugnez Crossroads and brusquely ordered Sternebeck to move on. The 113 American prisoners-of-war who had survived the attack were assembled in a field near the Café Bodarwé at the crossroads - this figure included eight Americans who had already been captured by Peiper. A young Belgium boy witnessed what happened next.

At about 14.15, soldiers from the 1st SS Panzer Division opened fire on the 113 men who were in the field. The firing stopped at about 14.30. Soldiers from Peiper's unit went around the field and shot at close range anyone who seemed to be alive - or clubbed them to death as later autopsies showed. Incredibly, some prisoners did get away after feigning death. It was three of these escapees that came across Pergrin.

Colonel Pergrin had heard the attack by Sternebeck and went to investigate, first in a jeep and then on foot. Near Five Points, three Americans rushed up to Pergrin. It was these men who first alerted the Americans that something had gone on at the crossroads. Pergrin took the wounded men to Malmédy and at 16.40 contacted the First Army's headquarters to inform them that some sort of massacre had taken place at Five Points.

Because of the nature of the Battle of the Bulge, no one side could claim the land that the dead men lay in. It was only from January 14th, 1945, on that the Americans could lay claim to the area around the crossroads and claim the bodies. 71 snow-covered bodies were recovered. The freezing weather had done a lot to preserve the bodies and that made the autopsies easier, especially as some had been covered in snow.

On December 17th, 21 survivors of the massacre made statements to the American authorities in Malmédy. Their accounts were remarkably similar despite the fact that they had had little time to discuss their experiences.

When the massacre took place, Peiper had left the area around Five Points and had moved on. He was not at the scene when the shooting started. However, on December 12th, it is said that Hitler had issued an order which stated that no prisoners were to be taken and that a "wave of terror" was to descend on the Allies who stood in the way of the offensive. However, in the trial at Dachau no written evidence was produced to substantiate this and, as evidence, the court ignored it.
No one expects Bill O'Reilly to have an understanding of American and European history comparable to that of Henry Steele Commager or the great British military historian, Liddel Hart. One does expect him to keep his mouth shut when he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

It not enough for Fox to rewrite history, to simply make up news or lie about the news that it has not made up, it attacks those who don't goosestep with its every pronouncement.

O'Reilly had tried to "frame" the debate but, in fact, the war is lost. Instead of asking questions that might lead to an intelligent discussion of options, O'Reilly posed a false dilemma around the highly emotional word "win". That Fox normally gets away with such shameless and transparent tactics is an indication of just how far the America conglomerate media has devolved.

At last, terrorists and terrorism will not bring down America. It is, rather, O'Reilly who is but a symptom of the intellectual decadence that will be the end of us and our bloody oil empire.
The downfall of civilized states tends to come not from the direct assaults of foes, but from internal decay combined with the consequences of exhaustion in war.

- Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart