Big Brother takin' care of business on the www

I love my big brother. He and I were best friends; we are best friends, even though he has passed on and I am still here. If I thought he were in the grave, I'm sure he would be rolling over. . . and over, and over, and over again. He was not here to see what you and I have seen come to pass these last six years. Did he say 'six' years? Didn't he mean the last two years? Yeah, you heard right, six; this mess didn't just begin with the inauguration of our present prez. It didn't really begin with Dubya either. We can trace it back decades. Mr. Obama is merely the establishment's hope and change designated cleanup hitter. Wait a minute?! Did he use establishment and Obama in the same sentence? I thought the establishment was big business, Republican, warmongering, poor people hatin', minority loathin', union despisin', gazillionaire, big Wall Street (and Switzerland) bankin', industrial military complex? Well. . . it was, and is, with one exception; it wasn't and isn't lorded over exclusively by those dastardly Republicans. Look closely folks, those pulling the strings for Hope and Change fit the dead ringer description of the establishmentarianismic elite. You want your MTV? You can have it. But they want your finances, your education, your media, your transportation, your medical welfare, your weapons, and now, your internet.

Skippy (my esteemed big brother) and I had many a discussion about politics around the campfire, and we agreed nearly one-hundred percent of the time. He considered himself a Democrat, and I considered myself - well... most of the time, Republican. I even ran for state senator in a Republican primary in '98; and Skip vigorously campaigned for me. He didn't back me because he had decided to turn Republican; for that matter, neither did I run to further the Republican cause. I ran primarily (did I say that?) because I could see something deadly wrong in the ranks of status quo republicanism. They were looking more and more like conciliatory lemmings mesmerized by the notions of pro-recessive democrapism. I didn't wander away from traditional Republican values--

They wandered away from me, and left me and my ilk swingin in the breeze.

I thought I was standing pretty firmly on the Republican platform built by the Founders, and more recently reconstructed by President Reagan and the rest of his like-minded supportive constituents. All of the sudden,these days, I have become an ideologue, a right wing fanatic - and all the while, I hadn't moved an ideological inch.

Skip became a 'democrat' in the late eighties and early nineties because he saw how the poor, the rank and file, the workingman, and most recently, our own dear elderly Folks were systematically being trounced under the heel of 'the establishment.' He deduced that the Democrat partiers were the official champions of the underdog. Anyway, that was how the media saw it, rehearsed it, and reported it. It was on mainstream news TV, on Letterman, MTV, Oprah and SNL; it must be true.

He was no fan of shrub senior (George H.W. Bush) or shrub junior (George W. Bush), but he certainly was no fan of Democrat, Clingon ("Slick Willy" Bill Clinton), even though technically he and Billy were of the same party. And unsurprisingly, he was critical of many goings on amongst the Reagan administration.

As he and I bantered back and forth around the campfire, it became very apparent that we were arguing for, and against the very selfsame things. We were both standing on the very same platform, preaching to our mutual choir. The only difference was that he was wearing a hat with a jackass on it, and I had one sporting a bloated pachyderm. It became painfully clear that we had nothing to argue about. For a long, awkward moment or two following our sudden ideological epiphany, all that was to be heard was the sputter and crackle of the fire we had both built, fed and stoked, and that without respect to bunion, ingrown toenail, hammer toe, or athlete's fungi - warmed the soles of all four of our tired, cold and aching dogs with the same heat, coming off the same flame. (to be continued)

Global warming and water bulges

It was reported that global warming has been proven as factual, and that the warming has been a result of humankind's carbon footprint. Lately, it was reported that this 'fact' was further attested by the literal disappearance of certain islands in the Indian Ocean, and that the inhabitants, of course, were forced to leave their beloved homes and seek their survival elsewhere. My question is: If that were true, the ocean level would have had to have increased by perhaps ten feet (to be conservative) but more likely twenty to thirty feet; how then is it that no such rise in the ocean's level has been documented anywhere else on earth? Wouldn't you think that the water would even out to the same height throughout the world? A five year old child knows that you don't have 'water bulges' like they would have us believe. Oh, I am sure they have some logical answer!?!. Huh? This is the sum total of their logic, hoping that we are all too stupid to understand physics at a five year old's level or that we believe that they must have discovered some new facet of ocean water’s basic properties. Hey, if there is climate change (which I think there is), stick to the facts, and stop with the freakishly idiotic claims. Our buddy, Adolph Hitler stated that the bigger, the more outrageous the lie, the easier it is to sell it to the witless public. Well, if you happen to be counted among the witless masses, get your wits about you, because I am sure there are more ‘astounding’ scientific revelations yet to come from the likes of our illustrious Nobel Prize winning laureates, A Gore and B Obama and their luminary pseudo science  friends.

Major media, the new spokesmen for big oil and more!

Here we go again. Gas prices are creeping up, and once more the pump is foaming at the mouth to get at your paycheck.

So, do you want to know what is going to happen with oil prices? Listen to the newscasters from any of the big media; they get it dead on --almost every time. Have you ever wondered how it is that those news droids get it right with ninety and nine percent accuracy? When they forecast what gas prices are going to be and miraculously it comes to pass, be assured that it isn't because they are expert prognosticators; it is because they are firmly implanted in the gilded pocket of huge business who tell them what they want the public to hear. You could say that the networks and newspaper syndicates have an inside track on the current trend of oil gouging, but that isn't exactly true -- the media moguls are not merely pandering to the wishes of the oil people; they wittingly or unwittingly have become possessions of power mongers much bigger than the oil magnates. Oil is just one facet of their agenda.

Wouldn't you think that alternative fuel and energy sources might have come to full flower by now? The technology that drives that notion has been around for decades. I remember reading about prototype hydrogen (water powered) engines in the seventies. I know what you are thinking: 'He probably read it in 'UFO Alien Watch Weekly.' Actually I read it in the much more disreputable rags, Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. I also spoke face to face with an actual alien (Idahoan) who was using that technology in his own cars - in the seventies!

The official spokesmen of the noble media would have you believe that the fuel technologies needed to revolutionize our transportation and industrial needs are barely a glimmer in the eye of science. Huh? How could we believe such a thing when as I said, the technology has been here for thirty years or better - it's a matter of record. I'll tell you how; what most people hear or read in the media, they believe -- perhaps more than they believe their own ears and eyes. When distortions and outright lies are repeated often enough by a critical mass of media voices, it doesn't matter what you see or hear; by force of numbers what they say must be true.

Alternative news and media sources are being methodically eradicated either by force of government or by out and out extortion Where's the documentation? you might ask. Look at what they are trying to do to talk radio, the only bastion of the conservative voice left. They want to force it out of existence by what they (the 'progressives') call the 'fairness doctrine.' The lengths they will go to ought to give us an idea about just how important and effective the media is to eliminating opposition. Write a letter to the editor to certain syndicate-owned newspapers about gas price gouging, or other financial issues hitting close to the heart of the economic matter, and see if they print it. If they don't, call them, and then see what kind of response you get. I have written numerous times, and they would not print any of my letters. Yes, I know I'm a whacko, and none of what I say can be rationally believed. Well, if I my message is that whack, it should be fairly obvious to any right thinking readers -- right? I called and they would not give me any reason whatsoever. Instead they referred me to this or that editor (who was never available) or to some non-existent official ombudsman until at last my complaint disappeared down the black hole under the false bottom of the suggestion box.

I have thought that they are just like the pedophiles who groom their hopefully helpless young victims for the eventual atrocities they hope to perform. So do likewise the media to the public. Their subtle and not-so-subtle prophecies to me seem so contrived as to desensitize the public to what fiery furnace really awaits. Some propagandized blurbs are actually humorous, and I might laugh were it not so insidious in its intent. For example, I saw a 'poll' on an online syndicated news rag whose emblazoned question read something like this: 'Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep gas prices under $5 a gallon?' Excuse me?!?? I don't know about other areas of the country, but in our neck of the woods, gas prices topped $4 a gallon by a few cents last summer, and that outrageous price nearly brought on a full scale rebellion. Now I'm supposed to believe that Obama is a miracle worker if he can keep gas prices under five bucks. The real message is: We want you to realize that if our president can keep gas at a 'reasonable' price of five dollars a gallon, that is the best we can expect. You should feel darn fortunate for that. (Chew on that for a while, and I'll be back with more unofficial blather)

Equal opportunity talk? (un)fairness in broadcasting.

A movement is taking place underfoot to 'level the playing field' in the area of AM talk radio. Certain legislators backed by lobbies from the media and beyond have taken serious measures to force radio stations to give equal airtime to the liberal left, to promote their spiel, and to do so by enacting federal law. In essence "The Fairness Doctrine" championed by Senator Charles Schumer of NY, demands that if a radio station airs a conservative talk program, it must also air a liberal talk program to accomplish some sort of balance. This is supposedly because there is a preponderance of conservative talk programs broadcasting from the AM band. To date, virtually all liberal programs attempting to air have failed miserably due to lack of interest on the part of listeners or because those calling in more frequently took them to task rather than promoting their doctrine.

Schumer, responding to inquiries about his Fairness Doctrine said, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?” Oh sure, we all believe in fairness, but let's take a look at the liberal definition and logic of the issue of fairness. Quoting from an article printed in The Hill, a well established online news site, the senator elaborated, “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

This is the best logic he can come up with -- equating the limitation of public broadcasting of pornographic sleaze, to forcing an unsolicited opposing political position on an unresponsive public? Did I miss something? If I'm not mistaken, he is comparing his and his cronies' ideology to pornography. You know, I probably wouldn't take it that far, but if that's what the good senator has to say about it, I guess I will have to go along with it -- leftist liberal chatter=pornography. But seriously, how can they possibly make a connection between limiting something as offensive and destructive as pornography to superseding the citizen's right to listen to or sponsor whatever political perspective they choose.

Also quoting from The Hill, Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Isn't it the essence of free enterprise to provide for the public what they are willing to buy? If the public doesn't wish to buy their talk radio, in a normal free society the proprietor of that spiel ought to look to another public, or another medium at least to peddle their wares -- or go broke. Now the leftists want to officially subsidize their own blather on AM radio by federal decree. My question is: Since when has the Senate turned into the politburo. I guess since the benevolent Soviets failed in their attempt to impose thought control and official government compelled dialogue in Russia, our very own bolsheviks are going to force their new and improved version down our throats here in the new Obama-nation.

One last thought: Where was the the hue and cry for 'fairness' amid the major television network (mis)treatment of the candidates during the last four-year-long presidential campaign? Who was it that outspent the other candidate by more than double, who had two channels on sattelite TV bought and paid for, whose most adamant supporters and endorsers were virtually every news(?)caster and prominent spokesperson/talk show host from all of the major networks except one (FOX)? Do I detect a hint of imbalance or unfairness here? No one should begrudge anyone of their right to endorse whichever candidate they choose, but we are not talking about a simple right to endorse here; these news(?) people are swearing to be impartial, when their transparent biased commentary makes no attempt to disguise their unrequited love for the Obiden ticket as though the public were so stupid not to recognize the superficial ruse.

So we exercise our right to boycott the hypocritical TV networks and turn to talk radio to listen and find some degree of solace and straight talk. And now their gestapo has tracked us, and insist on force-telemarketing their unsolicited claptrap there too with the sanction of the federal government.

Out of here for now.

ABC The AMERICAN broadcasting corporation?

I thought I had heard everything. When I received an email claiming that ABC had a policy of prohibiting the display of the American flag by its employees and those representing the network my first thought was that it was just another hoax. It was simply unbelievable to find that it was true, but more than that, it has been their official policy since shortly after the 9-11 attack in 2001.

My question is: What possible reason could they have for such a thing? Their response is that they did not want to offend anyone. What??! Offend whom?! Has it come to this? They sell their allegiance for the country that granted them the privilege of speaking their mind without fear of reprisal, the freedom to report the news irregardless of whom it may offend? Now the flag that represents that freedom, the flag that countless patriots fought and died to defend is a source of embarrassment and shame. That somehow they may offend someone who doesn't agree with the tenets of a free society seems absurd beyond imagination. Who are these people, and to whom do they owe their allegiance?

It seems that anyone who expresses the least degree of 'patriotism' is labeled a product of inbreeding whose intellectual capacity is not sufficient to warrant any but token derisive consideration, therefore, they want no part of alluding to that appearance. Well here is my take, ABC. You have deeply offended me and I suspect anyone who still regards the flag as a symbol of the freedoms purchased by the blood of millions of selfless patriots who felt it an honor to sacrifice their lives, leaving that precious legacy to their posterity and yes, to you, ABC.

Yes, ABC has the freedom to keep the flag off those whom they employ, but I also have the freedom to express my disgust and to not subscribe to their network. I also reserve the right to persuade others to do the same.

Now we have a president elect who refuses to wear any representation of the flag and who likewise refuses to pledge allegiance to that flag. My next question is: To whom or what does he pledge his allegiance if not to the country that he will be sworn to represent and defend as our Commander in Chief? I sincerely hope that I am overstating this behavior and perhaps overreacting as well, but I don't think so. Ladies and gentlemen, this is cause for very serious concern.

More to come: The resurrection of the 'Fairness in Broadcasting' legislation proposed by the new congress.

The Obamanation of the Media

This is the first commentary on the SPUDS blog, and it comes soon after the election of a man literally sponsored and likely elected by the major media and big money the proportions of which we have never before seen in American politics. The forces behind him with their absurdly arrogant posturing as keepers of fairness, openness and nonpartisanship have breached frontiers heretofore unknown.

I had my alarm clock/radio set on the NPR station, and for the last year, every single morning I was awakened with the usual glowing commentary overflowing with unbridled praise for the good Senator Obama and his sidekick, Joe B. This was usually followed by an ample dose of subtle sneering at Senator McCain and or Governor Palin. It never took more than five seconds from the time the alarm went off for the unbiased and incorruptible commentators to proceed with the courtship of their president select in almost comical reverent tones. I suppose they could have had more to say, but it rarely took me more than ten more seconds to hit the snooze button (usually accompanied with a hearty commentary of my own).

I have purposely avoided network television for a long time, but during the ridiculously protracted campaign for the present presidency which began shortly after the last inauguration of George junior back in 2005, I limited my NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN viewing to random snippets when my lovely wife happened to have the tube tuned to one of those bastions of truth, justice, and the American way. Without fail, within the brief moments before I could reach the remote, I witnessed there too, the never ending shameless gushing of our national "news" droids in their conga line literally fighting to out-showcase each other for the Obiden cause, and likewise to out-smear the pitiful McPalin ticket.

Did you see it? If you didn't, open your eyes.

Out of time - more coming up.