HOGWASH IN ‘SOURCEWATCH’

For one thing, I don’t know how they get away with it, and for another thing, I don’t know why they’re digging shit into their sense of history when, if you have any idea about the subject matter, the history is about as warped as their editorial staff can make it.  I think the Center for Media Democracy, a pile of crap that keeps upper middle-class riddl’n children with jobs when they can’t possible qualify for jobs in the open market place, is a good example of where the “open range” web posting is all about.  It’s remarkable that people who are actually opinion leaders, and can have reasonable judgement, but don’t, allow their names to be hung up with the likes of Sourcewatch, and the variety of verbal assault websites as if the management of intelligence has gone under the radar.  For example, I would have to believe that Stanton Glantz of UCSF has a bit more intelligence than to mismanage the garbage that comes into the so-called “Legacy” library.  For one, I don’t believe that “Dr” Glantz (he has a Ph.D.) is playing fair – as if he had been in his tobacco research program – and he just gets worse.  That doesn’t mean that Glantz is absolutely a greedy little monster of an academic, but he’s at his best in the opportunistic world of “I did it, it’s mine, and I can distort the facts and the truth by posting it on the web.”  Hey, this guy is a scientist.  He’s had grants and done scientific studies using public and private funds as an academic for his entire career.  But he puts up his name in the same unconditional disambiguous platform for inaccuracy and bad journalism and he’s part of the problem of truth-telling.  He believes in it for science.  But when it comes to his “public relations”, Glantz is a disaster and an ego-maniac.  You can agree with Glantz as an icon of sorts for his work in side-stream tobacco, but he put up the so-called “Legacy Tobacco Documents Library,” and, if he had a tiny bit of honesty left, he should know that he can’t simply “lift” in the sense of stealing, documents that aren’t his to use.  Of course, the most significant documentation is already timeless, stolen, and part of a world record.  I don’t blame him for his giant ego.  I think he can keep his ego, but, if he continues to compromise his honesty by falsely using Sourcewatch, Legacy, Center for Media Democracy, it’s shameful.

The CCF, as written about in Sourcewatch, may be an awful “front group”, but Sourcewatch, in hawking slander and defamation in it’s “history”, will invariably have to get it’s act together, fire the SOB’s who edit and write biographies picked from good journalism (hiding that with footnotes), and pretending there is a particular sanity to their form of journalism, their means of hawking lies, and their complete ignorance of checking their own value system when it out’s “the truth”.  I suppose, in the web world, it would be just fine and dandy if some of the freeloaders who work for Sourcewatch had to submit to an intelligence test on what they write, or edit, they’d come up just fine.  On that level, because they obviously allow just about anyone to “put out” in their forum, mendacity and plain lies just don’t matter.  Stanton Arnold Glantz, Ph.D., if you had any honor in that high moral superiority you hold so dear in tobacco slashing, and in your published work’s research, how can you let your ego get the best of you and be respected for your work in any science.  Should I put on site some sort of personal attacks in the form of biographical material that calls to the public’s attention in the sanctuary of “web journalism” ideas that are impliedly rank and immature?  Can’t you, at least, keep people such as Bob Burton, your so-called “web editor” honest?  Do your puppies who work at American Legacy recognize that it’s time to fact-check what they write at the expense of getting personally sued for slander?  I mean, – I can’t say that Bob Burton, whomever that may be, runs around in high heels every Thursday and footnote it as if it’s truly accurate.  Or can I?  Is this free-range journalism good to go, and is there any question that might want to be fact checked before I destroy your own personal relationships with trash?  Or does that overly sensitive academic self continue to hide under the self-deceit of liers and cheats.  By the way, your funding source may be going into the trash.  Mississippi mud just turned in the sentence for one of your helpmates so the cash flow may be interrupted for a bit.  Dickie Scruggs was sentenced to 5 years in Federal prison.  I don’t know how his bagman can write checks to the “health” community if he’s bothered by personal considerations while sitting in the slammer, and he probably will leave some of those promises at the jailhouse door. 

Obama’s “white” speak and Ralph Nader

When Ralph Nader talks about Mr. Obama, he is holding back nothing, and, if history serves us well, it is best to remember that Mr.Nader has been fighting for consumer rights and consumer issues for about as long as Obama has been alive.  When Obama was born, Hawaii had just become a US State, and Ralph Nader was beginning to launch his legal career as a consumer advocate.  When Obama was knee-high, and about to take his first road trip to the United States mainland, Nader was addressing the problems for consumer’s who were inadequately protected in their automobiles.  In the mid-60′s, GM’s “Corvair”, was “inherrently dangerous” at any speed, was a consumer nightmare, and Ralph Nader told the public the absolute truth while the government and GM, an enormous corporation then and now, kept a low profile and denied that it sold unsafe vehicles.  No doubt Obama, living either in Hawaii, Indonesia, or the USA, depending upon whose telling the story, was a child in short britches, and, like all children who road in the GM “Corvair,” he too benefitted from Ralph Nader’s crusade to get the car off the road.  While the automobile industry fought Nader’s lifelong attempt to make automobile’s “safer”, create less hazardous auto emmissions, improve the overall safety of travel by car, Obama was squaring off his young days – most likely getting a world view of international issues by traveling here and there by any means.  Since Nader first began his crusade, which now is extensive and broadly includes medicine, healthcare, law, corporate mendacity, and is absolutely outside the “government” role of corporate protection, it is safe to drive even the most simple automobile.  During the 1960′s and 70′s, Nader’s role as a consumer advocate, and the results he has created in favor of the consumer, (that’s “the people” including a variety of colors, nationalities, ethnicity, and financial well-being or poverty) are countless.  Our lives, with the unambiguous direction of Nader’s acts, have been completely changed.  It is now not simply the act of one man who wore the same suit and skinny tie for years, but is an extensive organization to combat “corporate crime”, eliminate wasteful spending, give 100 million poor Americans at least the opportunity they deserve, and live to serve the public – and keep his word.  Not surprising, people such as Al Gore, who mutter that Nader caused him to “lose”  his Presidential bid to Bush, are finding the same cannonical missive in Nader’s present run for the White House.  Most of the impressions that Americans, and the world, devise are directly related to the “anchor” mentality as processed on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and various sub-affiliates.  No longer does a generation think for itself.  The impression of politics, the reality of social issues – these are opined by pundits, the modern “spokesman” for corporate America.  Usually, the “anchor” is 30′s-40′s, cute, animated, and more often as not, brain-dead.  Fox has a particularly fine group of brain-dead youthful anchorage talent, and I wasn’t surprised to hear the hooting and howls from Fox when Nader went on record in Denver as calling Obama’s followers filled with “white guilt”.  What?  Is that politically correct?  Of course.  It didn’t say Obama was playing a race card, but it said the voters for Obama, his supporters, were endowed with “white guilt”.  It was a shot over the bow of Obama’s creme de la creme “intellectuals”, but it put the notion of how far we’ve become “politically correct”, a place that is unconditionally off page, off point, off the beaten path.  It is where the vast majority of the United States plants a moral foundation.  It is all right to be white, but if you’re using “white speak”, it’s a controversial issue for the press media to chomp on.  And that’s what Nader accused Obama of – putting on one part white, one part mixed, and ending up black.  Nader said it right.  Obama is about as “black” in thought and representation as he looks (the former Mayor of New Orleans likes to call everyone “chocolate”, which is probably pretty much the case), but the problem, as Nader puts it, is that Obama isn’t like Jessie Jackson, who IS black, who DID battle racial change and has made a life of “making a difference”, but Obama is about as “white” an ideologist as the entire genetic pool of the Roosevelt family, quite political, quite vast, from 1870 -1950.    But Nader doesn’t pull his punches.  Don’t whine, Al Gore.  You did have a number of issues.  You would have (impossible to miss that point now) made a wonderful President, but your failure to become President isn’t based on Ralph Nader’s votes.  Yes, you made tobacco an issue, but you didn’t stop growing it until your sister died of lung cancer – then you took up the consumer issue.  It’s all personalized.  So Nader’s voice will imperil the life of the Obama camp quite likely.  In fact, it’s more the opposite.  I can’t imagine how the Obamaian community can adequately respond to the truth, or that which Nader views as the truth.  In one fell swoop, Ralph Nader opens up a whole new field of “politically incorrect” vision – so how does Obma smoke his way out of that tight spot?  Most likely, with a Marlboro.  Incidentally, as a youth icon, does anyone out there know Obama’s “brand”?  It’s important.  If he uses (and that’s what tobacco addicts are – users) a “health conscience” brand, maybe there’s hope for universal health care, but if he uses a “target-market youth” brand, what do you suppose all the fuss was about in the Medicaid “Global Settlement”?  To encourage “star-endorsement” of tobacco use? It is safe to say that – or is it?  I have to think.  Am I so awful as to be “politically incorrect” (translate for Rev. Ralph Abernathy who single-handedly fired shock-joke host Don Imus for ONE purportedly “racist” remark; it wasn’t), and have to endure the back-lash of attacks, defend the position of  not  – well, for god’s sake, what is it that ISN’T “politically incorrect” IF, as Ralph Nader puts it, we’re dealing with “white guilt” for Obama?  What is it that CAN be said, and CAN’t be condemned as anti-American?  I don’t remember any grief given to Condi Rice during her career at the White House….So, is “white” speak so awful when it’s used by a partially darker Hawaiian?  I hope not.  It might put the signal up for “reverse discrimination” again.  Why on earth is their a Black Caucus and it is absolutely forbidden to have a White Caucus or an Hispanic Caucus?  My guess – in about 20 years – there’ll be only two racial caucus arenas – guess which of the above would not be included. 

Reality in non-racist Obama

In the great snarling mass of people who want to please, who can’t help but say they want to please, who seem to be able to please, a man presents himself as the candidate of the people and for reasons unknown to me, he displeases me.  As an independent who may vote in the November election, I have heard a lot about the “Obama base,” one which is youth-oriented or aged no more than 35.  The younger voter is a delicate base, I think, because they move uneasily through life for years 18-25, have massive loads of debt, have more than politics on their mind, and, when it comes to the actual time to act – as in getting out to vote – the dorms and hang-overs might be more likely to kick in rather than the comfortable computer lounge which has produced “Obama mania”.  What is discomforting about the ever growing need for a defined issue to replace the maniacal White House Diva, and the inevitability of doing it soon, is the fact that Obama is a back-slider and a difficult person to define.  He’s been lauded as an “intellectual”, has the bona fides to be that, but he presents some very unappealing messages  that make my grasp of what is real actually is intellectualized to the point of obscurity.  He presents himself as a non-racist.  Almost every voter willing to be “socially acceptable” reflects that presentation, and is careful not to fly into the unreasonable zone of politically incorrect.  If Obama were not somewhat “black” or African American, how often could his demeanor be so presentable as really “non-racist”?  It’s a question.  Put that one aside, and there’s an awful sense that we’re leaning toward the Supreme Court Decision allowing for unequal treatment of alternate color, e.g., lighter, most often called “white” put behind the darker one.  But equal opportunity is well beyond Obama’s followers.  It was interesting to note how Obama faired in the Kentucky vote: Clinton seized the entire Eastern part of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and Obama only got the parcels of “intellectual”  chum (about 100,000 in all) near the Universities of Louisville, and Kentucky (Frankfort).  Here, as we examine the disparity of votes (Clinton got nearly 600,000 KY votes), there’s an odd message.  The Obamaclan believe that the underclass, which are actually of poor Irish-Scott-Anglo origin, settled the East, and  South, but their roots aren’t necessarily “racist”.  It’s hard to figure how much an advantage the new “intellectual” is coming from, because no matter how it’s dumbed down, the reality of racial context is ethnocentric; where I live says what I want but also is my soul and well-being.  In Eastern Kentucky, in the mountains, there’s a love of “clogging”, a fanciful dance that lingers from it’s Anglo-Euro origin.  It’s the thing that some people live for, but it’s not really a pandemic of racism, but defines souls.  It is hard to imagine that Obama, who didn’t visit Kentucky, would appear as anything but “antithetical” to the Easterner in Kentucky; in fact, if their racism is any less than Obama’s shun of them, which is a form of racism, how can I express what Obama defines?   Do you imagine that power will change Obama and his followers, or is the present focus on the faux Presidential “shield” where the “intellegent” vangard is heading?  Symbols of power, especially before the power is granted, is historically a misjudgement of the massive erosion of leadership, and we have learned those lessons.  Obama tends to distract the intellectual whose haven is the American University, where reality is nothing but imagination waiting to create an illusion from inside the gates which are always insular, idealistic, and often outside of the real world.   If you’ve ever taught at University level, it’s impossible to imagine there’s actually a real world out here.   I suppose that all votes are regional, but when the Louisville/Lexington vote comparative is used against the “regionalist vote”, I think there’s a picture of who can’t be the next President of the United States.  To get that point, and raise it to a level of reason, you simply have to recall other generations of voters.  In 1994, the November voters cast out the Democrats, and this was no different from an old fashion South American junta, for it was a so-called “silent majority” that sprang the revolution.  There’s a silent majority now.  No need to wonder why Mississippi votes “democrat” in primaries, and this thrills Obama’s supporters, but Mississippi won’t vote Democrat in November.  It’s Republican.  That won’t change with Obama.  Iowa is a bad example for any Presidential candidate because they can’t quite know who the voters are.  They are farmers.  There’s only ONE University in Iowa, but lots of small private colleges.  It’s cold.  It’s literate.  But it’s hardly a reflection of  a healthy choice of Presidential selection, and it is lilly “white”, which is “non-racist”  just by representational popular vote.  But all the above is just a narrow slip opinion of what the Obama vote will bring.  Should Isreal decide to bomb Iran and repeat it’s 1981 “target removal” act, Obama will look silly against the authoritative McCain.  His lack of experience, his anti-war position, his willingness to take a unilateral approach to Iran in negotiation(s) – hardly a likely event – is squished if Isreal, as I believe it will do, takes out the heavy water facility thereby throwing the entire middle-east into turmoil.  The Obama “intellectuals” may have to worry about a draft deferral in lieu of the right face at the right time in the White House.  The Isreali issue is not moot.  As the summer ends, as the political front heats up, as Bush gets weaker (if that’s possible), the time for Isreali action against Iran will invariably kick off a mind-boggling confrontation which will not only cast the reality of “racism” declaratives in the tank, but will entirely re-vamp the landscape of real life politics in a real world of threat and harm.  Obama worries about presenting himself behind a Presidentially framed “shield”, and tells women to “get over it”, and fall in line.  That’s not intelligence.  It’s the mindset of hubris and a pride of lambs (not lions).  Obama is special, and the line “smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em” must be resurrected along with the up-coming military “surge”, which, if we are truly living in reality, is called “the draft.” -hammish, Brasil.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!