Unintended Benefits Of The Writer’s Strike

Posted by on January 27, 2008 at 2:48 pm. 1 Comments :

Entertainment Weekly conducted a study to find, amongst other things, “what the average entertainment fan is doing to cope” in the absence of freshly scripted TV diversions. There is actually some good news in the survey results. Here are some selected highlights:

How have you been spending your spare time now that your favorite shows are off the air? (Choose all that apply.)
Pct Activity
44 Watching less TV
40 Reading more books
36 Listening to more music
34 Watching more news programming
27 Going to bed earlier
23 Going online more
16 Bored more than usual
9 Having more sex

I’m not quite sure why the 16% who are more bored don’t join the 9% who are having more sex and increase that number. However, we certainly can’t complain if people are reading more books and getting more sleep, so the strike isn’t all bad news. Of course, I wouldn’t want the strike to be extended just to further these activities, but it wouldn’t hurt if folks altered their routine in ways that allowed these new habits to persist.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Pope Preaches Media Ethics

Posted by on January 27, 2008 at 4:37 am. NO Comments :

Who knew that the Roman Catholic Church observed something called “World Communications Day”? Well they do, and the theme for the 42nd annual observance to be held on May 4, 2008, was addressed in a speech by Pope Benedict XVI. He had some interesting things to say about the media. To begin with he recognizes the massive shadow cast by modern media conglomerates.

“Truly, there is no area of human experience, especially given the vast phenomenon of globalization, in which the media have not become an integral part of interpersonal relations and of social, economic, political and religious development.”

He goes on to warn that the media’s potential for positive contributions in society can be undermined by their basest tendencies, and that they…

“…risk being transformed into systems aimed at subjecting humanity to agendas dictated by the dominant interests of the day. This is what happens when communication is used for ideological purposes or for the aggressive advertising of consumer products.”

He is starting to sound like a fairly radical advocate for reform. He introduces the notion of “info-ethics” that, like bio-ethics, would serve as a guide in the practice of principled journalism. But he isn’t through yet.

“We must ask, therefore, whether it is wise to allow the instruments of social communication to be exploited for indiscriminate ‘self-promotion’ or to end up in the hands of those who use them to manipulate consciences. Should it not be a priority to ensure that they remain at the service of the person and of the common good…”

Well that settles it. The Pope has fallen in with the subversives who are calling for a wholesale restructuring of media’s place in society. A key goal of reformers is to insure that the media does not “end up in the hands” of manipulators and those who fail to acknowledge an obligation to the public interest. And if that’s not enough, tell me that this isn’t a slap at Fox News:

“Today, communication seems increasingly to claim not simply to represent reality, but to determine it, owing to the power and the force of suggestion that it possesses.”

Alright, maybe I’m reading a bit too much into that, but if I had presented it as a quote from Bill Moyers or Bob McChesney, it would have been entirely believable. The same would be true for the following:

“The media must avoid becoming spokesmen for economic materialism and ethical relativism, true scourges of our time. Instead, they can and must contribute to making known the truth about humanity, and defending it against those who tend to deny or destroy it.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s great to see a mainstream spiritual leader like this articulate an agenda that is so anti-materialism and pro-truth. I wonder if the faithful will get behind these ideas and pursue, with a missionary zeal, the reform of a system that demeans humanity and freedom of thought and will.


Wall Street More Worried About Democrats Than Terror

Posted by on January 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm. 2 Comments :

If you need more proof that greedy, nationless, corporations and the parasitical appendages that analyze and enable them are detrimental to our country, look no further than this study of Wall Street’s investment professionals.

Wall Street WorryWhen asked what their “single greatest economic worry is for 2008,” did they choose recession, or sub-prime loans, or the national debt, or oil prices, or the trade deficit, or the falling value of the dollar? Of course not. The thing these elitist moneychangers fear the most is a Democrat in the White House. They are so consumed with their own partisan, selfish greed that 22% of them consider a president elected by the American people to be worse than even a terrorist attack, which was only chosen by 13%. To compound the extremism of their blind self-interest, 81% of them also cited a capital gains tax increase as their greatest tax concern. That shouldn’t really come as a surprise to the vast majority of Americans who pay only income taxes. The ruling class is always angling for the tax burden to be further shifted to ordinary citizens.

What is surprising is that these supposed financial wizards are so ill informed about their own business and history. A little research would enlighten them to the fact that Wall Street traditionally performs better during Democratic administrations:

“…the Dow Jones industrial average has returned an average of 6.4% under Republican presidents and 9.1% under Democrats since 1901.”

This study underscores the reasons why the Wall Street constituency deserves to be ignored with regard to public policy. They are so thoroughly removed from the mainstream of society as to be irrelevant and even harmful. This is also an affirmation of the candidacy of John Edwards who has made challenging these powerful special interests an integral theme of his campaign. If nothing else, he needs to be there representing a point of view that the other candidates dismiss.

The study should also serve as a wake up call to politicians and activists who are concerned about the undue influence of these Capitalists Gone Wild. We must be much more aggressive in advancing lobby reform and public financing of elections. As long as these jackals use their wealth and connections to shape Washington to their liking, the people’s voice will be drowned out and disregarded.

Cavuto/ClintonThe people’s voice is already being lost in the din of propagandists like Rupert Murdoch who now owns the daily Bible of these market mavens, the Wall Street Journal, as well as his own disinformation vehicle on cable TV, the Fox Business Network. FBN was launched with the promise that it would a more “business friendly business network.” And that’s on top of the already prominent friendly coverage that is broadcast on the Fox News Channel. Note this graphic evidence that last October Fox News was already laying the groundwork for Wall Street’s fear of Democrats.

The graphic of the survey results above was also featured on Fox News. If people aren’t already anxious about the economy, jobs, mortgages, health care, and terrorism, Fox is devoted to manufacturing anxiety in every way they can. They are fully committed to the use of dire threats of catastrophe in order to advance their agenda. And isn’t that the definition of terrorism?


Giuliani and McCain’s Nightmare On Pennsylvania Ave

Posted by on January 24, 2008 at 5:48 pm. NO Comments :

Rudy Giuliani, the leader of the 9/11 Generation, and John McCain, the Beast of Baghdad, are starring together in this election year’s most TERROR-ifying fright fest. Nightmare On Pennsylvania Avenue is certain to scare the daylights out of everybody who sees it – especially Democrats who are already shuddering at the thought.

Nightmare on Pennsylvania Ave

Don’t miss the extravaganza that has Bill O’Reilly saying:

“There is a chance that before this presidential election year is over somebody is going to get hurt.” ~ Bill O’Reilly

Here is John McCain’s new ad boasting that he is the Democrat’s worst enemy:

Here is Rudy Giuliani’s earlier ad boasting that he is the Democrat’s worst enemy:

News Corpse will maintain it’s neutrality and simply concede that they are both pretty awful and they are both enemies.

Their heroes are looking more pathetic with every passing day. Huckabee props up Chuck Norris, a 68 year old high kicker who is supposed to make us vote for Rev. Mike or he’ll beat us up behind the cafeteria during recess. McCain has his own 62 year old relic who will challenge Huckabee’s champion ala Gamera vs. Mothra at the Monster Leisure World in Boca. What’s next? Illegal Alien Vs. Terrorist Predator?

Not much we can do but sit back and watch as they threaten to destroy us or each other or whoever is their enemy of the moment. It’s not art, but with a bucket of popcorn and a large soda it might just be some fun.


Indiana Student Newspaper Honors Freedom Of The Press

Posted by on January 23, 2008 at 12:53 pm. NO Comments :

The Indiana Daily Student, a newspaper run by students at Indiana University, has taken a stand on press freedom that the professionals ought to take note of.

When Bush’s former deputy national security adviser, Meghan O’Sullivan, came to speak for the school’s Student Alliance for National Security (SANS), she insisted that the speech be off-the-record. This would not be out of character for an operative from the secrecy-obsessed Bush White House. O’Sullivan was also a top aide to Paul Bremer who led Iraq’s Coalition Provisional Government after the fall of Saddam. So O’Sullivan was a key architect of the administration’s disastrously failed policy in Iraq every step of the way.

Concerns were raised about O’Sullivan’s insistence that the lecture be kept private because it was to be given to a group of 70 students in a public hall and was paid for with university funds. That makes it a little difficult to assert that there was plausible anxiety that classified information would be revealed if the press were allowed to report on it.

To it’s credit, the Indiana Daily Student declined to agree to O’Sullivan’s off-the-record demands. Shortly thereafter, O’Sullivan canceled the event saying that she had become “sick to her stomach.” However, she appeared later the same evening at a private dinner with members of SANS. Her speedy recovery notwithstanding, she still refused to repay the fee she received for the lecture she never gave.

The Indiana Daily Student deserves to be congratulated for their adherence to journalistic ethics. It’s too bad that their elders in corporate media have let their idealism lapse so badly.


Oliver Stone Channels Frank Capra For Bush Pic

Posted by on January 23, 2008 at 3:10 am. NO Comments :

Oliver Stone, the director of JFK and Nixon, is setting his sights on another president. He has begun work on a film chronicling the life and times of George W. Bush.

Bush the Movie

Variety reports that Stone is “not looking to make an anti-Bush polemic.” Too bad. Although any attempt to portray Bush honestly will look like a smackdown anyway. Stone is quoted in the article as saying…

“I have empathy for Bush as a human being, much the same as I did for Castro, Nixon, Jim Morrison, Jim Garrison and Alexander the Great […] I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It’s like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I’ll also cover the demons in his private life […] It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president”

It’s certainly an intriguing story: An alcoholic bum is chosen by God to lead a nation into war, financial ruin and international ill repute. It has Capra written all over it. In fact if you look at Capra’s body of work you can almost find the Bush story already therein:

Bush the Movie
Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Another Head Rolls At The Los Angeles Times

Posted by on January 21, 2008 at 5:34 pm. 1 Comments :

The Los Angeles Times is about to get its fourth editor in less than three years. News has leaked from the Times’ newsroom that editor James O’Shea has been sacked for the same reason three of his predecessors were ushered out. O’Shea, who was air-dropped in from the Chicago hive to replace Dean Baquet, was cut for his unwillingness to implement further cuts to the paper’s budget. Publisher David Hiller, another Chicago transplant has been having trouble finding pigeons to carry out his executions.

After three departures that hinged on an editor’s perception that the paper’s viability would suffer under the the publisher’s proposed budget, you might think that someone in the executive suite would set down his martini long enough to become curious as to why all of these editors would prefer to be fired than to go along with draconian cuts.

While each of the former editors had persuasive arguments for retaining, or even expanding, the newsroom’s budget, O’Shea may have had an even better case. He was looking forward to a year that included a presidential campaign as well as the Olympics. That seems like an inopportune time to be pinching pennies. At the time that Baquet was jettisoned, I criticized the move and mocked O’Shea as another corporate ringer brought in to wield the ax. Imagine my surprise to read O’Shea’s farewell message that included this choice morsel:

“Journalists and not accountants should seize responsibility for the financial health of our newspapers so journalists can make decisions about the size of our staffs and how much news remains in our papers and web sites […] When this industry stops relying so much on cuts and starts investing in Journalism, it will prosper because it will be serving the best interests of our readers.”

These actions on the part of the Times’ parent company, Tribune, are neo-Nixonian in that they emulate the famous Saturday Night Massacre. That was the affair where Nixon had to keep firing Justice Department chiefs until he found one that would carry out his order to whack independent counsel Archibald Cox (Robert Bork turned out to be the willing trigger man). Tribune has had to keep fishing for an editor to do their dirty work. O’Shea was their golden boy who was editing the Chicago Tribune before taking the assignment in L. A. But editors here are apparently as expendable as starlets. Now another has fallen, but not nearly as far as the quality and credibility of the Times.


MLK: Every Creative Means Of Protest Possible

Posted by on January 21, 2008 at 2:56 am. NO Comments :

Today as we celebrate the memory and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., millions of Americans will reflect on the impact his life had. That impact, for many, is very personal. There is much for which to be grateful in the gifts of hope and justice that he left behind. For me there was a speech that was particularly transforming. It was his public entry into the anti-war movement, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. As a twelve year old peace activist and an aspiring artist, one sentence stood out and helped to shape the next 40 years of my life:

“We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.”

That’s one of the first recollections I have of perceiving art as an act of conscience and rebellion. Prior to that I drew a lot of superheroes and hot rods (I was twelve, after all). I had become radicalized, and I knew that at least part of my work had to be devoted to making a better world. A couple of years ago, as a blogger, I put down some of my thoughts and frustrations in this regard.

Art InsurgencyIn Creativism – The Rise Of The Art Insurgency, I presented the case for employing the arts in social movements. My intent was to inspire an uprising of artists to fight back against an ever more repressive culture. Virtually all of the political dialog in this country is limited to politicians and pundits and a media so shallow that a gnat couldn’t bathe in it. Creativity in support of social change was once not a particularly odd concept, but with the rise of right-wing neo-Dark Agists badgering artists to “shut up and sing,” it has become a more hostile endeavor. Artists, however, are not surrendering ground and art lovers should not either. Solidarity with creatives is paramount for progress. They are the emotive flank of our army.

The value of art in movement building stems from the uniquely personal relationship that binds us to works of insight and honesty. Speeches and op/eds will never evoke the intimacy of artistic expression. That’s why, despite protestations of the Cultural Imperialists, artists remain relevant and influential. At it’s best, art inspires, motivates and unites. It’s even better when it incites and provokes.

There is irony in the fact that complaints come from conservative repressives when it is mainly conservatives that blur the lines between creative and public aspirations. While there are many liberal artists that express political views, they rarely run for office. Unlike conservative gate crashers like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, George Murphy, etc. Still it’s conservatives who complain that liberal artists are crossing the line and, with an Olympian feat of denial, they never harbor similar complaints toward their own kind. Sean Penn, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie are interlopers who should know their place. But Chuck Norris, Dennis Miller and Charlton Heston are patriots and public policy experts whose input is invaluable. As I wrote in Creativism…

“The time has come to restore the dignity of creativism. We must beat back the repressive forces that would prefer the Dark Ages to the Renaissance. We must recognize the power that speaking the truth brings to our world and ourselves. We must support our creative advocates.”

To that I would add that we must persist in producing thoughtful, provocative work that leads us to a world with more liberty, more peace, more justice, and fuller hearts and bellies. We must confront the censors and the bullies who fear our voices and would silence them. And we must seek new and aggressive forms of distribution that spreads our messages from the Internet to the Interstate and beyond. As the activist/artist Vladimir Mayakovsky said:

“Art must not be concentrated in dead shrines called museums. It must be spread everywhere…on the streets, in the trams, factories, workshops, and in the workers homes.”

And as Dr. King declared, we, as artists, must be prepared to match actions with words and use our talents to manifest a world that reflects our dreams.


Dishonesty In Politics And In Media by Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on January 21, 2008 at 12:22 am. 2 Comments :

No one can compound stupidity like The Fester, Bill O’Reilly. Last week he assailed John Edwards for his remarks about homeless veterans. O’Reilly, without making any attempt to ascertain the facts, claimed that Edwards “had no clue” and that, if there were any homeless vets, there weren’t very many.

The proof of the veteran’s plight was so easily attainable that O’Reilly had to concede that the problem did indeed exist. But being O’Reilly, that didn’t mean conceding that he was wrong or apologizing. To the contrary, after embarrassing himself with comments that he admits are immature, he demanded an apology from Edwards, the guy whos was right in the first place. His reasoning was based on an element of the debate that he had to invent.

O’Reilly: “Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it’s not because of the economy. It’s mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about.”

However, Edwards never claimed that the economy was to blame. He only raised the issue of homeless vets to bring attention to the situation and to assert that America can do better. He was looking for solutions, not blame. But even O’Reilly’s made-up excuse exposes his dishonesty and/or stupidity. First of all, if government can do so little about addiction and mental illness, why do they invest so much in programs for precisely that? Secondly, according to experts, mental illness is only one of the contributors to homelessness:

“Mental illness, financial troubles and difficulty in finding affordable housing are generally accepted as the three primary causes of homelessness among veterans, and in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, the first has raised particular concern.

Iraq veterans are less likely to have substance abuse problems but more likely to suffer mental illness, particularly post-traumatic stress, according to the Veterans Administration. And that stress by itself can trigger substance abuse. “

So O’Reilly was wrong about the problem’s severity, he was wrong about Edwards’ positions, and he was wrong about the causes. And sadly, O’Reilly seems only to be concerned about veterans if they are having financial difficulties. If the problem is psychological or drug related, then to Hell with them. But even on the financial front O’Reilly can’t help but deceive and distort. He claims that amongst those living below the poverty line…

“Ninety-seven percent have a color TV, 78 percent a DVD player, 80 percent an air conditioner, 73 percent a car or truck, 63 percent cable or satellite TV, and 43 percent of poor households in the USA own the home they are living in.”

That nonsense was lifted from the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector who for years has been peddling the notion that America’s poor are living large on the taxpayer’s dime. O’Reilly and Rector are using faulty analysis and outright falsehoods to attempt to reincarnate Ronald Reagan’s fictional welfare queens. On August 27, 2007 Rector wrote an article that included the statistics above and arrived at this conclusion:

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.”

Rector has been shoveling this garbage for some time and he even plagiarizes himself because the exact same paragraph appears in a nearly identical article he wrote for the Heritage Foundation three years earlier on September 15, 2004. But Rector has bigger problems than self-plagiarism or propagandistic redundancy. His analysis must be purposely deceitful, as it is so far off from even the sources he cites. The tip off was the 97% of the poor who supposedly have a color TV. In fact, that is the percentage of ALL Americans with a TV (does anyone have a black and white TV?).

The statement that “the typical American defined as poor by the government has…” all of the items Rector lists is profoundly ignorant. The survey says only that these items are owned in these percentages, not that all of the poor own all of the items. So some may have a car, and others may have an air conditioner, etc.

The actual stats, according to the Department of Energy study Rector himself footnoted, are 40% have a color TV, 32% a VCR/DVD player, 27% an air conditioner, 27% a car or truck, 26 percent cable or satellite TV, and 13% own their home. That’s a long ways from the lies O’Reilly and Rector are spewing.

On some level though, you have to admire O’Reilly for having the audacity to be so monumentally wrong and still maintain his air of pompous superiority. His ability to acknowledge that Edwards was right but that he, O’Reilly, wasn’t wrong is classically egomaniacal. And using this occasion to expand on his lies about homeless vets and the poor overall perfectly embodies the meaning of the title of his screed: Dishonesty In Politics And In Media by Bill O’Reilly.


Jon Stewart: Scaring Conservatives With Comedy

Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm. NO Comments :

The conservative thought model is dominated by confrontation. Rightists are obsessed with hostile imagery. Their loins tingle when one of their heroes utters threatening bromides from the safety of their TV studio. That’s why people like Bill O’Reilly are revered for being bullies. It’s why Bill Kristol and Norman Podhoretz get respect for their proposals to bomb Iraq or Iran or whatever imagined enemy is presently being demonized. It’s the reason that Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee are cheered in debates for alluding to Iranians encountering virgins at the gates of Hell.

Conservatives love their wars and they love to pretend that they would all perform like Rambos were they to meet some vile terrorist in a dark alley. What’s more, they love to bash liberals as weak and insufficiently dedicated to the cause of eradicating the vermin encroaching on our otherwise tranquil paradise.

After 9/11 the cry arose that anything you do that is contrary to the rightist stance on national security means that “the terrorists will win.” Now that catch-phrase has been adapted for the media. Today, anyone who doesn’t kow-tow to propagandists in the press are pansies who would shrink from their duty to defend their country. What we have now is the equivalent of the old schoolyard taunt that my patriotic daddy can beat up your Islamo-fascist daddy. Some recent examples follow:

“The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda.”
…Roger Ailes, Chairman, Fox News.

“If The Times can’t take an argument with Kristol, how can it face down Al Qaeda?”
…John Gibson, Fox News Host.

Notorious wankmeister Jonah Goldberg was a guest on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart a couple of days ago. The fearsome Stewart has apparently frightened some conservative warriors, because now they are complaining about the encounter and questioning whether any of their ilk should venture into Stewart’s lair considering the enormity of the risk. The National Review’s Mark R. Levin puts it this way:

“You have to make a calculation when you go on shows hosted by liberals like Jon Stewart. They are not going to allow you to actually discuss your book. Their audiences are prepped to laugh at whatever the host says and react negatively to whatever the author says. And when their writers aren’t striking, the host is armed with a bunch of jokes to mock the author. So, you have to weigh that against a couple of mentions of the book, and whether the entire enterprise is worth it.”

Oh my heavens! The audience is “prepped” to “laugh.” What dastardly evil could justify that kind of behavior during a comedy program? Levin’s colleague at the magazine, Kathryn Jean Lopez, is also afraid:

“Stewart generally winds up trying to make a joke out of you or your issues, or is just downright unfair. The best shows involve some sort of smart give and take. The Daily Show isn’t generally conducive to such a thing. You’re either in downright hostile territory, or you’re pretending to be something you aren’t – a comedian. It’s just not worth it.”

The bravado of the right seems to be showing some wear around the edges. What became of their zeal to cast Liberals into the pits of Hades? Where is that gung-ho bearing that inspired such feats of daring as shoving a candidate’s aide so that you can beg him to come on your TV show? It seems to me that the only real question here is:

“If you can’t face Jon Stewart, how could you possibly face Al Qaeda?”
…News Corpse, Far-left Internet Smear Merchant