"Catapult the Propaganda"

I have to give credit where credit is due. It takes a special kind of stupid to be able to consume FOX News on a daily basis. We ate dinner at BJ's Brewpub tonight and among their bank of TV's, FOX News was on ... with no sound. Even without sound, within 5 minutes I was ready to put a gun in my mouth. In that small time frame, I was able to discover that Obama is the worst imperialist President ever, that he was going to take my home through imminent domain and was going to tax me into submission. That's important information that I was lucky enough to have beat into my brain without so much as a convincing argument.  I was able to tick off at least a half dozen of the classic propaganda techniques without even trying.

A reasoning FOX News viewer might be concerned by the turmoil of News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, but as evidenced by my short indoctrination, there couldn't possibly be any reasoning FOX News viewers.

Ignorance

Conversation between workers at one of my clients today (financial services):

worker1: "They wouldn't have budget problems if they'd just get rid of the wasted $10 billion a year for the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)."

worker2: "Yeah, I heard they're going to cancel my military insurance because of no money for it."

I've always said that I believe in the inherent goodness of people. Lately, I'm not so sure. If people are not bad, at the least, they are invariably stupid.

Even if you granted the $10 billion a year figure, it would be dwarfed by the $664 billion for the U.S. military. The very military that pays for insurance for one of these two morons and for the education of the other. But these two Mensa members didn't even get the $10 billion right. The annual budget for the NEA is $155 million. A single F22 Raptor is $150 million. It's remarkable that people actually entrust my clients with their money when they seem to have no true knowledge of it themselves.

I didn't have the heart or patience to correct them. People believe what they want to believe. They will not seek out opposing viewpoints. They will seek out outlets that reinforce their prejudices. I don't even think we need to venture a guess as to where these two got their info.

The lesson here? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. I am honestly so tired of the willful ignorance that I face every day. Perhaps if we reversed the money spent for wars and the military and put it in more funding for education and the arts, maybe we'd be on the right track. Hell, even if we could just eliminate the funding for military, we'd be on the right track.

"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge." -- Elbert Hubbard

Atheists on MySpace

Personally, I don't use MySpace and think it is the refuge of teenage skidmarks and twentyish people who are trying to be teenage skidmarks. Most of the posters are morons that don't know anything about computers and infect their sites with spyware and in turn infect all of their moron friends. Whatever. It keeps me in business.

Maybe I'm being snobby. Maybe the same criticisms could be lobbed at blogger.com.

But as a social networking site, I understand MySpace's scope and usefullness. And to limit who can participate seems wrong and against the whole concept:

It isn't easy being godless online.

For the third time in three years, what may be the largest group of organized atheists in the world is struggling to stay on MySpace, said a Cleveland State University assistant professor who founded the site for nonbelievers.

MySpace deleted the 35,000-member "Atheist and Agnostic Group" on Jan. 1, a little more than a month after hackers broke in and renamed the group's site "Jesus Is Love," Bryan Pesta said Wednesday.

MySpace has ignored repeated requests to restore the group's site, including an online petition with more than 500 signatures, said Pesta, who was the group's moderator.

"These actions send a clear message to the 30 million godless people in America that we are not welcome on MySpace," Pesta said.

A MySpace spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.

Pesta started the group in 2004 as a social networking site "specifically for godless people." Atheists are more likely to be geographically spread out, and the online group provided a sense of community, he said.

"We're regular people, just like Christians, Muslims and Jews," he said. "We like to network."

The site grew by about 10,000 people a year to just under 35,000 members by the end of 2007, Pesta said.

But it was never without controversy. Two years ago, Pesta said, MySpace deleted the group after an organized campaign from Christians opposing the site. MySpace restored it and promised it would be protected, Pesta said.

Last Thanksgiving, hackers broke into the group's site, deleting material and renaming it "Jesus Is Love." MySpace restored the site three weeks later but then shut it down this year, Pesta said.

The group was an important resource for nonbelievers, supporters said.

Hollis Geary, a group member from Lyndhurst, said she appreciated having a site where nonbelievers could meet and bounce ideas off each other amid the freedom and anonymity of the Web.

"We're a pretty quiet minority," she said. "There's just a lot of people that are atheist, agnostic or curious" who don't come out publicly.

Hackers for God ... that's admittedly pretty funny. But I digress. I don't know if there is anything insidious or if there is some great conspiracy to keep atheists off of MySpace. But it is worth noting who owns MySpace - News Corp and Rupert Murdoch. That's not exactly "fair and balanced".

Loaded Questions

Oh, I long for the day when I don't have to have the kind of exchanges that I had today ...

New client - mom of a chiropractor that's one of my clients. Nice nondescript house. Maybe just a few too many bibles lying around (like maybe 50 too many) but otherwise normal. Then I get into their home office. This is on the wall:



Two cheesy photos with real authentic faux signatures. Nice. Be afraid when someone considers it a point of pride to have given money to George Bush.

Fast-forward about 15 minutes. Everything's going normal. Just fixing their computer. Then the lady comes back in the room and asks me some computer questions. She says that she heard on FOX News that terrorists could bring all the world's computer down at once. Trying not to sound too sarcastic, I comment that that sounds like something that you would hear on FOX. And then I try to soften my disdain by going into an honest discussion of the security of PC's, networks, the Internet, etc.

Next, she talks about some anti-spyware program. She says that it was endorsed by Michael Savage and asked me what I thought about him. I did say, "I'm not a fan" but I wanted to say, "He's a fucking clueless, racist, religiously bigoted hypocrite" who says stupid things like:

"I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke...I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse."

... and speculated that Democrats had messed with Supreme Court justice John Roberts' health, causing his seizure.

Some days it's real hard to keep my mouth shut.

Apparently, this is what conservative commentators have been reduced to -- corporate pimps. I'd commented on that very same point back in January, talking about Michael Medved. They must be getting kickbacks.

If I were religious, seeing what so-called "Christians" really value would probably cause me to lose my faith. And if I were a Conservative, seeing how idealism is bought and sold for convenience, I'd give that up too. Kinda makes you wonder if anybody really believes in anything any more.

Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

A new survey ... by Pew Research Center ... found that despite the mass appeal of the Internet and cable news since a previous poll in 1989, Americans' knowledge of national affairs has slipped a little ...

... Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot ...

Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly.

Big shocker ... not.

But look into the stats a little closer and there are some surprises. From Mother Jones:

Daily Show/Colbert Report 54%
Major Newspapers' Websites 54%
NewsHour w/ Jim Lehrer 53%
Bill O'Reilly 51%
NPR 51%
Rush Limbaugh 50%

O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's audiences score surprisingly (to me, at least) high. I'm not completely sure why this might be but I suspect their shows attract the more serious idealistic true conservatives who, while making the wrong conclusions about how to change the world, at least are informed about what is going on in that world.

Newsmagazines 48%
Local Newspaper 43%
CNN 41%

The obviously painful one in this group is CNN. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. What used to be a fairly serious news channel has become the Anna Nicole channel. Their CNN Headline News Channel is manned by trained monkeys. There is no better indication of how big a joke they are when they have Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace plastered all over it. Glenn Beck is a straight-up Right Wing racist masked under an aw-shucks-"I'm just telling the truth"-common man veneer. Nancy Grace milks manufactured indignation and fake concern for ratings.

Network Evening News 38%
Blogs 37%
Fox News 35%
Local TV News 35%
Network Morning Shows 34%

No big shocks here. The scary part is that there is a huge majority of the country that get their news from one (and only one) of these sources. Fortunately, that is an aging part of the population.

It's not very complimentary to see blogs listed but if one exclusively got your news from blogs, you'd be hurting ... especially if that blog was, say, ... The Drudge Report.

"Your intelligence is measured by those around you; if you spend your days with idiots you seal your own fate." -- Mary M. Illigassch

War on Easter

I'm not making this up:

John Gibson Hypes A ‘War on Easter’, Announces Easter Bunny Under Attack

So far, FOX News is the only place where I've heard of this nonexistent controversy, but knowing how many of my moron acquaintences like believing whatever they see there, I'm sure I'll be getting 'War on Easter' chain e-mails soon. I love how some members of such a pampered majority will look for every opportunity to hoist themselves up on to the cross and cry how they are being persecuted.


Stephen Colbert hilariously lampoons FOX and Hannity who choose to heap even more crap on this controversey:

Colbert: There is a War on Easter

In other news, godless liberals are declaring war on St. Patrick's Day, rebranding it Green Beer Day. -- OK, I made that last one up, but you know that it won't be long before FOX declares the 'War on St. Patrick's Day'.

On Calling Bullshit

by Dan Froomkin
from Common Dreams
Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do.

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.

Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep. The relentless spinning is enough to make anyone dizzy, and some of our most important political battles are about competing views of reality more than they are about policy choices. Calling bullshit has never been more vital to our democracy.

... increased corporate stultification of our industry, to the point where rocking the boat is seen as threatening rather than invigorating. There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.

The return of Democrats to political power and relevancy gives us the opportunity to call bullshit in a more bipartisan manner, which is certainly healthy. But there are different kinds of bullshit. Republican political leaders these past six years have built up a massive, unprecedented credibility deficit, such that even their most straightforward assertions invite close bullshit inspection. By contrast, Democratic bullshit tends to center more around hypocrisy and political cowardice. Trying to find equivalency between the two would still be a mistake – and could lead to catty, inside-baseball gotcha journalism rather than genuine bullshit-calling.

If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.

... Because the Internet so values calling bullshit, you are sitting on an as-yet largely untapped gold mine. I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat...

That's the deal now days. If I want to get the straight scoop, I have to read a lot of sources and find my own truth. Plus there are some outside of the MSM (Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann) that are pretty good at calling bullshit. The problem with FOX News to a great extent and CNN, MSNBC and the networks to a lesser extent is that they have few people that are the slightest bit interested in cutting through all the spin. They are more interested in staying inside the circle and not losing their access. And with FOX, it's not just about not calling bullshit ... it's about actively creating new BS.

I'm not looking for something that is slanted a particular way. I lean left but I'm not interested in journalism that won't call the hypocrisy on both sides. Chuck Hagel may be a Republican but he deserves credit for his honest stance on the war. Joe Biden may be a Democrat but he deserves every bit of the guff that he is getting for the patronizing, borderline racist comments that he made about Barack Obama.

Maybe it's all a moot point. Nobody in my generation goes to the TV to get informed ... unless they have already been brainwashed. I do have some acquaintances that get their line from Hannity and O'Reilly first and then go to Newsmax or The Drudge Report. But it's all extremely incestuous. Each cites the other as a source. The consumer thinks he has two sources, but he really is just seeing two groups pushing the same bullshit info.

It's all enough to make one's head hurt. So, I do not watch any TV news. I will pop the TV on and watch CNN or MSNBC if something major has happened. Usually in the heat of the moment, news organizations haven't had enough time to develop a spin and they inadvertently tell the truth (for ex. Anderson Cooper during Katrina). But give them enough time to be tainted by politicians or by their corporate overlords and the news will be pointless. So, screw them. My CNN is Laura, Cyberkitten, Great White Bear, Jewish Atheist, etc. You are my bullshit detectors.

"Develop a built-in bullshit detector." -- Ernest Hemingway

Work and Politics

I just about had a "Dixie Chick" moment the other day when I was at one of my long time clients. You know ... one of those moments where you say something that you believe but that may hurt you in the pocketbook later on.

While at clients, I really try to avoid political discussions or even talking about subjects that divert sideways into politics. It's not because I'm not passionate about politics or that I feel people shouldn't give their views. It's because I believe the exact opposite. I am afraid if somebody asks me point blank about some issue, I will not be able to stop myself from offering an opinion. And because of where I live, there is a high probability that my client is a conservative. While I don't care if they have a differing viewpoint (everbody's money spends the same), I can't rely on them being as understanding.

Anyway, we were talking about a seemingly innocuous subject, high-definition televison. He had mentioned that our local NBC affiliate, Channel 12, had recently started broadcasting in HD. I said that was cool but I hadn't had a chance to check them out because I rarely watching network television. Like a true Republican, he immediately took this to mean that I didn't watch it because network news has a "liberal bias". It's funny how most conservatives automatically believe everyone believes the way that they do. They are genuinely surprised when someone has the audacity to disagree with them. While I don't necessarily feel that network news has a "conservative bias", I do feel that by not asking the probing questions, they have have inadvertantly become mouthpieces for the administration. That is why I don't watch, but I kept that to myself because I didn't want to start anything. So, he takes my silence as agreement and gets confident he has a captive audience. He then says that the only unbiased news you can get is on FOX News. After audibly choking, I had to compose myself. Under my breath, I said something about FOX News being the MOST biased news source and quickly tried to change the subject. At that point, he understood he didn't have a disciple and he was anxious to change the subject also. I have known him and his wife for a long time (she was the realtor that handled a couple of our home sales) and we have a pretty good relationship. Neither of us wanted to mess it up with a silly political disagreement. But I can't assume that other newer clients of mine would look at it that way. So, I try to be careful.

I'm not going to "dance" for anyone. I've left jobs for what I believed in. But by the same token, I'm not going to purposely try to sabotage myself and piss off a client for a throw-away political point.


On the subject of FOX News, this was not the first time that a watcher of that channel has said something that indicated they believed it to be the most reliable source. Hello, people, here's a red sign: if a station has to tell you that it is "fair and balanced", it probably isn't. I'm not sure which is worse, FOX for saying it or the vast legion of automatons for believing it. If you need any more evidence of FOX's bias and eithical sliminess, look no further than these recent events:

"Fox memo is 'smoking gun' proof of bias against Dems"

Murdoch scraps OJ Simpson 'confession' show

Clinton on FOX

This is awesome ... Bill Clinton bitchslapping Chris Wallace of FOX News:

Clinton Takes On Fox News

That channel has absolutely no credibility. Anybody that watches it to get anything close to an objective point of view is clueless.