‘Liberal’ media bias — RIGHT…

The lion’s share of the mainstream news/“news” coverage that I have seen of yesterday’s Wisconsin recall election results have painted the results as a victory for the Repugnican Tea Party traitors (well, “traitors” is my word, of course, not the word of the “fair and balanced” “news” media).

Let’s get this straight: Yesterday, the Democrats in Wisconsin successfully recalled two Repugnican Tea Party state senators. The Repugnican Tea Party’s majority in the state’s Senate is now by only one senator. Thus far, not a single Democrat has lost his or her seat in the Wisconsin state legislature in a recall election.

Of course it would have been great had the Wisconsin Dems successfully recalled just one more Repugnican Tea Party state senator and flipped the control of the state’s Senate from red to blue, more seriously thwarting the anti-working-class, pro-plutocratic Repugnican Tea Party Gov. Scott Walker.

However, it was a Herculean task from the get-go, winning three seats in Repugnican-Tea-Party-dominated state senate districts. In this case, winning one out of three actually wasn’t bad.

Despite a supposed “liberal media bias,” only the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, very apparently, can “win” even when they’ve lost. Perhaps this started with George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote in 2000 but still “won” the White House.

Why is it that even when they win, the Dems are widely reported by the mainstream media to have lost?

There are several reasons, but let’s look at a few of them:

(1) The mainstream media are corporately owned and controlled. “Free speech” — riiiiight! If you just happen to have millions or billions of dollars, then you can get your message out to the masses. And how friendly is a corporately owned and controlled mass media operation going to be to a message that isn’t pro-corporate? To a message that is blatantly anti-corporate? Still think there really is any such thing as “free speech”?

Corporate ownership of the mass media automatically means that the media no longer are democratic — that is, of the people. The overwhelming majority of the mass media in the United States are of the corporations.

Thus, even The Associated Press essentially reported Wisconsin’s recall election results as a loss for the Dems and a victory for the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, when the best that you can say for the latter is that they saw very mixed results — sure, they now barely maintain their majority in the state’s Senate, but they still lost two state Senate seats, and November 2012 isn’t so far away.

(2) Democrats are pussies. Dems are talked about like they’re losers because they act like losers — even when they’ve won or even when they hold the upper hand. President Hopey-Changey, the capitulator in chief, is a huge part of this problem (when the Dems held the White House and both houses of Congress in 2009 and in 2010, did they exploit this rare political alignment for the progressive good? Of course not!), but it’s a problem that he inherited and is perpetuating, not one that he invented. (Indeed, President Hopey-Changey his whole life has coasted on others’ accomplishments. He’s a fraud, a fake, a sham of a man.)

(3) The muggles are brainwashed from Day One to be obedient to the Man, to The System, to the Great Capitalist Machine — so much so that the oppressed muggles who suffer under the Man actually defend the Man, their oppressors, just like the chickens defending Colonel Sanders. And these brainwashed turncoats also do much of the Man’s work of oppressing the masses for him by turning on their fellow chickens (think Repugnican Tea Party traitors, whose founding father is Benedict Arnold).

Back to point No. 1: I’m also seeing the mainstream “news” media (including the AP) mention the money from the labor movement that went into the recall battle in Wisconsin, but including little to no mention at all of the shitloads of corporate money that was sunk into the battle. No pro-corporate, anti-union bias there!

And let’s not act like corporate money and labor-union money are equal. Corporate money comes from the anti-democratic (anti-rule-by-the-people) plutocrats. Corporate money comes from the few. Union money comes from the many, from the people. That’s a helluva lot more democratic than the rich few running the show (which is the definition of a plutocracy).

I’m not so naive as to think that these dysfunctional dynamics are going to go away any day soon. Most of those who already are infected with this self-defeating dysfunction will take this dysfunction with them to their graves (although they apparently are hell-bent on taking those of us who are sane right along with them to hell).

It’s probably up to our young people to break the chains. And as capitalism is fucking them up the ass using ground glass as lube, I think it’s safe to say that a good number of them aren’t wild about capitalism, which hasn’t been so very very good for them.

In the meantime, there is no reason to stop the war against the treasonous plutocrats and their turncoat supporters in Wisconsin.

Next up after the Wisconsin state Senate recall elections have passed: The recall of Repugnican Tea Party Gov. Scott “Dead Man” Walker.

I’m in.

Go out bawling over the brawling

Associated Press photo

Democratic U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana has filled for the mainstream “news” media the-sky-is-falling-for-the-Democrats vacuum that Repugnican Scott Brown left after his takeover of the solidly Democratic U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts became old news. Bayh is shown above getting his Warholian minutes when he announced yesterday that he won’t seek a third term in the U.S. Senate.

Evan Bayh is still in the news today.

The mainstream “news” media are so hungry for sensationalism that they’ll create sensationalism where it isn’t. The Scott Brown brouhaha has past, so now they’ve latched on to what even The Christian Science Monitor sensationistically has dubbed the “Bayh bombshell” (from which “Washington is still reeling”).

Oh, yeah, it’s shock and awe!

Some analysts have posited that Bayh became a U.S. senator only because he wanted a better shot at the White House, and that he doesn’t want to have to wait, languishing in a job in the Senate that he never really wanted, until 2016, which is probably the next shot at the White House that he’d get. And what if he didn’t get that?

What’s so “stunning” (another sensationalistic term that The Christian Science Monitor used to describe Bayh’s depature from the Senate, as did The Associated Press) about a politician’s apparent lust for personal political power, which he apparently cloaks as his alleged concern for the people? (If Bayh is so fucking concerned about what’s best for the people instead of his own political future, then why in the fuck did he vote, like a lemming, for the Vietraq War, when many senators, including my own Sen. Barbara Boxer, had the sense to vote against it?)

So Bayh goes out bawling, bitching and moaning about how he doesn’t like the bickering in the Senate.

What, I wonder, is Bayh like at a sports event? Is he dismayed that the two teams are — gasp! — competing with each other instead of cooperating with each other?

Don’t they say that politics is a contact sport?

Bayh is a liar — blaming the “partisanship” (like that’s a bad thing) of the Senate for his departure from it when really, just like Sarah Palin-Quayle just didn’t have any more personal use for the governorship of Alaska, he has no more personal use for the Senate — and/or he’s a pussy who doesn’t have the stomach for polarized debate, which, the last time I checked, has existed in Congress since its inception. Really — did he read the job description before he took the job?

And shame on The Christian Science Monitor for also jumping on the the-Democrats-are-losers-for-not-being-able-to-hold-on-to-60-filibuster-proof-Senate-seats bandwagon.

The Monitor goes on and on about how after the November 2010 elections the Democratic Party probably still will retain a majority of the Senate seats, but almost certainly won’t retain its current 59-seat majority.

But the Monitor doesn’t bother to mention that during George W. Bush’s eight years of unelected rule, the Repugnican Party never had more than 55 of the Senate seats in its hands at any one time.

Suddenly, if you don’t have filibuster-proof majority, which is hard to get and even harder to keep, you’re worthless, but the Repugnicans during the reign of the BushCheneyCorp were always at least five seats away.

Not to sound too much like the fuckarded Sarah Palin-Quayle and her ilk, but what is with the mainstream “news” media’s double fucking standard? Why the much higher standards for the Democratic Party?

Pot calls the kettle ‘radical’

Media bias can be subtle. But there it is.

Take this from The Associated Press today:

A radical American imam on Yemen’s most-wanted militant list who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers praised alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a hero on his personal website [today].

The posting on the website for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.

Awlaki said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to “follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

“Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people,” Awlaki wrote.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is accused of killing 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree [on] Thursday. Hasan’s family attended the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., where Awlaki was preaching in 2001.

Hasan’s mother’s funeral was held at the Falls Church mosque on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper, around the same time two 9/11 hijackers worshipped at the mosque and while Awlaki was preaching.

Awlaki is a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, eventually traveling to Yemen. He was released from a Yemeni jail last year and has since gone missing. He is on Yemen’s most-wanted militant list, according to three Yemeni security officials….

Wow. So we are more or less associating Hasan with 9/11 because Awlaki has praised Hasan on Awlaki’s website and Awlaki might have known some of the 9/11 hijackers. Irresponsible.

But most of all, I have a problem with the casual use of the word “radical.”

What a loaded term, “radical.”

I just Googled “radical,” and the first online dictionary definition of the word “radical,” as the AP story above uses it, that I see is this:

3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>

OK, so maybe we accurately can call Anwar al Awlaki “radical,” but what about the United States of America?

On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 Arab/Muslim hijackers — 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon — attacked targets on U.S. soil, killing under just 3,000 people.

In response, the unelected Bush regime (stealing a presidential election — that’s pretty radical in my book) launched wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Bush regime did not treat 9/11 as what it was — terrorist attacks — meaning that you hunt down the terrorists responsible for the attacks — but instead repeatedly called it a “war,” a la Big Brother in 1984. (Just repeat a lie often enough…)

The U.S. may declare war on another nation legally only when that nation has provoked a war. The U.S. had no legal grounds on which to go to war with Iraq, which is why the Bush regime gave the United Nations Security Council — which had refused to rubber-stamp the Bush regime’s Vietraq War like a good little Security Council should — the middle finger and in March 2003 invaded Iraq anyway, against the United Nations’ wishes.

That seems pretty radical to me — to launch wars upon Iraq and Afghanistan, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, when those nations didn’t even have any of their citizens participate in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

And it’s pretty fucking radical to expect Muslims and Arabs not to have a problem with this illegal, immoral, unjust, unprovoked and indiscriminate slaughter of Muslims and Arabs on their own land. 

I don’t blame Hasan for having had a problem with it, because I have a problem with it, and I’m not even Arab or Muslim. I just have a conscience. (And I can reason and I have some idea of what actually is going on in the world because I don’t watch Fox “News.”)

Killing people when it is not in clear self-defense is radical, whether the killers are “Islamofascist” suicide bombers or shooters like Hasan — or members of the United States military who continue to kill innocent civilians throughout the Middle East to this day. (It’s still killing even if it’s high-tech.)

I agree with the “radical” Awlaki that Hasan apparently “could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people” — that seems rather obvious — and it is my understanding that the conflicted Hasan tried to leave the U.S. military, but that the U.S. military not only would not release him, but decided to ship him off to Afghanistan.

Smart!

If we are going to argue that Awlaki or Hasan is “radical” or “insane,” then we also should take a look at the actions of the United States of America, which only continues to fuel the flames of the “war on terror” that it claims it wishes to extinguish. That is radical and that is insane.

(Of course, it’s debatable whether the powers that be want the “war on terror” to ever end in the first place; it’s great business for the war profiteers and the oil mega-corporations.)

It’s pretty radical that I, who do not subscribe to Islam or Christianity (or the other Gang for God, Judaism), am caught up in the war between the three feuding bullshit religions whether I want to be or not, because with the launching of some nuclear missiles, this “holy” war could change things radically for every living thing on the planet.

It is the media’s job to tell us what’s going on — not to take sides and to get us also to take sides in “holy” wars.

If the AP is going to refer to those outside of the United States who act beyond the pale as “radicals,” then it should start referring to those within the United States who act beyond the pale as “radicals” as well.

You know, to be fair and balanced…