"ON the Daily Show, media, Congress and Obama" or simply "WHY THEY ALL SUCK"

I wrote the bones of this piece in response to a Hulu member claiming that The Daily show has recently become "less meaty." I assumed by less meaty: he meant less challenging, and less impartial, which therefore in my opinion means that the member is wrong and here is the fleshed out version of how i responded that he is mistaken:

 The Daily Show shows have been a lot less "meaty" for a long time because like the Republicans, who (un) scrupulously avoid slamming President Barack Obama on anything wrong he actually does or says, Jon Stewart has for 7 years (un)scrupulously avoided all opportunities to meaningfully, accurately and consistently criticize the current President. So Stewart, though he denies it, is just as biased and nearly as untruthful  as most of our Congress members, Fox, CNN and virtually all cable broadcast news media.

I have never seen Stewart turn a hard skeptical light on Obama (except for one subject regarding the Veteran's Administration treatment of returning war verterans) who is after all that scourge we all love to hate, a politician. Slightly unfortunately for Stewart (only because nobody reads my blogs), I am pointing it out now, because nobody else has,  that telling the truth is much more than reciting hand picked facts and getting them right, which Stewart has repeatedly publicly taken pride in saying he does. It's also comical, if very sad really, that we have Congressional members, Fox  attacking both Obama and Stewart for a raft of false "fear button" "issues" of bias, supposed personality flaws and wrongdoing, but NONE EVER, criticizes either man for the actual bad things & lies they've done & said and in Stewart's case, actually what he has not said or done , which is the classic "sin of omission."

So what is the cause of all this nearly universal misdirection in the Mass Media,  of this "pot calling the kettle black" routine that these powerful people (Stewart, other mass media, Obama,Congress) have? Is it the result of their power being their sole consideration for supposedly doing their jobs?

Therefore I take exception to Stewart's version of "the truth" and assert that real, honest to Gosh actual truth also must include the component known to journalism professionals (if you can find one these days) "fair and balanced." The concept implies that nobody is perfect, so if a journalist, commentator or comedian is going to ridicule one side, they  must also be willing to equally examine and criticize the other side, otherwise, the body of their work as a whole soon becomes a misrepresentation of the truth. This tenant by my consideration, applies to anyone who ever broadly alludes to, like Stewart often does, his show's adherence to "the facts" otherwise known as "truth."

In short, I don't feel that when Stewart says his show never reports facts that are wrong, which is the same as saying the show always is truthful, actually is or has ever adhered to the same high standard of "truth" to befit  my standard.

 For instance, neither Congress, Republicans OR STEWART (to my knowledge) has ever said  anything about,Obama's support of  fracking (which not by coincidence the Republicans and many Democrats support).

Fracking, otherwise known as "The Poster CHILD for 'What Not To Do To The Planet You Are Living On'"; Obama's support for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Which was dubbed by an investigate reporter interviewed on Bill Moyers as "NAFTA On Steroids:" Obama repeatedly lying about natural gas being "clean," (it is in fact  much cleaner than "clean" coal when burned, but ONLY  if the 85% now  leaked into the atmosphere from faulty pipes and fracking is ended); Obama's toothless bill he submitted to Congress to "prevent' another 2008 all the while claiming how meaningful his "reforms" were; Obama's appointments of people to important government posts who were part and parcel to or longtime apologists and legal enablers of the unparallelled institutionalized greed that led to the 2008 meltdown;  Obama's private budget meetings with then House Speaker John Boehner, the breakdown of which  CNN and Obama blamed on Boehner, but Frontline says  Obama went back on his word, not Boehner and, last but by no means the least Obama's prolific lying career that The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is "affordable" and not just an amplification of the previous (and still current) "healthcare" scam designed just the same  to empty the average person's pockets into those of the very well off. Only  foreign news services aired on PBS and other shows there do stories about these things, such as the one on a foreign news network segment about the small business owner being forced to quit her old plan after being repeatedly assured that she could keep it. She was nevertheless forced to buy Obamacare or face stiff fines. So she quit her plan and bought Obamacare which was more expensive and covered than her previous plan. but you don't here Stewart, conservatives, FOX, CNN or any media channel here in the USA doing this story or anything meaningful on the subjects outlined above.

In fact, Stewart and CNN merely parroted Obama's lie in this regard, which was  the opposite of what the  later Frontline investigative piece said about the Boehner/Obama private budget talks. Frontline said not only that Obama, not Boehner reneged on the deal, but that in the course of the talks, Boehner was much more cooperative and willing to bend than Obama, the truth of which was ironically, with typical vitriolic flourish, trumpeted by Boehner (his right under the circumstances), Fox and the Republicans and ignored by Stewart and the liberal media who all blindly took Obama at his word. Talk about the "pot (Stewart, CNN) calling the kettle black!"

 This brings up another standard of journalistic truth, the principle that ever fact appearing on air & in print must have at least two independent, verified sources. But Jon, mashugana, CNN and Obama, you know, media outlet you routinely skewer in your shows and the guy who is a politician just like Boehner,  are not "independent verified sources" for your version of the "truth."

 So when the Daily Show prides itself in being truthful, which I assert must include being impartial, and it isn't  properly critical of the sitting  president, then I am sorry, the show falls well short, is not entirely "truthful" and certainly not "meaty."

And I am not buying the excuse that compared to the Republicans, Obama, with all his lies is still a veritable peach (I do believe that as monsters go we would be better off with Obama for a dictator than with the situation now) because that is still  not impartiality (truthful). Obama has shown himself to me, personally, with his damn lips moving, be a habitual liar (a typical politician).  But neither Stewart nor the rest of the popular media think it is important to point it out, which means that all are biased and therefore untruthful.

 Apparently most peole don't watch the type of investigative pieces I watch and read. Notwithstanding the Republican's habitual slurs and lies on Obama, the President is still a lying, obfuscating typical politician, a habitual liar nearly indistinguishable from the hard-core Conservatives and a fraud on these and other things too numerous to be listed. while it is true that the Republicans don't ever call him out on the true specifics that he needs to be taken to task for, he still needs to be taken to task for them.

But NOBODY is doing it in a comprehensive, day-in-day-out way the way Stewart does Congress, CNN and Fox because not even Frontline and other PBS Shows do so in the  comprehensive, sustained way way that needs to be done.  But why not? Stewart consistently takes to task the media, Congress and the Republicans, so why does he pussyfoot around Obama when the president doesn't deserve the pass and this country desperately needs to hear the truth?

Finally If I am wrong, then why didn't Obama's core constituency vote last time? Because 6 years in, they realize he's just another politician and they got discouraged. They should be thoroughly discouraged with The Daily Show and Jon Stewart as well.

Etiquette : Having Men for Lunch

     Disclaimer: this blog post is about avatars on a internet social game called IMVU. For intelligent discourse, see "elsewhere." 

               Beautiful Brain Sucking Aliens Are Terrorizing IMVU!

         Have you ever noticed the "hey! My head it too small... No wait it's too big!" syndrome that female avatars have? I had the diseased. It is caused by the shoulders of the female avatar being way too wide, plus the curious feeding habit of certain alien creatures retrofitted to blend in with the gorgeous females of the human species. Also, if you look at the stock male avatar, his are just right for an average built, not-very-handsome man. But who cares about them, they have to buy their penises and attach them (AP only). Then when I decide it is time to feed and suck their brains out, they get a big smile on their face and want my phone number, whereas when I suck out the brains of a female, she falls over dead like she's supposed to. I still haven't processed that dichotomy in human behavior, but hey, when it's feeding time it's either one female for lunch or several guys, right! (oh, did I forgot to tell you that I'm a beautiful brain eating alien from a far-away galaxy? I started my club 69 Girlz to lure humans in for nourishment but so far I'm starving to death.) Anyway, the Big Head Syndrome is because they put a manly (more than the male) ass and shoulders on the stock female avatar, so in a bust shot, the head looks okay, but pulled back it looks too big. So then somebody resized the head again for the shoulders, but with camera pulled back it looks freakishly pinheaded. So I had a head with lipsticks made, called the Bobbi head, that's in between the "hey my head is too big...no wait it's too small" size and the "hey, somebody sucked my brains out and now I'm a pinhead" size. Actually, I really do best like eating male brains because they come with nifty built in skin-revitalizing facial cream that spontaneously erupts as the last bit of brains comes out that tiny hole in the top of their head.

Anarchist's folly

I love the ignorance and stupidity of supposed intellectuals who embrace anarchism with the notion that government is bad and society or individuals would be better off without it.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, all institutions look great on paper and none work in reality except for the few privileged that twist everything to their advantage. So the institution isn't the problem, people are the problem. There will always be those people among us, no matter where we are, how we govern or don't govern ourselves, who will exploit to their advantage whatever system exists . Furthermore, there has to be a system if we want to keep the things we have and not go back to the caves, but even in the caves there was a system & people taking advantage of others.  In fact, government rose out of the need. In the cave brute force ruled until societies evolved and put a stop to it. A major part of that society was the need for governance, authority in disputes, etc. In fact, if you are not a fricking moron, you realize that that is why government came into being, to regulate all the assholes (us, you , I). But of course, the next step is for the assholes to take over the government and bend it to their self centered wills and greed (and bullshit the rest of us into believing they have our interests at heart). To put it simply to the anarchist: government isn't the root of the problem, you are (people). People are the government & what causes it to be unjust, bad, tyrannical, whatever. But since we are the government, there is no government without people.Therefore, if the idiotic pseudo-intellectual anarchists wants no government the solution is simple: kill everybody. So the real solution is to have a government in which the cream of society (intellectually and morally speaking) run for and win the political offices that govern us. I'm talking about people such as Noam Chomsky and other writers and thinkers and not the assorted ex-actors, attorneys, wrestlers, singers, generals, career politicians and assorted other half-wits, crooks, perverts, puppets and thieves that we have to vote for now.

National issues in a Nutshell

   Post Script to blog post below:  LOL, now I've thought about it a bit more, I  realize that the thesis of my writing below buys into the lie that cuts in corporate taxes creates jobs. But this is just a popular myth propagated by our scurrilous politicians & their cohorts in the  "news" networks. My basic college education (in journalism, which is how I know how bad our news media is) tells  me that the idea is patently false that tax cuts on big business creates jobs. In fact, this is merely part of the the "rosey scenario" (described below) that politicians & the news media paint on behalf of their rich corporate bosses. Actually, the only thing that creates jobs in a capitalistic society is the balance between  supply and demand. Even my mother, who is a 1956 high school graduate, knows this. When demand outstrips supply, suppliers react by immediately raising the price of the goods or service and followed by increasing the supply if that's possible. At that point, efforts to increase the supply may include plans to expand infrastructure and/or hire more people, depending on the type of industry and the existing infrastructure. So logically, the only tax cut that will reliably spur job creation is tax cuts on consumers of goods and services. Then the consumers go to the marketplace, spend the tax return on a broad variety of goods and services, which in turn creates more general demand that may outstrip the supply of a broad range of services and goods, possibly leading to the creation of many more jobs over a broad range of industries to meet that demand. So the corporations do not need more tax cuts, consumers do.
 My original post:
     How come politicians, neither Republicans, nor Democrats ever talk about tax cuts for the rich and corporations IF they've created new jobs that year?
       Instead, both sides, at one time or another, talk about and hand out the tax cuts AS IF it's a conclusion that doing so creates U.S. jobs. However, a frequent guest on CNN today pointed out that 'if tax cuts in recent years for corporations creates jobs, then we'd be up to our wazoos in jobs by now'. What he didn't say, what neither the politicians nor the press ever point out in the same story about tax cuts and job creation, is that the jobs ARE created- but only overseas where labor is dirt cheap. Not only that, but the government hands out even more tax cuts to ship more jobs oversees.
           The reason they do that is because the majority of our politicians in both parties are owned by the large corporations & industries & told "cut our taxes" no matter what. So our politicians real job is painting rosey pictures of their back room deals with the industries & corporations (intent on breaking the back of American workers for profit) public consumption. They are aided in that by the "news" networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN,FOX, CNBC,MSNBC) which all acknowledge that their paychecks come from the very same corporate interests, but disingenuously & falsely claim that the accuracy & quality of their news reporting is not affected. So the bottom line is that when they (news networks, politicians, corporate mouthpieces all) talk about cutting taxes again for coporations & rich people, they always leave out the recent news that two thirds of the large U.S. corporations last year, which made healthy profits, did not pay any taxes at all!
     And to add insult to injury, they talk about more tax cuts on these corporations (that don't pay taxes now & haven't created significant jobs in this country over the last 10 years)  as being a definitive job creating mechanism, implying that it is for U.S. citizens (if you move to China and work for 1 yen a day or more if you are a soldier and even much more if a contractor in one of our wars).
           But we should listen closely to what they always leave out when painting this fantasy scenario: They leave out in what country and for whom the jobs are created, leaving us to assume it's for us (ahhhh, the fine science of political rosey picture painting)! So what is the chance that some day soon, our politicians pass tax cuts for the rich and powerful only IF they've already created jobs that year and not because "maybe" they will? They are law makers and can pass a law that gives out tax cuts to corporations that create jobs for Americans in America. But they never will as long as they can keep things the way they are handing over money to the rich while painting rosey scenarios about how they work for you and I and not Them.


                                       

How to vote or how not to vote. This is the question

In the last election were you confuse about who to vote for? Were you trying to weigh what everybody had to say about the candidates before making your decisions? If so, that was your worst mistake. Below is my sound, experienced advice for potential voters whether you are affiliated with the Tea Party , Dems, Reps, independents, progressives (whatever because none apply to what I have to say). Rather than being for voters with a specific party affiliation, this advice is for anybody who is intelligent enough to understand the merit of what I am saying & has enough regard for others to want to cast a vote for the common good of all.

     Here is my advice: First and foremost: Don't listen to  anything  anybody has to say about any candidate. I say this because anything negative about any candidate is either coming from the opposition, whose job it is to make the candidate look bad or coming indirectly from them through your friends and colleagues with whom you discuss politics. Conversely, the same is true for anyone saying good things about the candidate! So don't listen to them either. Their job is to make the candidate look good and and they've influenced people who are trying to influence your decision at polling time.

     Instead, listen to the candidates & your own perception of the candidates as you weigh how they behave and speak. Listen to the candidates every chance you get & to determine if they are addressing the issues that are important. Are they actually talking about substantive issues in a meaningful way or are they just talking a lot about nothing & repeating vague platitudes about ephemeral things like "the American Way" & "justice for all." Are they continuously bashing their opponent or do they seem to be masters of doublespeak? Or are they talking about their  plans to do the job if elected & do the seem sincere& honest? If you tune out all the BS, all the lies, all the news media commentary and opinions and let the candidates speak for themselves, it becomes easy to differentiate between the charlatans who just want the power & prestige & the candidates who have an altruistic motivation for seeking the office. But to cast a vote for the common good, your mind can't be polluted by the self-centered, racism & greed & ethnocentric hatred that they throw at Obama like he is Hitler, a nigger, a socialist etc.They hiss "Muslim"  about him, trying to control your vote by playing on your irrational fears about those thing. So along with my advice not to listen to anyone but the candidate, I will say that this only works if you've cleared your mind of all the irrational fears mentioned above. Because if you still harbor them at poll time, you're either a puppet casting the votes your puppet masters want you to cast, or you 're a selfish, self-centered SOB who cares for no one but yourself (in other words, you're an average American).

     So, all you need to cast a good vote is to not be influenced by all the garbage spread about candidates & you need to quell your irrational fears so your choices can't be manipulated by others. The last thing is that you need only listen to the candidates themselves.  If you maintain an open mind and listen to only what the candidates say and nobody else, and look to them for speaking the truth & being, sincere & candid, I promise you that more often than not, you can reach a choice on your own that is yours and as good or better than anyone else's choice.  That's because, you know what? Most people let their minds get polluted by the enormous amount of pure horseshit that is thrown around in these campaigns due to two factors: their ignorance & their irrational fears that allow them to believe, for example that all Muslims are terrorists and Christianity is superior, being conveniently devoid of terrorism throughout it's entire history despite such events as the killings & bombing in the abortion industry by avowed Christians; the Oklahoma Courthouse Bombing by Timothy McVeigh; David Koresh and his cult; the years of Christian-on-Christian terrorism in Ireland, The Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition to name just a few blemishes. 
     But if you've tuned out all the crap & have just listened to the candidates, come voting time, you're much more qualified than most people to cast a good vote. Don't listen to stuff about the candidate, listen to the candidate. Anybody saying things about the candidates cannot and should not be trusted because they either work for them or against them and are getting paid to either build the candidate up or tear him/her down.

      This advice is not comprehensive and will not guide you through an entire ballot of obscure offices and unknown candidates for positions you didn't know existed, but at the very least it will help you to make your own decision on a few races that are important to you.