Speaking Truth to the Power of the Lying Liars of the US Media, Right AND Left.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
I TOLD Y'ALL About Arianna Huffington. Now How's That Ratfuckery Thingy Goin' Fer Ya?
Chickens have come home to roost, or rather buzzards picking over the carcass of the dead. One of the “founders” of Huffington Post has come back to blog.
Andrew Breitbart.
If that’s not proof that Arianna Huffington isn’t the biggest ratfucker since Donald Segretti touched a college student named Karl Rove with his magic wand, I don’t know what is. The question is, who touched Huffington? Was it Newt or Issa? People should have sussed that she was about to come out of the neocon closet when she was photographed tree-hugging Gingrich on holiday last summer, and then earlier this year she was snapped sitting with Darrell Issa in Vegas, his arm cosily wrapped around her shoulder.
My guess is that it was neither. She was merely an opportunist, interested in promoting her own brand. She saw that Progressives needed the equivalent of Drudge and went for the market, successfully conning a shallow media and an even shallower public following in her wake.
Once she’d successfully driven a wedge in the Left, appropriating its lowest common denominator by feeding them a diet of her talking points, and once the Midterms had handed her back the stronger Republican Party she craved, she crawls, like the Kochroach she is, into the sunlight.
Think of it. She’s had y’all wound so tight, you’ve managed to spend two years sniping and griping at everything this President said, did, tried to say or tried to do,when more energy could have been spent sounding off at the Republicans or organising retaliation against the Tea Partiers.
Just remember what the Iliad warned: Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Here’s the lnk:- http://veracitystew.com/2011/03/14/final-death-blow-for-huffpo-andrew-breitbart-now-blogging-for-huffington-post/
Andrew Breitbart.
If that’s not proof that Arianna Huffington isn’t the biggest ratfucker since Donald Segretti touched a college student named Karl Rove with his magic wand, I don’t know what is. The question is, who touched Huffington? Was it Newt or Issa? People should have sussed that she was about to come out of the neocon closet when she was photographed tree-hugging Gingrich on holiday last summer, and then earlier this year she was snapped sitting with Darrell Issa in Vegas, his arm cosily wrapped around her shoulder.
My guess is that it was neither. She was merely an opportunist, interested in promoting her own brand. She saw that Progressives needed the equivalent of Drudge and went for the market, successfully conning a shallow media and an even shallower public following in her wake.
Once she’d successfully driven a wedge in the Left, appropriating its lowest common denominator by feeding them a diet of her talking points, and once the Midterms had handed her back the stronger Republican Party she craved, she crawls, like the Kochroach she is, into the sunlight.
Think of it. She’s had y’all wound so tight, you’ve managed to spend two years sniping and griping at everything this President said, did, tried to say or tried to do,when more energy could have been spent sounding off at the Republicans or organising retaliation against the Tea Partiers.
Just remember what the Iliad warned: Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Here’s the lnk:- http://veracitystew.com/2011/03/14/final-death-blow-for-huffpo-andrew-breitbart-now-blogging-for-huffington-post/
Sunday, March 13, 2011
The Sheen Smokescreen
Sometimes, living abroad has its advantages, even in the age of the Internet.
For example, I’m probably the only American in the world who doesn’t know exactly what’s been happening with Charlie Sheen. I haven’t a clue, and I suppose he doesn’t either; but whilst I caught rumblings in the background and tabloidesque headlines here and there on various internet sites, I truly don’t know what all the fuss is about and – quite frankly – I don’t care.
Here’s what I do know about Charlie Sheen:-
- He’s Martin Sheen’s son. I’ve always liked Martin Sheen.
- He’s Emilio Estevez’s brother.
- He starred in Platoon back before Oliver Stone was Oliver Stone and did a good job.
- He starred in Wall Street with Michael Douglas and did a good job.
- Now he’s on Two and a Half Men, which is shown here in the UK on an obscure channel at an obscure hour, and no one watches it enough to talk about it.
And that’s all I know about him, except he seems to have gone off the rails a bit, or at least enough to make the 24/7 guys obsess about him ad nauseam. He seems to have given various and sundry interviews to various and sundry talking heads on various and sundry morning programs and said unusual things.
I haven’t paid attention to the obsessing because it doesn’t interest me. Sheen’s got a problem of sorts – either emotional or psychological – and that’s his business. If he wants the public to know about it, that’s his business too; but I think it’s kind of creepy the way the media seem to have taken up residence on this subject, from all angles. Last week, Lawrence O’Donnell even spent twenty minutes of his MSNBC program evaluating the Sheen phenomenon as though it were a controversial and recently announded political principle. I know O’Donnell’s show is going through adjustment problems in the wake of KO’s departure, but it really is beneath the intellectual calibre of someone like Lawrence O’Donnell to rake over the coals of another man’s emotional breakdown on what is supposed to be a political analysis program.
That’s political, not psychological.
You know, fifty years ago, if something like this happened to a leading television actor, he would have retreated behind his gated home, and his publicist and the network for which he worked would have reported him to have been suffering from exhaustion or something of the sort. Three hundred years ago, inmates in local insane asylums were hung outside windows in cages in order that passersby might be entertained. Today, we watch people like Charlie Sheen break down and do and say silly things on television, being interviewed by network newspeople.
I know the news media obsessed in the extreme two years ago at the sudden death of Michael Jackson, but Jackson was a star of international repute and consequence. He was relatively young, and his death was sudden. He’d been a driving force in popular music. Still, the attention and obsession lavished on him were too much.
Then, there was balloon boy.
What’s peculiar about the Sheen situation is that it’s being used so much on so many overtly political programs as a valid topic of discussion, I can’t help but wonder why it’s being discussed instead of something else. And it is almost as though it’s being used as a smokescreen in order to avoid discussion of something more controversial.
Sheen’s dominated headlines on various programs whilst public sector workers have had their collective bargaining rights wiped off the slate in Wisconsin. Libya’s boiling over, while the media obsesses about Charlie Sheen. There’ve been earthquakes in New Zealand and now Japan, the latter worse than the former. And Congress have sat around whining and whingeing and doing nothing of what they’re supposed to be doing.
I use Bill Maher‘s Real Time to gauge a lot of what’s going on in the political spectrum. For two weeks now, the main topic of discussion on Real Time, entering a mention into every conversation, has been Charlie Sheen. This past week, Bill even managed to make an analogy of Sheen to Sarah Palin.
What I really want to know is simply what’s being hidden behind the Sheen smokescreen, and why has it been constructed? My guess would be that it’s yet another diversion for a public, both Right and Left, who are totally devoid of the ability to think critically. So when the media finally decide to let go of Charlie Sheen and allow him to deal with his many problems in the privacy he deserves, both sides will be able to turn, yet again, to the Obama-baiting they love so dearly, guided by the media talking heads they trust so much.
For example, I’m probably the only American in the world who doesn’t know exactly what’s been happening with Charlie Sheen. I haven’t a clue, and I suppose he doesn’t either; but whilst I caught rumblings in the background and tabloidesque headlines here and there on various internet sites, I truly don’t know what all the fuss is about and – quite frankly – I don’t care.
Here’s what I do know about Charlie Sheen:-
- He’s Martin Sheen’s son. I’ve always liked Martin Sheen.
- He’s Emilio Estevez’s brother.
- He starred in Platoon back before Oliver Stone was Oliver Stone and did a good job.
- He starred in Wall Street with Michael Douglas and did a good job.
- Now he’s on Two and a Half Men, which is shown here in the UK on an obscure channel at an obscure hour, and no one watches it enough to talk about it.
And that’s all I know about him, except he seems to have gone off the rails a bit, or at least enough to make the 24/7 guys obsess about him ad nauseam. He seems to have given various and sundry interviews to various and sundry talking heads on various and sundry morning programs and said unusual things.
I haven’t paid attention to the obsessing because it doesn’t interest me. Sheen’s got a problem of sorts – either emotional or psychological – and that’s his business. If he wants the public to know about it, that’s his business too; but I think it’s kind of creepy the way the media seem to have taken up residence on this subject, from all angles. Last week, Lawrence O’Donnell even spent twenty minutes of his MSNBC program evaluating the Sheen phenomenon as though it were a controversial and recently announded political principle. I know O’Donnell’s show is going through adjustment problems in the wake of KO’s departure, but it really is beneath the intellectual calibre of someone like Lawrence O’Donnell to rake over the coals of another man’s emotional breakdown on what is supposed to be a political analysis program.
That’s political, not psychological.
You know, fifty years ago, if something like this happened to a leading television actor, he would have retreated behind his gated home, and his publicist and the network for which he worked would have reported him to have been suffering from exhaustion or something of the sort. Three hundred years ago, inmates in local insane asylums were hung outside windows in cages in order that passersby might be entertained. Today, we watch people like Charlie Sheen break down and do and say silly things on television, being interviewed by network newspeople.
I know the news media obsessed in the extreme two years ago at the sudden death of Michael Jackson, but Jackson was a star of international repute and consequence. He was relatively young, and his death was sudden. He’d been a driving force in popular music. Still, the attention and obsession lavished on him were too much.
Then, there was balloon boy.
What’s peculiar about the Sheen situation is that it’s being used so much on so many overtly political programs as a valid topic of discussion, I can’t help but wonder why it’s being discussed instead of something else. And it is almost as though it’s being used as a smokescreen in order to avoid discussion of something more controversial.
Sheen’s dominated headlines on various programs whilst public sector workers have had their collective bargaining rights wiped off the slate in Wisconsin. Libya’s boiling over, while the media obsesses about Charlie Sheen. There’ve been earthquakes in New Zealand and now Japan, the latter worse than the former. And Congress have sat around whining and whingeing and doing nothing of what they’re supposed to be doing.
I use Bill Maher‘s Real Time to gauge a lot of what’s going on in the political spectrum. For two weeks now, the main topic of discussion on Real Time, entering a mention into every conversation, has been Charlie Sheen. This past week, Bill even managed to make an analogy of Sheen to Sarah Palin.
What I really want to know is simply what’s being hidden behind the Sheen smokescreen, and why has it been constructed? My guess would be that it’s yet another diversion for a public, both Right and Left, who are totally devoid of the ability to think critically. So when the media finally decide to let go of Charlie Sheen and allow him to deal with his many problems in the privacy he deserves, both sides will be able to turn, yet again, to the Obama-baiting they love so dearly, guided by the media talking heads they trust so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)