Tuesday, January 31, 2006


There's been an ongoing discussion for awhile now as to what is wrong with the MSM and what effect Blogs have on them. Peter Daou has done a very good job of pointing out the Pro-Bush Media Bias which exists, much to the consternation of many on the right who simply cannot give up their whipping boy straw-man of the so-called Liberal Media. Of course, that has only brought out the Liberal Bias charge against Daou. Naturally, his critics do nothing to refute his theory; they simply bloviate against him.

In the meantime, the Washington Post has turned off its comments section in its Political Blog because the ombudsman, the person who is supposed to keep the paper honest, felt she was getting "Hate" mail when she basically parrotted Rightwing talking points without so much as a how do you do. For the ombudsman to stop responding to readers is, to say the least, surprising, as it is the ombudsman's function to respond to readers.

And on the Today Show, Katie Couric got into the act, repeating rightwing lies. When Howard Dean called her on it, she mad some snotty comment about checking the facts. Nevermind she had her facts wrong and then went to the troubel of having Tim Russert pretty much give truthiness to the lie the next day, but how come she has never done the same to the rightwing talking heads they bring on the show? Bill O'Reilly comes on and lies out his ass about the War on Christmas, but I don't see Katie Couric or Matt Lauer doing a follow-up where they show that O'Reilly lied out his ass. No, that gets let go.

Which brings me to my question - Do Blogs push the MSM to the Right? We already know that the MSM is run by conglomerates who trend towards the Right - witness Sumner Redstone's infamous comment before the last election that while he felt the Democratic position was the one he should take as an individual, he would vote Republican for the good of Viacom (more on how wront that concept is another time) - but reporters supposedly trend toward the left. Now, if that's true, even with pressure coming down from on high, you would think they would find some way to insert their leanings into their stories. So why don't they? In fact, why do they seem to actually trend right in their stories? Part of the reason is blogging.

One consequence of the Blog phenomena is that Blogs help to push the MSM to the right. On the left blogosphere, you have a conversation, a fact-checking, no-holds-barred discussion of a topic. You have multiple voices and views, all going over every piece of data and stringing together all the evidence, looking for sloppiness and laziness in reporting and a search for truth (factual, real truth as opposed to what I want to believe truth). Reporters don't like that. Most reporters particularly those who have a following after a time, don't want to work too hard for the truth. And the lefty blogosphere tries to make them work. They resent actually having to do that work. They resnt being told they're wrong. They resent that theeir pronouncements aren't just accepted at face value. They resent having to prove again and again that they actually do know how to do their job - and given the accuracy of their reporting on most issues that last is suspect. That's why Katie Couric doesn't go after O'Reilly. That's why the WP ombudsman freaks when she's called out for being wrong. But that doesn't explain why they go after the left.

And that's where the rightwing noise machine comes in. Their good at staying on message and shoving that message down your throat as if it were in fact fact. Most of the time, it's not, but if they shout it out loud enough and often enough, they get reporters to listen, to the point where those lazy reporters make it their main headline and don't worry about checking to see if they are being told the truth. Rightwing blogs, unlike fact-based blogs, are simply a part of the top-down noise machine. They are nothing more than the mouthpieces for the official partyline story.

So it all comes down to the most basic of human concepts: laziness and resentment. The rightwing blogs win because as its been said time and time again, they have one message, one story, and reporters don't really want to have to dig for the story. Hand it to them on a platter, and they're fat and happy.

And the left loses, not because they are wrong, but because they are correct. Because the facts actually do say what they are saying. Because the truth really is what the lefty bloggers are blogging, and all those pundits and reporters who have their sweet TV deals and their seven column inches in the big papers resent being shown up by a bunch of amateurs who care more for the truth and the facts than an easy-to-digest story.

So, yes, I believe that Blogging now does actually push the MSM to the right right now as their response is reactionary, and responses which are reactionary are by their very nature from the right. The thing with any new phenomenon which threatens the livelihood and comfort of an entrenched class is that the entrenched class will fight back, using their already existing base to try to destroy the revolutionary phenomenon. Right now, the MSM is fighting back against Blogs, mostly on the left because the left is more open and is not just another message machine. They fight us by ignoring what we say, by ridiculing it, by outright lying about it. But in the end, we'll win because we're in the right and even they know it.

Friday, January 20, 2006


The Bush Administration has gone to court to get a federal judge to force Google to turn over over a random million search records. Now, if you don't see a problem with that, I think you really, really need to reread The Constitution. Under what law can the government demand that you give them private information because they say so? Because that's what they are saying here. The Administration is saying "give us this information because we want it." "We don't know if any crime has been committed, nor whether any laws have been broken, but if you give us this information, we will find out."

Not only is it problematic that the Administration believes it has the right to demand whatever information it asks for whenever it asks for it without any Probable Cause, we have to wonder what happens should the judge rule in their favor. Right now, the Administration is telling us they are doing this to further an investigation into Internet Porn. Whatever. Next time, they will tell us they are requesting this information to stop terrorism. The time after that it will be to stop organized crime. Then to stop music piracy. Film piracy. People ordering Mao's Little Red Book on Amazon.com. Blogs who disagree with Administration policy. And finally they won't give a reason at all because they will just demand whatever information they want and we won't know why.

Couple this with the Administration's illegal wiretapping program and the provisions in the Patriot Act which allow them to find out what books you're checking out of the library, and you have to wonder at what point we stand up for our civil liberties? There's no question that the Administration believes it can do whatever it believes to be correct no matter how outside the law for whatever purpose it believes to be correct. We are on the cusp of having our civil liberties taken away.

6 years ago, if this had happened, you would have had a coalition of the left and right in the US screaming at the top of their lungs about the abuse of power and illegality of the Administration's actions. Now from the Right you have nothing. Oh, a few Right-leaning leaders have complained, but their complaints have been muted to say the least. There has been no sustained outcry. In fact, if anything, the Right has embraced these restrictions on their liberty, in many cases stating that they would gladly give up a little liberty for greater security. We could argue whether we have greater security (we don't), but that's not the point.

Free countries, ones where liberty is prized or should be prized above all, are by their very nature chaotic. Total freedom breeds chaos. That is why we have laws. But in a Free country, the laws try to be as restrained as possible. So what can you say about a society in which a group of leaders decides it is above the law and can do as it wishes? We are, I fear, descending into despotism. Perhaps not of one individual, but into a despotism of Oligarchy, where a small cadre of leaders argue that they know what is best for everyone and they will protect us from not only those who would wish to do us harm, but ourselves as well.

Monday, January 16, 2006


The adminstration with the help of the conservative movement and the MSM is already laying the foundation for the next act in the destruction of the US: it's called Iran.

I'm not saying anything new here. All you have to do is look at all the talk. Iran; Iran; Iran! Oh woe is us; Iran wants a Nuclear program! Let's look at this, shall we.

Is a Nuclear Iran in the best interest of the World, let alone the US? Pretty much we can all agree that the answer is No. No, we do not want Iran to gain access to Nuclear technology which may or may not be used to create weapons. That's a given. So why would George the Third, our illustrious leader, attack Iraq? Is it as Jay Leno has come to say, he was just off by one letter - Iran; Iraq: honest mistake. Or is it that George the Third really doesn't give a damn about what happens in the World so long as he and his cronies - see Republican Party and the majority of the conservative sheep - can keep political control so that they can continue to ruin the Nation? It's really not much of a question is it.

George the Third and his administration along with their enablers have played upon the fears of the American people for 5 years now. They will continue to do so as long as they feel this tactic will work. The next Boogey-man is Iran. They will not provide us with a plan to deal with Iran, because, let's face it, they don't care about plans; they care about maintaining and consolidating power. And they will destroy this Country to do so.

As for Iran: When George tells you that we need to invade because they are a threat to the US, just take a look at how well he's done in Iraq.

Friday, January 13, 2006


In what can only be called the greatest act of self-abasement for a wrong cause, Powerline (specifically Assrocket) has stated that George Bush is not only the most intllectually gifted individual in the US but also comparable to Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln.

I beg to differ.

Neither Churchill nor Lincoln were incompetent petty criminals, and all we have to do is look at George the Third's past to see that that is exactly what he is. As a so-called small businessman, he managed to run all his businesses into the ground and relied on his father's friends to bail him out, all the while cheating his investors and lying to the SEC. If there is anything you can learn from the example of this "illustrious" incompentent, it is that if you have enough money, it really doesnt matter how fucked up you really are.

Which brings me to my point. I don't think Powerline or most of the fairly literate (meaning they've read something other than the side of the cereal box) blogs really believe what they say. I don't think they're that stupid. No, it's just all part of the agenda: The Agenda to destroy the United States and the progressive ideas it stands for.

You see, Powerline and others (can you say Grover Norquist) wish to destroy the United States government, which has as its basis for some two hundred years acted as a defense for the common man, albeit a rather weak one but the best we've got. Their position is that Government should not protect against the abuses wrought by Industry and Capitalism. They reject Adam Smith, John Locke, Montesque, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc. etc. The list of those rejected goes on and on. And they reject them not out of any positive ideological stance. No, they reject them because they wish to control. They reject them out of a desire for authoritarianism. They are authoritarians, so long as they are in charge.

So Bush and his incompetence plays right into their hands. By bankrupting the Country, by showing that his administration cannot administer a flea bath to the official dog, Bush proves that the US Government, and by implication, the Cosntitution don't work, making Norquist and Powerline's and the rest of the fascists point for them.

If it didn't hurt nearly all of us, I would be inclined to let Norquist have his experiment. After all, I'd be interested in knowing what he would do once he no longer had his lobbying job to go to. I mean, unless he's independently wealthy - and we should ask where that came from - what is he actually cut out to do? It would be interesting to see him try to collect unemployment because I'm certain that the people he now relies on would cut him loose the instant they no longer needed him. He is seriously mistaken if he thinks he would end up on top.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006


I'd really like to know. It seems that we are no longer allowed any rights under this administration and legislature. Don't believe me, then read this: NSA Spies on Baltimore Quaker Group
and this:
IRS Freezing Refunds

Now, remember, the IRS (the second article) falls under the purview of the adminsitration. So not only does the administration feel it can eavesdrop on anyone they want (the first story), they also believe that only poor and working class people cheat on their taxes and should be punished for it. Yeah, right. The poor and middle class are such good accountants that they remain poor and middle class. Of course, what can you expect from an administration and legislature that ignores facts just so thay can blow shit up!

And then you get the constant traitor-baiting. George the Third has now stooped to this tactic, a tactic the fascist blogging public has been braying for quite some time now. Again, I want you to understand, I do not use the word "fascist" as hyperbole. That's what these people are. They care nothing about truth or facts or what they're policies are actually doing to the Country. They care nothing about the Rule of Law; They care only that their party remain in power. In other words, Fascists.

So the real traitors are all these fascists who will condone any action which continues their power-grab no matter how illegal or reprehensible. The president is a traitor. He took an oath to uphold The Constitution of the United States, but broke that oath almost as soon as he took it. So all those who agree with him are traitors. They believe that the only thing worth protecting is their preceived power. And it is preceived, because they assume wrongly - who'd have thunk it - that once the administration and legislature consolidate their hold on power by abolishing our Constitution that they will have some say in what happens. That's just not true. Again, all you have to do is look at what's been done by this coterie of criminals up to now to see that the only people who are going to come out of this with any power if we continue to allow the administration and legislature to destroy our liberties as they see fit, is the administration and the legislature and the moneymen behind them. The rest of us will just be bent over and taking it up the ass.

And if any of you fascists don't like being called fascists and want to prove just how tough you are, email me. I'll gladly let you come down to where I live and beat the living shit out of you! You assholes all think you're so tough, but the minute anyone stands up to your sorry ass, you fold like the pissants you really are! So take your traitor of a president and legislature and go find an island somewhere where you can create your fascist distopia and leave the rest of us the fuck alone!

Monday, January 09, 2006


If you've been watching the News at all, you may have heard mention that George the Third authorized the NSA to illegally eavesdrop on US citizens. That's pretty much the gist of it...no ifs, ands, or buts. George Bush believes that if he wants to, he can circumvent the Law because he's president. And he doesn't seem to be alone in this belief, even though those that agree with him are basically half-baked fascists!

You'll notice I used the word fascist up above. I did not mean it as hyperbole. Any group that argues that it is above the Law, that it can do whatever it deems necessary because of some preceived threat, is totalitarian in nature. They do not respect the rights of their fellow citizens, believing that they somehow have the answer. They are in a word fascists. We're right; you're wrong, and we're going to do what we want when we want and to hell with you and the Law. Welcome to the present incarnation of the Republican Party.

Which would explain the thinking of our Fearless Leader. He knows best - never mind the fact that he's been wrong more often than he's been right. He deems all communication, all privacy rights, all individual rights as his to deal with however he wishes. If you don't believe me, just look at how he's behaved throughout this. As if it doesn't matter. Meaning, it doesn't matter to him. It may actually matter to you.

I'm not going to go into an indepth view of just how skewed and wacko the defense of this policy has been. Many others will have done a much better job at it than I (Glenn Greenwald, for one). Let me just say that all of the arguements condoning this action and condemning the whistleblowers are full of so much hot air, if it were a balloon, you'd be able to raise New York City. I am wondering though, when did the Constitution become "quaint," to use Alberto Gonzalez's phrasing? When did the situation become so dire, that we had to ignore our own Laws, that we had to ignore the very foundation that our Country and Government is built on, because in order to save our Country, it has become necssary to destroy it? When did the nebulous Ends justify any Means?

And one of the worst parts of this: Historians and Attorneys who condone this. People who should know better, have jumped on the bandwagon that as President you can do whatever the Fuck you wish and no one - NO ONE - should be able to hold you accountable. I don't know the Constitution by heart, though I have read it a few times, but I don't remember ever reading that everyone except the President is required to obey the Law. George Bush is a criminal; those who defend this action are abetting a criminal activity. We need to make them pay under the Laws of our Great Nation before its Bloody Fucking Too Late! Impeach Bush; Impeach Cheney! Throw the rest of the criminals out!

Friday, January 06, 2006


Almost to a man (and woman), conservative bloggers appear to be apologists for illegality, incompetence, corruption, and cronyism. They write arguements which essentially state that almost anything done by this administration and the Conservative members of Congress and the Courts is valid and should not be questioned. George Bush admits to not following the very law he stated he was going to follow; The Abramoff Scandal will bring down numerous members of the Republican Party; The War in Iraq continues to be nothing more than a huge clusterfuck; New Orleans has been decimated because of cronyism; and on and on and on. But conservative bloggers act as though none of these things are true (i.e. factual) and if they are true, they don't really matter. So why is that?

I have a theory, of course, and that is that conservative bloggers are more enamored of having what they consider some power than they are of really effecting change for the better. You can see it in how they write their pieces. All their arguements always come back to the same thing: Will this or won't this boost their group's electability? Will this or won't this boost George Bush's poll numbers? They do not discuss whether the facts as stated are good or bad for the country - they don't care about the country - they discuss whether it will help get their candidates elected. They do not have common cause with the working class, with the middle class, with the average citizen. They have common cause with only one thing: Their party.

You can see it in how they behave towards anyone who might actually disagree. Representative Murtha was a fellow traveler until he chose to speak out. Suddenly, he was a traitorous piece of scum who didn't deserve the medals he earned. Andrew Sullivan, who's been a good conservative for quite awhile, is now just another fag to be bashed. It's just amazing the level of complete and utter venom these conservative bloggers are willing to heap upon anyone who doesn't just roll over and let them have their way. They are, to say the least, reprehensible. They are also all cowards.