Again, the Media Totally Ignores Breaking News!

This news should have received major headlines! I give up! :) Audio only.

Sphere: Related Content

Hiltons and Lohans Trump Media's Interest in Calls for Cheney's Impeachment

We have come to a sad time in our country's existence when the media doesn't cover the alleged constitutional violations of the second most important man in the land. Newspapers rush to cover the antics of uneducated twenty-somethings whose whole raison d'etre is to etre. Be there. That's it. Show up. Look pretty. First page news - News Flash. Britney Flashed!

The obliteration of our sacred Bill of Rights? The potential of an abuse of power? Where are Woodward and Bernstein now? A President got some thugs to break into some offices in a hotel. Impeachment was called and to avoid censure a President Nixon resigned. During another time in our country's history, a President (no, Not JFK, or GWB, Sr.) had a dalliance with a young intern, and impeachment hearings were held.

The brave Congressman below seeks to petition for impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney (just the last name is synonymous with greed, corruption, and cloak and dagger maneuvering, topped with deniability and the sacrosanct Executive Privilege defenses). Hear Wexler's radio interview where he states his befuddlement that three members of the Judiciary Committee wants to investigate the allegations and not one large media outlet covered it, to his knowledge. Be patient and turn down the volume if the hung-over smoker-sounding radio jock's voice gets on your nerves.



I'd still like to know. Where were the media? Where were the articles in the tabloids, the major papers, or even the television news for that matter? Black out. We can no longer look at the dark sinister Putin's resurged "Iron Curtain" as the only country that controls its press. Indeed, see where we rank in the list of countries with freedom of the press. Click the link and look at the column on the right.

But who cares about the press except MTV's Sweet Sixteen brats who want fame more than an education? Where are the friggin' adults in this country? Are we addicted to nineteen year-olds and the grown men who love them?

The US actually needs God's Blessings now -- because this country is no longer blessed. It is lacking in common sense; we need a reinvigoration of what made this country a beacon for emulation: due process and invocation of the rule of law. We're quite the disgrace now. And that makes me sad.

C'mon, America. Write to the major papers and ask them: Why the Blackout? And threaten not to read their papers, anymore. They don't give us important news, after all. The Power really is with the People now. And we need hearings. The results are up for grabs, and I'm not even as concerned about the outcome as the due process that should take place to see that justice is served and we learn about the limits of Executive Privilege. Just who can we believe in if not the democratic principles that keep us free?

We might need to move to Iraq.

Sphere: Related Content

Class: Today we Learn About Democracy Nouveau and Rich(e) Baseball Thuggery: Who Rules Us, Baby

Representative government doesn't seem to be working and it would appear that this country is actually leaning toward Leninism. Lenin believed that the government should be ruled by a special committee to ensure that the masses (who could not take care of themselves) were kept in their worker-bee places. I'm not sure I got a good grade in that class years, I mean, years and years ago.

So everything we learned in school about the greatness of our democracy now belongs to Venezuela, whose voters defeated a powerful and braggardly man, of a very rich country. Meanwhile,here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, the press decides to exclude a minority candidate [note to the hasten to judge reader: there is another definition of the term "minority," which does not suggest color or racial affiliation] from a debate, thereby taking another step in defeating our democracy.

Like high school, there's an in-crowd (the rah-rahs) and the fringe outsiders and those high school Principals who govern the campus have decided that a black man who rants on a Republican stage is more compelling than a short white one who has real issues to talk about. Well, enough is written about that, so I won't rehash it further.

What I will comment about, again, is the post-game mauling of the moderator
Carolyn Washburn by the envious cable news "yankors" (definition: privileged men who cannot contain their jealousy when a woman acts like a real journalist, so they vengefully tear him or her apart limb). Many cable stations yesterday and today gave her de facto D's on her report card for not allowing the candidates the chance to mud-wrestle in their skivvies (or teddy, in just one case, hopefully). Which begs the question: Hey, MSNBC, Fox, and CNN - remember journalism? It ain't the Jay Leno news hour. News used to be serious talk about serious issues, not standing alongside each other and arguing about whose news station is bigger and better. I wonder if this isn't the hazard of being a Taliban nation where the men rule and any woman who isn't showing her décolletage and curtsying is anathema to our male-dominated patriarchal sensibilities. I wonder if, ultimately, that's why Clinton might not win? It's still a Man's game. Investigations about steroids and who is the strongest: no investigations on the myriad number of unanswered questions about the Iraqi war buildup, management, cover-ups, Halliburton, habeas corpus, forced detentions, etc. Baseball rules = Not democracy.

The Democratic debate was a legitimate debate, it just wasn't candidates talking to each other. The debate was against the moderator, who fired back the tough questions, instead of the MSNBC and CNN free-for-all dustup and send-off about UFOs. Yesterday, we saw how each candidate thought on his or her feet, albeit under the gun, but, hey, whoever wins will make most of their daily decisions under the gun. I won't say who I thought won the debate because one of the best thinkers on the political scene was not invited: Dennis Kucinich. The reason? His "office" was in someone's home. Big business rules. So much for the small businessman with a great idea. They can't do business in Iowa.

I'm not a fringe Ron Paul or Kucinich-or-die zealot. I just want fairness, something that the media just can't seem to get straight. Why not expand the debate to 2 hours to allow the others to speak. I daresay, everyone would have stayed riveted. America is takng this election pretty seriously.

Anyway, back to the Des Moines Register Editor/Moderator: She's not on stage to be liked. She was on stage to do a j-o-b. She did her homework. And, yes, she did note, aloud, whenever she realized that she was giving one candidate a longer time at his or her pulpit (in this case I think it was Richardson who got the most time, but that's my rushed and unstudied opinion, which I'll at least admit to).

So, Ms. Washburn -- you do rule, much to my satisfaction, for carrying a fair debate; but if you also ruled against Kucinich - you're not so cool, after all.

Sphere: Related Content

Iowa Repub Debate a Dud Because They Discussed Issues?

I tend to be in a lone minority where popular consensus is concerned. While Chris Matthews sputtered and spewed his venom about how "boring" the debate was (there were no fireworks or jabs at another candidate, he lamented), I thought it was controlled, focused and strictly presented. If we want to see a sparring match we can watch WWF. For an interesting look at the history of Presidential debates, go to PBS (I couldn't create the link for some strange reason - put debates in the search bar on the PBS site). I'd like to know who the decider was/is who determined which candidate will be invited to attend which debate. Ralph Nader wasn't invited in 2000, Alan Keyes (I'll reserve my epithets) was invited to the Republican debate yesterday, and today's Democratic debate, neither Dennis Kucinich nor Mike Gravel was invited. This -- in the land of free speech. So, PBS has its issues, too. However, negatives aside, I believe PBS acquitted itself relatively nicely.

So the moderator was sober. That's PBS. That's journalism. If anything, it shows the difference between "newstainment" and "straight news." I do think the raising hands issues was a little parochial and unnecessary, but it also gave us an opportunity to see how the candidates reacted. Some touted that Thompson's refusal to raise his hand made him look Presidential. If we go on looks, sure he's tall, but I rarely hear him say anything substantive. But maybe that's his style. I have the same issue with Obama. I don't know where he stands on most issues, except that he will give us change.

PBS is neutral because it tries to represent the issues. There may be a liberal slant, I'll admit, but it doesn't hit us over the head, like Fox TV, MSNBC and CNN, who mudsling about each other on air. Has cable news really come to this? The more I watch Cable News, the closer I'm drifting to terrestrial news - maybe 1/2 hour per day of news is enough. And I can stop writing to myself!

Sphere: Related Content

The Polls on Polls - Americans Speak Out

I was searching in vain for the transcript of a CNN reporter who said, in passing, that Dennis Kucinich knew that his candidacy was hopeless. I'm still searching, but I came across this "blawg" on CNN about polling the ramifications of Oprah Winfrey's Barak Obama endorsement. The article isn't as interesting as the discussions which follow (keep scrolling)

The American people have spoken: polls are not reliable and we don't pay attention to them, so quit wasting your time, media. Talk about the candidates' issues, instead -- or is that too much work for you?

Sphere: Related Content