Thursday, November 29, 2007
Addendum to Last Post
I suppose I have to give some credit to the NY Times and WaPo, for their editorial pages. We get a few crumbs of truth in the form of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and a few columnists at WaPo I can't name right now. Fine. Thanks so much for that, for making us have to go to the back of the A section in order to get the real story. What is the reason for this disconnect? Why do I have to read in the Times editorial section of a loss for privacy rights? We pretend we live in a democracy where we all have a say, that it has always existed thus, that a free press is necessary for it, and on and on. The "press" protects the powerful, gives deference to them every time, is disdainful of us "masses" and pretends we give a shit about "soccer moms" and "spirited" debates about nothing, and other meaningless "issues" no one really cares about, using language only they understand but no sane person would use.
Our Corporate Media At Work
This snippet from WaPo's website reveals quite a lot:
Romney, Giuliani Clash On Immigration Issues
Republican presidential candidates engage in a free-for-all as they field video questions in the most spirited debate of the 2008 campaign
Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz
· Republicans Get Mixed Bag of Questions
· The Fix: A Battle in Fla. Live Q&A, NOW
· Media Notes Podcast Channel '08 VIDEO
· Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors
Yeah, I'm talking about that last part about Obama. Oh yes, and also, Republicans have a "spirited" debate because, of course, they are the true holders of "American values" and are true "Christians." Notice the bias here with the use of "spirited." There's plenty more of it regarding, Giuliani, Romney et. al. Why is it that all debates must be commented on as "spirited" for them to be acceptable? Always appealing to our "feelings," our wish for politicians to be "like us." Never actually focus on the issues at stake. No, debates have to be "spirited" and said spiritedness must be what we focus on. Fuck you, WaPo.
Most people who have been paying attention (who just plain pay attention) know that Obama's religious status has been quite the obsession for the right-wing nuts out there. The talking point here is the lie that Obama is Muslim. They refer to his childhood in Indonesia and that his stepfather and grandfather were Muslim. Of course we all know this is what's called Swift-Boating, that tactic of spreading lies among so many sources that eventually it sows doubt about someone. The really sickening thing here is that the Washington Post would publish this trash and sell it as "rumor." We all like to tell ourselves that papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post are intelligent, thoughtful, credible sources of information. The truth is that they are just like any other corporation trying to make a profit, and so they push stories like this off as "news" so that we can get some "perspective" on what "all sides" are saying. I could give a flying fuck what religion Obama calls his own, or where he chooses to "worship." It's sad, really, that he has to emphasize his "Christianity" so much. Hmm, does the phrase "convert or die" ring a bell to anyone who knows what so-called "Christians" did (and are still doing, but in more PR-friendly ways but still in ways that destroy minds) to people all over Asia who didn't acquiesce to their culture of abstraction that is religion?
We truly are a culture of competition, of abstraction, of exploiting others to amass wealth. We worship the god of production. The "God" of Christianity, of Islam, of Judaism -- is really just a ruse to get people to follow, to get people distracted enough to kill each other over who is the "one true God," to get the masses to not direct their ire toward those in power, toward those who are doing the real harm to them, exploiting them, abusing them, killing them.
Expect articles like this one, and more vicious, next year, whoever the Dem nominee is. (Republicans? Why pick on them -- they just want to "lower your taxes" [sic] and "keep you safe" [sic]?) And, expect to find these articles on the front pages of corporate newspapers. This is what passes for "informed," unfortunately, for our culture.
Romney, Giuliani Clash On Immigration Issues
Republican presidential candidates engage in a free-for-all as they field video questions in the most spirited debate of the 2008 campaign
Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz
· Republicans Get Mixed Bag of Questions
· The Fix: A Battle in Fla. Live Q&A, NOW
· Media Notes Podcast Channel '08 VIDEO
· Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors
Yeah, I'm talking about that last part about Obama. Oh yes, and also, Republicans have a "spirited" debate because, of course, they are the true holders of "American values" and are true "Christians." Notice the bias here with the use of "spirited." There's plenty more of it regarding, Giuliani, Romney et. al. Why is it that all debates must be commented on as "spirited" for them to be acceptable? Always appealing to our "feelings," our wish for politicians to be "like us." Never actually focus on the issues at stake. No, debates have to be "spirited" and said spiritedness must be what we focus on. Fuck you, WaPo.
Most people who have been paying attention (who just plain pay attention) know that Obama's religious status has been quite the obsession for the right-wing nuts out there. The talking point here is the lie that Obama is Muslim. They refer to his childhood in Indonesia and that his stepfather and grandfather were Muslim. Of course we all know this is what's called Swift-Boating, that tactic of spreading lies among so many sources that eventually it sows doubt about someone. The really sickening thing here is that the Washington Post would publish this trash and sell it as "rumor." We all like to tell ourselves that papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post are intelligent, thoughtful, credible sources of information. The truth is that they are just like any other corporation trying to make a profit, and so they push stories like this off as "news" so that we can get some "perspective" on what "all sides" are saying. I could give a flying fuck what religion Obama calls his own, or where he chooses to "worship." It's sad, really, that he has to emphasize his "Christianity" so much. Hmm, does the phrase "convert or die" ring a bell to anyone who knows what so-called "Christians" did (and are still doing, but in more PR-friendly ways but still in ways that destroy minds) to people all over Asia who didn't acquiesce to their culture of abstraction that is religion?
We truly are a culture of competition, of abstraction, of exploiting others to amass wealth. We worship the god of production. The "God" of Christianity, of Islam, of Judaism -- is really just a ruse to get people to follow, to get people distracted enough to kill each other over who is the "one true God," to get the masses to not direct their ire toward those in power, toward those who are doing the real harm to them, exploiting them, abusing them, killing them.
Expect articles like this one, and more vicious, next year, whoever the Dem nominee is. (Republicans? Why pick on them -- they just want to "lower your taxes" [sic] and "keep you safe" [sic]?) And, expect to find these articles on the front pages of corporate newspapers. This is what passes for "informed," unfortunately, for our culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)