conspiracy theory of the day: north american union

Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 | 0 comments

Watch the video, my comments are below. (hat tip: bizbuzz)

Been reading about the North American Union for awhile, and the new currency the “Amero”, it’s been on television, on Lou Dobbs and elsewhere. And, as the dollar slides into oblivion, it seems more and more plausible, and the appearance of a dastardly plan seems more and more obvious at first glance. But, there are other things to consider. If it uses fear to motivate, then beware.

First of all, I have strong opinions on unified conspiracy theories, which the video proffers. It assumes that there is a group of rich people sitting in a room, who are connected in some way, who share holiday meals together or go to the same church or to the same club, who are all colluding towards a “one world government” and doing all these things behind the scenes to end our lives of liberty, control us all and keep us happy with reruns of American Idol and truck loads of Twinkies. And, it doesn’t work like that. It’s more about social movements and media than about conspiring in groups.

Endeavors such as the NAU function like a movement, a mob of like minded people who are working towards common goals, in this case the creation of a unified finacial system. (Whether you agree with the concept of a unified world financial system or not is up for debate.) It works more like how people decide all at once to start using the internet, or go to YouTube. One person to one person and on and on. Like a mob. That’s how the one world government thing is working. Like a focused flash mob. Because that is how media and the transference of ideas works, and the NAU is an idea, while it isn’t being promoted via the mass media, is still a form of media, an idea, that is conveyed from person to person, and has a genesis that goes back to World War 1. It is primarily a financial movement, not a political one. The two are intertwined by their incestuous relationship, there is no doubt. Which is a very important distinction.
The banking movement has always been more of a mob than a group of white guys sitting in a room smoking Cubans and having sex with underage homeless teens while carving up the roles of the workers and deciding how to spend the workers pensions.

Look at how the EU went down over the course of three decades. It was a movement, but it was primarily financial. It was all about establishing the Euro in member countries.. And, where was all the totalitarianism that the unified conspiracy theorists predicted would occur when the EU was instituted? Where is it? Did the constitutions of nations fall because of it? Did the people of Europe lose their liberties because of the establishment of the EU? No. They didn’t.

The NAU, like the EU, is essentially solidifying financial arrangements that already exist anyway. It’s making them official and sanctioned by a government, in this case one it creates itself, which gives it the ability to establish legal sovereignty and thus protection under certain international laws.

But, the ratification of new constitutions which would override established constitutions and thereby scuttle the rights of the people is not something easily done. Look at what happened with the attempted ratification of the EU constitution. It failed because so many nations felt it infringed (either too liberal or too conservatively) upon their national sovereignty and constitutional independence and the rights of the people. Another mob arose to confront the first mob. And, they did battle. It’s a form of democracy, open source, and sometimes unruly.

The video above dives into the paranoid fantasy that there is a group of privileged people in a dark smoky room that has decided to scuttle the US constitution and bill of rights (which is being hammered at by the Bush Administration anyway) and it’s a done deal. And, the reality is: like what occurred in the EU, the scuttling of the US Constitution is an event that would require more than the establishment of the NAU and a new currency. It’s tacit fear mongering in the video. It’s propaganda meant to use fear as it’s primary tool of conversion of thought. It’s a media virus meant to scare.

Fear is a powerful force used to propel emotional reactions in favor of intellectual ideas. Fear alters the media landscape in ways that aren’t apparent to those who watch media without
a critical eye. Fear fosters an emotional response first and foremost and that means that any real consideration of the issues involved – from the presentation of the propaganda (what’s it’s primary motivation? are the facts correct? is it presented in a logical manner or a fallacious manner?) to the discussion and debate of the ideas within- is left forgotten in the dust of the initial emotional reaction.
That’s the primary function of propaganda. To disrupt the thoughtful consideration and discussion of ideas and media and replace it with an emotional response that squelches discussion and consideration.

From this view point, the primary movement that is afoot in the world today is a corporate financed right wing Christian based extremist movement that wants to establish an American Empire.

The primary mistake in the video that I see is that it attempts to connect this movement to the One World Government one, as if they are one and the same, and that is incorrect. They are two movements that are vehemently opposed to each other on a number of fronts but work together out of necessity.

The video assumes that when David Rockefeller (who is a member of the banking establishment) tells Aaron Russo about an “event” that will occur (9/11) that Rockefeller knew this because of his involvement in the banking “one world government” movement. And, that assumption is erroneous. It’s incorrect. Like many people, Rockefeller was aware of the extremist movement that had been ballooning under the surface – of right wing corporate based pro-war, pro-American Empire movement. Hardcore extremist believers in the privatization of the military forces of the USA and it’s allies, who wished to solidify their power and economic reach by the creation of a situation that is irreversible, one that creates the inevitable need for the US and it’s corporate military personal to be in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. A permanent private corporate military presence in the Middle East to replace the lost US military bases which were abandoned in Saudi Arabia due to internal pressures within that totalitarian regime. (Not to mention the fact that the Saudi Arabian oil reserves are nearing the end of their long term usefulness.)

Does the banking and one world government stand to gain from the establishment of a permanent US presence in the Middle East? Of course. Money creates strange bedfellows to be sure.

Think for a moment what type of reaction would occur in the USA – on the left and the right – if the NAU were established and it was even perceived – whether it was true or not- that the establishment of the NAU would scuttle and US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Can you imagine the popular uproar?

The assumption that this information is being kept under raps in order to foment a totalitarian regime is a bit over the top. Like most things of this nature, the press is asked to not react and not assist information until it is more documented and understood. The same thing was done in the establishment of the EU.

Informed citizens around the world understood in the early 80’s that the EU was going to be established. It wasn’t an issue that was widely understood or seen in the media worldwide until the early 90’s. Was there a conspiracy there to take away the rights of Europeans and control their lives? Doesn’t appear to be does it?

It’s easy to see conspiracy in emotional contexts based in fear. What we don’t know can hurt us. At least in our minds.

The real issue here is how much control do we want banks to have in our world? Is the creation of economic unions in our best interests?

And, as far as liberties are concerned: As long as we remain vigilant and fight for what we believe in, and stay informed and aware, our rights should remain secure.

Any and all affronts to our rights will be met and challenged. That much is clear.

Read More

The Petraeus Ruse

Posted by on Sep 21, 2007 | 0 comments

The plan is deceptively simple: Hide the unpopular Bush behind the military uniform. What’s old is new again.

It’s always been a brilliant move, and this time it’s likely Karl Rove’s parting gift to the faltering Bush Administration. For weeks we patiently waited for General David Petraeus’ testimony before Congress as to whether the surge in Iraq was a success or a failure. It mattered not that it was already a forgone conclusion that the General was to state that the surge was indeed a success, even if there was information that said it was mixed at best, major programs need to be scrapped entirely, or worse, and the war proper was an ongoing financial disaster.

But, truth be told, that’s not where the real action was for the public relations obsessed Bush White House and the noise machine. For, it was also a forgone conclusion that many on the left would react against the surge being proclaimed a success. They would do this vocally and in public and were deeply preparing to do so, as John Edwards did when buying ads to counter Bush’s speech, and as Move On did with it’s “betray us” ad in the New York Times.

Since the very first days in office the public relations m.o. for the Bush White House has always been to wrap Dubya in the military uniform, and to surround him with members of the military whenever possible. But, never have they used a member of the military in uniform to take their political hits and then used that uniform to deflect those hits by saying: “You’re attacking a man in uniform! How unpatriotic!”

It’s important at this moment to remember that it was the Bush White House that placed General David Petraeus into the political waters in the first place and then had the unmitigated gall to yell “shark!” and point fingers. Of course, the plan was always to meld Petraeus into Bush. As Mark Silva put it:

Tonight, the Petraeus plan becomes the Bush plan.

Alas, the Bush speech was met with mostly disdain for its lack of stating anything new, its predictability and its total obviousness in the face of expectation. Everyone knew exactly what Bush was going to say, and he said it. Disappointing to say the least. Why? Because it was all a ruse. The hopes of the White House marketing mavens were dashed upon the rocks, their expectations of the public rallying around the man in uniform and transferring that warm and fuzzy moment onto the president lost in the smoke of the all too political atmosphere that permeated the situation once the conservative noise machine got wind of the Move On ad.

It took the White House a week to actually respond to it themselves, their minions doing such a good job of diversion, disinformation and distortion. But, in the end, when the president did speak upon it, lowering himself to do so, the true nature of it all became clear. And, as all fascists do, they pushed the fear button, and the cowards stood up to be counted, fearful of criticizing the man in uniform who is speaking for the president.

It was brilliant in that regard. A beautiful ruse. Because in the end, we’re not talking about how the Republicans in the US Congress blocked legislation that would give overworked and outstretched US soldiers a bit more leave, or how democratically elected Parliament of Iraq has asked the US to set a timetable to leave Iraq, to not occupy Iraq indefinitely, but the US has refused, or how the Prime Minister of Iraq has asked the US to remove Blackwater operatives from his country, the White House plays deaf and dumb, because the law doesn’t apply to everyone and the dispute rages on and on. We’re not talking about those issues are we?

Democracy struggles at home and abroad because democracy is not the plan. It’s a ruse.

Keith Obermann has the last word on this.

Read More

distortion is the enemy

Posted by on Sep 13, 2007 | 0 comments

Frameshop does a great job of dissecting the conservative noise machines altering of fact in an article titled: “How Right-Wing Lie About MoveOn Ad Became The Story”. Also of note, Petreus’ response when asked about his reaction to “betray us”.

Read More

traitor, traitor, traitor!

Posted by on Apr 25, 2007 | 0 comments

Douchebag of the Week: Tom Delay, who trouts out the treason accusation yet again like the good little fascist that he is, oblivious to the actual meaning of the word and its application in American legal and Constitutional terms. But, of course, it’s important to remember that fascists such as DeLay aren’t interested in truth. They are only interested in intimidation meant to manipulate others to their point of view. They are merely bullies.

Read More

Little Green Footballs supports assassination of US President

Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 | 0 comments

The headline is a bit hyperbolic, but it means to serve a point. It seems that the reaction over at Little Green Footballs to the report that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had plans on the board to assassinate former President Jimmy Carter has been, to put it bluntly, less than patriotic. (According to Greenwald, Charles Johnson at LGF has disabled direct links to the post at LGF. ) It seems that the comments at LGF are rife with support for the assassination of Carter. Not a great surprise to this longtime observer of the nest of fascists at LGF. This type of confused reaction permeates the right. Notes Glenn Greenwald:

Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air expressed this confusion:

“[Mohammed] confessed to 29 plots in all, including the Richard Reid shoebomb plot and planned assassinations of the pope and . . . Jimmy Carter?”

These extremists come to believe their twisted rhetoric that Democrats are on the side of Al Qaeda and so they literally can’t understand why Mohammed would want to assassinate his own allies like President Carter.

The irony is twofold: It’s not only as Glenn states that right wing extremists can’t believe that a terrorist would want to assassinate a “Liberal ally”, it is also that they are literally supporting the terrorist agenda (the assassintion of a former US President) of one “sworn enemy” (the terrorists) to “fight” their other perceived “sworn enemy”: everyone who disagrees with them. Of course, this contradiction is entirely lost on them, being so completely immersed in an ass backward ideology rooted in hatred.

Continues Glenn Greenwald in his post entitled “Support for alQaida plots on large right-wing blog”:

Here, one of the largest right-wing blog communities which pretends to be opposed to Al Qaeda is expressing support for Al Qaeda murder plots against former U.S. Presidents. The significance is overwhelming and self-evident, and many American journalists have shown how commendably eager they are to transcend partisan differences and rise up in righteous condemnation against this sort of “sick” bile.

And, several important factors distinguish this story from the HuffPost story, making it more meaningful. Unlike Huffington Post, which deleted the comments in question, Johnson has left them on his blog. Even more significantly, Johnson actively and regularly deletes comments he does not like, which lends some credibility to the notion that he approves of these comments, or at least does not find them sufficiently offensive to delete them, the way he does with scores of other comments.

It is worth restating that if the shoe were on the other foot and the comments on a Liberal website were calling for the assassination of a former US President – George H.W. Bush for example- you can be damn sure that the lizturds at LGF would be wetting their pants over it, Little Grubby Fingers trembling as they typed each word, calling for Liberals to be swinging from the trees for expressing such “traitorous” views. The headline would read something like: “Liberal website supports assassination of US President”, or something akin to it. We’ve seen this before. Last week, Bill Maher said:

“But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.”

Maher’s statement above was misrepresented all over the right wing blogsphere variously as:

  • Bill Maher wishes for Assassination of Dick Cheney
  • LGF misreported it as: Maher: If Cheney Were Dead, Everything Would Be Better
  • Bill Maher Sorry Cheney Wasn’t Assassinated..
  • The goons at Wizbang, never ones to miss a good propaganda opportunity headlined it: Bill Maher Argues for VP Cheney’s Assassination
  • And, of course, the ethically unborn over at Newsbusters went for the out and out Soviet Pravda approach: Bill Maher Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Dick Cheney Failed

    Maher responded:

    On Saturday, the website posted a story under the headline “Bill Maher Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Dick Cheney Failed.”

    There’s just one problem: As a fair reading of the show’s transcript makes clear, I never said those words. Still, over the weekend, dozens of websites, mostly right wing, picked up the story (with headline intact) thus proliferating the myth that comic Maher somehow advocates the whacking of our Veep.

    Don’t get me wrong: I’ve never joined the Dick Cheney Fan Club. But what I said Friday — and what I believe — is that the Vice President has presided over a bungled execution of a war in which thousands of our bravest continue to die. And I believe that were he not in power, our troops would likely come home sooner. But I don’t wish him dead. Ironically, I made my comments during a discussion about Free Speech, which is one of the chief reasons that I love my country.

    It’s patently clear according to the transcript, (March 3, 2007) that Maher was being entirely hypothetical and not calling for the death of the VP. Regrading Cheney’s importance to the war, you can agree or disagree, but it is pretty clear this is Dick Cheney’s War. It is entirely possible that if he were not the VP – resignation, health reasons, he chose someone besides himself to be VP in 2000- that the war may not have happened the way it did. I don’t agree with that point of view, but it is a hypothetical.

    The tactic employed by the right wing sites that misrepresented Maher’s statment is a form of “controlled controversy”, a well established GOP propaganda trick intended to create controversy where none exists in order to maintain disarray. That is: Keep your enemy focusing on defense so the offense suffers.

    It flows both ways. What are the wing nuts up in arms about? Rosie O’Donnell’s latest rhetorical bait.

    Hate is the bait. It has become abundantly clear that the right wing hate machine has done its job well. Any perspective that opposes them is the enemy, and any perspective that supports them – even a perspective from the terrorists they propose to be so against- is to be embraced.

    This is important to note. For the ideological battle ground is shifting and drifting on the right. It’s no longer about good versus evil. It’s about “us versus them”. The problem is the “them” that so many of the right wing and especially the 101 fighting keyboardists choose to engage in a fight is anyone who disagrees with them. It has become entirely about hate and ideology rather than about what is best for the nation and the planet as a whole and what should be done to insure a stable Iraq and bring US soldiers home.

    This development is the result of two forces coming together: the ongoing GOP tactical warfare on all opposing ideology has collided with the complete and utter failure of incompetent, ill planned, and implemented policies that were and continue to be based upon an ideology of racism over racial tolerance, competition over cooperation, merit over equality, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle. (At the risk of provoking Godwin’s law, this litany is adapted from here.)

    All they have is their hatred, and they will use it to avoid dealing with the ramifications of their failure and the impending loss of their power.

    In December of 2005, the progressive blogsphere was abuzz with a prescient post by James Wolcott on this matter of right wingers dreaming about killing those they hate:

    This one sentence amid all that writhing distemper leapt out at me:

    “May he [i.e., me] be kidnapped by ‘insurgents’ in Iraq then appear on an ugly net broadcast. I wonder, if in the moment before the knife started sawing into his fleashy neck if he might rethink his opinions on the GWOT.”

    He later corrected the spelling to “fleshy,” lest anyone think I possess a flashy neck.

    This sentence leapt out not only because it was directed at yours truly but because it fits a pattern of measel spots I’ve discerned.

    More and more the right wing militant “anti-idiotarians” (as they deludedly think of themselves) have been relishing the prospect of antiwar figures undergoing the Daniel Pearl treatment. They keep bringing it up as the retribution that’ll deliver certain choice heads on a platter. In a sick irony, Daniel Pearl’s marytrdom has provided a negative inspiration to certain super patriots professing to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

    I wrote at the time:

    Such dreaming of violence is a form of blood lust, of course. Something which is seen on both sides of the political spectrum, evident in games, film, television, literature and real events. As Sideshow notes:

    Everyone is linking Wolcott’s Headhunters for a reason: He makes a really good point about the lust for violence that erupts from the right-wingers when they talk about liberals.

    Yup. Personally, I don’t think wingers are traitors, nor do I fantasize about their heads being lobbed off by a tree hugging terrorist. The worst I think of wingers is that they are wimps and hypocrits.

    As I’ve said many times before, I”ll fight to the death to protect a wingnuts right to be wrong.

    It still holds true. Yet, I can’t help but notice the blind ideological idiocy as well as the moral and ethical shame of supporting a plan to kill US President Jimmy Carter that was thought up by the terrorist who may have killed Daniel Pearl.

  • Read More

    mediabuzz – censorship, fascism, and paris

    Posted by on Mar 2, 2007 | 0 comments

  • After the recent scandal at Walter Reed Hospital, soldiers there are being “punished” with daily inspections and told “not to speak to the media”. Unrelated to the scandal but related, members of the media at the WaPo are told to write fewer words, “or else”.
  • The folks at the Oscars threaten You Tube to pull clips of the show while Mark Cuban argues that doing so is bad business. I have to agree. Especially when the three hour plus show was as bad as it was. The few shining moments were what people were watching on You Tube in the first place.
  • The Associated Press has apparently banned all articles on Paris Hilton in what it calls an experiment. It strikes me as just one more example of the media giving itself an excuse to report about itself. This statement was interesting:

    The results of the experiment, naturally, will be fodder for a future A.P. story. “Hopefully we will be able to discuss what ‘news’ we missed,” read the memo, which could have used some stern copy-editing, “the repercussions of our blackout for AP both editorially and business-wise, and most importantly the force that cause the world to be fixated on this person who, despite her shallow frivolity, represents an epochal development in our culture.”

    Reached for comment, Mr. Washington said, “There was a surprising amount of hand-wringing. A lot of people in the newsroom were saying this was tampering with the news.” One editor’s response was apparently: “This is a great idea—can we add North Korea?”

    Media loves to talk about media. While this has a function, it also serves to bury the real point: What they are doing is not actually looking at why Paris Hilton is a non story, why they are obsessed with a non story, but rather what they are doing is saying “we aren’t going to report on this non story for awhile and then report about what happens”. It doesn’t take a genius to know that NOTHING will happen. Well, okay, some PR people are going to get upset and make some pissed off phone calls. How news worthy is that? I guess we are going to find out.

    Read More
  • Fighting terrorism with terrorism

    Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 | 0 comments

    Glenn Reynolds watches way too much “24”. Now he’s advocating fighting terrorism with… terrorism. The Carpetbagger puts him straight.

    The hypocrisy is really but one symptom of the total mess that the GWOT has always been from a rational perspective. The wingnut propensity for calling anyone who disagrees with their idea of going after terrorists with terrorism a “terrorist sympathizer” is the bookend to the wingnut mindset. The cherry on top is their overt willingness to eliminate those they see as the “enemy”, that includes anyone who disagrees with them, is something we should all be vigilant about. When pundits begin using fabricated quotes in major news outlets whilst calling for the hanging of an US Senator for being against their policies, it’s gotten rather serious.

    If you haven’t read David Neiwert’s series on this wingnut movement, you should. It’s a long and informative read, and definitive. Well worth the time.

    We are living in dangerous times to be sure. And, not all of the danger comes from those abroad who wish us ill will. There is danger to us from those next to us who would have us killed to further their power and ideas.

    It goes without saying that such fascist practices are not American in any way shape or form. That said, you won’t hear calls for their deaths here.

    I am convinced that the reason so many wingnuts bleat endlessly about their fellow Liberals being traitors is precisely because many of them realize either subconsciously or intellectually that they are the traitors.

    Who sold arms to Iran? Who sold chemical weapons to Iraq? Who has supported a war policy that has comprimised Homeland security and the strength of our military?

    It is a basic tactic of the fascist to divert attention from their own foibles and crimes by accussing their enemies of crimes and foibles.

    I’ve no doubt that Liberals bare a certain amount of the blame for the situation that we as a nation now find ourselves in. But, it’s entirely telling that you don’t see Liberals running around calling wingnuts traitors and calling for them to be hung. And, an argument could be made that those currently in power and their supporters are indeed traitors. One example, and there are many.

    We did not lead the charge to war and oversee and support it when it was so obvious that it was going to be an utter failure.

    Lke most wingnuts who supported a doomed policy, David Brooks is looking for some type of apology from the Left. It’s just another way of blaming the left for seeing the truth that the right refused to see. It’s just another way of attempting to hoist blame for the loss of the Iraq War upon the Left.

    The Carpetbagger brings this one home.

    Read More

    blogging onto itself

    Posted by on Feb 13, 2007 | 2 comments

    Some thoughts on the recent “blogroll amnesty” where some “A List” bloggers thinned and or added to their blogrolls over at If I Ran the Zoo. (c/o Skippy)

    What’s at stake here is the egalitarian and democratic nature of the blogosphere. If traffic and linkage are concentrated among a relatively few extremely popular blogs, then the vast majority are effectively shut out of the conversation. It is a basic liberal belief that great success carries with it the duty to extend opportunity to others; that’s the duty that, as some see it, Atrios and others fail to live up to. As Jon Swift observes, the right blogosphere is actually much more liberal about linking to smaller blogs than the liberal side.

    This is a problem I’ve experienced at Jakeneck and the SNAFU Principle. A few top tier bloggers have linked to individual posts here (Avedon Carol of The Sideshow being the most generous and consistent for which I am thankful) and I’ve gotten some nice nods from Jon Swift, My Left Wing, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, and Jewschool, mostly for my longer more “intellectual” posts. (If I’ve left anyone out, sorryboutdat.)

    What I’ve observed is that the lack of liberal linkage creates our own echo chamber that concentrates only upon the dominant bloggers. While it is a great resource, it can be pretty repetitive and redundant. And, some great information and great humor, comes from the rest of the blogsphere. Yes, it’s about being more democratic, but it’s really about the flow of information and its ability to convey the truth. We live in an era of disinformation. And, our ability to fight that disinformation is severely hindered by excluding large numbers of smart people who can assist in the task of truth seeking and news gathering.

    As brother Douglas has pointed out, the mediaspace is threatened by the lack of human intervention, meaning that the role of humans becomes less important as the technology and the mediaspace itself becomes the point. Blogging is a function that offsets the corporatation of the mediaspace. But, it doesn’t do the job nearly as well as it could and should if only a small fraction of voices dominate the discussion.

    While it’s not overt censorship, it’s a form of it. A result of the natural order of human social groups. It reminds me of high school in many ways. Cliques grouping together and excluding others not because they don’t share anything in common, but simply because they can.

    It would serve our cause better to spread the wealth as it were, to increase our ability to find, amplify and share the truth.

    Read More

    what to watch, what to think

    Posted by on Feb 10, 2007 | 0 comments

  • Who’s going to take home the Oscar for Best Picture this year? Tough choice. All good films. My guess is it will be The Departed, although Babel seems to be building steam. I really liked The Queen though, Haven’t seen Letters from Iwo Jima yet, but plan to soon. Little Miss Sunshine was a nice film, but I thought as far as the “dysfunctional” family genre goes, it wasn’t as good as The Squid and the Whale or TransAmerica. Put your money on The Departed.
  • Got millions of dollars? Launch a media empire. While I like the idea that Richard Branson feels compelled to go head to head with Rupert Murdoch, I’m ever cognisant of the idea, as addressed by Douglas Rushkoff, that…

    …we’re fast moving towards a mediaspace with little or no human intervention. And while that might be seen as a good thing on a certain level, the problem is that the mediaspace itself is still biased towards the corporations it serves.

    The Internet offers a bit of an antedate to humanless media, but the effort to control information and limit the role of humans in the equation is well underway. It’s important to watch our government and our corporations. It’s our duty as citizens.

  • Speaking of watching the government… Is the effort by AG Gonzalez to stuff the US attorney rolls with party loyalists a “coup d’ etat”? Joe Conason thinks so. I have to concur. Read More
  • thoughts for the day

    Posted by on Feb 6, 2007 | 0 comments

  • Stuart Elliot in the New York Times questions whether the cartoon like violence in a number of ads aired during this years Super Bowl are a reflection of the violence of the Iraq War. Well, of course, we are a violent species, and the current war is only one example of wars that have raged since the beginning of recorded history. And, cartoon like violence has been around just as long. Most especially in moving pictures the past century or so.
  • Molly Ivins provokes the censorship squads one last time.
  • Bud Bad TV to watch with your Budweiser Bad beer. If ever there was a sign that the end is nigh, this is it. Grab your ankles.
  • Marty Scorcese finally takes home a DGA doorstop. Will an Oscar be next? We shall see. It’s a good year for film… enjoying this years awards season more than most. Some quality cinema out there…
  • Media loves media.
  • Community film making of a sort. Thought it interesting. Read More