realthog: (corrupted science)

Senator Obama has said that, as President, he will end the gross waste of money spent on the military in the form of graft, corruption, scientifically unfeasible weapons systems, war profiteering, etc.; he will also work toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

Every competent economist reckons Obama must cut military spending if he is to introduce things like universal health care; every competent economist realizes that the money is there to be cut, thanks to enormous Pentagon wastage and the gross overmilitarization of this country -- unless I'm misremembering the figures, the US spends considerably more on "defense" (to use the Orwellesque term) than all the rest of the world put together.

Meanwhile, every competent military strategist recognizes the desirability of returning the world to its status, at least so far as weaponry is concerned, of nuclear-free zone.

So Obama's not saying anything particularly outrageous or revolutionary -- he just wants to halt a known gravy train and decrease the likelihood of worldwide annihilation.

Well, not according to the exceptionally dishonest scaremongers over at Macsmind, the self-styled blog of the MacRanger Radio Show (whatever the hell that is).

Either they're profoundly stupid or they're pathological liars -- probably both -- but they describe Obama's pretty staid statement as his commitment to "universally" (sic; it's clear they mean "unilaterally") disarm the US.

This bullshit has attracted 130 comments so far. Here's a selection:

+++++

The plans of Obama is so terrifying. I shudder to think what will become of America, the Great Nation? If Obama wins in the election America shall be invaded by terrorist and rule of ungodly people shall reign in America. American people should pray and rally not to let Obama win in the election, and I know for sure that people around the world will help to pray for the future of the United States of America. God will Bless America!

+++++

I was the USAF’s Nuclear Security Inspector 1972-77. This man is the biggest danger America has ever faced!

Robin Wayne Edwards
LTC USAF Ret.

+++++

Is he the Anti Christ? Who knows. One thing is for sure, the signs are all right for him to appear. Right is now considered wrong and wrong is now considered right. Christians are bad. Athiests, murders, thieves, rogues, child molesters and any other abonimable practioner is considered good. Gog and Magog (Russia) are aligned with the Middle Eastern Jew Hating Terrorists, while the Red Dragon (China) with it’s 200 million man army is standing by to join in for the kill. The US is considered the main enemy now because we are the only country strong enough to make a difference. If Obama is elected President, we can hang it up because we will have a leader who is aligned with our enemies. How do I know. Every thing he says indicates he is ready to disarm our country and surrender to our enemies. The rest of you may not think he is a Muslim but I don’t buy it. He is either a Muslim or a fool and I dont’ think he is a fool. He is too ready to put his faith in those radical terrorist regimes and “negotiate” with them when everyone knows that their religion promotes lying to non believers as a virture and using negotiation as a tool to stall while they reinforce their position. If he isn’t the AntiChrist, he is a damned good imitation.

+++++

Yes, Lets all run out and vote for NERO! IT WORKED OUT GREAT FOR THE ROMANS, DIDNT IT!

+++++

How could you possibly vote to have a man named OBAMA run our country after Sept. 11th. Have you people forgot about that? I havent. He is all about giving to minorities. Thats just what we need, more handouts for the lazy people. He will RUIN this coutry.

+++++

OBAMA is helping to stage IRAN to not only NUKE Israel but also the USA. He may have an education, however I would like to know a couple of things. Did he attend class and how do we know if he sent somebody in to take it for him.

+++++

It amazes us…….and really frightens us… that there are so many “American citizens” that insist on voting for Barrack Hussein Obama to be the leader of our United Stated of America. Are they so blind and forgetful as to put aside the fact that we’ve been fighting terrorism technically since 1990 and Osama bin Laden has been spreading hatred since 1979? And, NOW, they want to elect a leader who has a name that not only sounds like our enemies’ name but has absolutely no experience dealing with wartime affairs? In fact, we hadn’t even HEARD of him before! Yeah, he wants to “change” our country–into one that will be easy for Osama and his gang to over-power.

+++++

That's as much as my digestive system can take.

There are two points here.

First, how extraordinary -- and extraordinarily depressing -- it is that so many of our fellows are not only so misinformed but also have so little connection with straightforward everyday logic. They lack the mental tools to construct a rational argument and the common knowledge upon which to base that argument. This is not to say that they're necessarily stupid: they're just appallingly undereducated or miseducated.

Second, people in certain news media, like those of the MacRanger Radio Show, want to keep it that way. Clearly they recognize the danger to their vile ideology of an educated, informed public.

So they lie.

When will they ever stop?

realthog: (real copies!)


Peter Oborne has a longish article in today's edition of the Independent newspaper that makes bitter reading. Here are extracts:


The shameful Islamophobia at the heart of Britain's press

On the morning of 7 October 2006 The Sun newspaper splashed a dramatic story across its front page. The story – billed as exclusive – concerned a callous and cynical crime committed by Muslims. A team of Sun reporters described in graphic detail how what the paper labelled a "Muslim hate mob" had vandalised a house near Windsor. The Sun revealed that "vile yobs hurled bricks through windows and daubed obscenities. A message on the drive spelled out in 4ft-letters: 'Fuck off '."

One Tory MP, Philip Davies, was quoted venting outrage at this act of vandalism. "If there's anybody who should fuck off," Davies was quoted as saying, "it'sthe Muslims who are doing this kind of thing. Police should pull out the stops to track down these vile thugs".

The Sun left its readers in no doubt as to why the outrage had been committed. Local Muslims were waging a vendetta against four British soldiers who hoped to rent the house on their return from serving their country in Afghanistan. The paper quoted an army source saying that: "these guys have done nothing but bravely serve their country – yet they can't even live where they want in their own".

But there was one very big problem with The Sun story. There was no Muslim involvement of any kind. [. . .]

But Islamophobia [. . .] can be encountered in the best circles: among our most famous novelists, among columnists from the Independent and Guardian newspapers, and in the Church of England. Its appeal is wide-ranging. "I am an Islamophobe, and proud of it," writes Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, then writing for The Independent. "Islamophobia?" The Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle rhetorically asks in the title of a speech, "Count me in." Imagine Liddle declaring: "Anti-Semitism? Count me in", or Toynbee announcing that she was "an anti-semite and proud of it". This just wouldn't happen and for very good reasons. Anti-semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed and its adherents barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion. Not so Islamophobia. [. . .]

Here are some more false stories concerning Muslims in Britain. Some were pure inventions, others contained a grain of truth but were distorted.

"Muslim Sickos' Maddie Kidnap Shock" – Daily Star, 28 April 2008. The story did not, as readers might have inferred from the front-page headline, reveal that Madeleine McCann had been kidnapped by a Muslim "sicko". In fact, it refers to a website on which claims were made that Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance.

"Hogwash: Now the PC brigade bans piggy banks in case they offend Muslims" – Daily Express, 24 October 2005. The story claimed that NatWest and Halifax had removed images of piggy banks from their promotional material in an effort to avoid offending Muslim customers, since pork is forbidden in Islam. The paper quoted observers calling such action "barmy" and "bonkers", thereby stirring up a huge response from the public.

After the story's publication, the Halifax drily noted that it "has not withdrawn any piggy banks from branches" and noted that in fact it had not used piggy banks in its branches for a number of years. The NatWest press statement noted that: "There is absolutely no fact in the story."

"Get off my bus I need to pray" – The Sun, 28 March 2008. This was the story of a Muslim bus driver ordering his passengers off his bus so that he could pray. The Sun story, along with footage of the bus driver praying, was widely circulated around right-wing blogs. Dhimmi Watch, the right-wing blog on the site Jihad Watch that catalogues perceived outrages committed by Muslims, even included The Sun story in their "ever-expanding You Can't Make This Stuff Up file". Well, actually, you can. The bus had been delayed, so in order to maintain frequency the bus company had ordered the driver to stop his bus and allow passengers to board the bus behind. Tickets and CCTV evidence show that all the passengers were on that bus within a minute.

The so-called witness, a 21-year-old plumber, who recorded the bus driver praying, had not been on the bus, and had arrived after the incident to find a small crowd outside a bus.

"The crescent and the canteen" – The Economist, 19 October 2006. There was no truth in the article's suggestion that Leicester University had banned pork on campus. In actual fact, the university Student Union had made just one out of the numerous cafes on campus halal, in a decision which had as much to do with economic factors as cultural sensitivity as Leicester has a large number of Muslim students. The other 26 cafes on the campus, including the main canteen, were still serving pork as usual.

It's a pity that for some reason Oborne felt inhibited, for the most part, from naming the names of the guilty. It would have been useful had we each been able to play our own small individual part in spreading it all over the internet that these hatemongering "journalists" and their "editors" are racists and liars.

 

realthog: (real copies!)

Jamison Foser of Media Matters has posted an excellent -- and in some ways quite frightening -- article today at http://mediamatters.org/items/200806270008?f=h_top. Here are extracts:

Last week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a new report by Michael Ettlinger estimating that under McCain's tax plan, he and his wife, Cindy, would save $373,429. That's nearly $400,000 -- per year, not over the course of their lifetimes. (Under Barack Obama's plan, the McCains would save less than $6,000. The Obamas would save nearly $50,000 under McCain's plan, and slightly more than $6,000 under Obama's plan own plan.)

By the standards the media applied to [John] Edwards, the fact that McCain supports tax policies that would save him and his wife nearly $400,000 a year -- and require massive cuts to public services to pay for those tax breaks -- should surely be news. [. . .]

Surely, then, The Washington Post, having obsessed over Edwards' wealth, has noted Ettlinger's findings in its reports about McCain's tax plans, right?

Wrong. [. . .]

The Ettlinger estimate was completely ignored by the news media. Beyond that report, I don't remember ever seeing a major-media report about John McCain's tax policies noting that, due to his wealth, he would fare quite well under his own proposals. And in a couple hours of Nexis searches, I haven't been able to find one.

Perversely, it seems the conventional wisdom among the media is that it's more acceptable for a wealthy politician to propose policies that help the wealthy than policies that benefit the middle class and the poor.

Bearing in mind that a large percentage of the US public get all their news -- and hence their opinions -- from mainstream news sources, primarily the TV, doesn't it seem something of a betrayal of democracy that those same mainstream news sources display what can only be one of these two: (a) atrocious pro-Republican bias or (b) a lack of basic journalistic competence?

Foser's weekly columns are generally must-reads, by the way. You can sign up for them at http://mediamatters.org/users/sign_up?source=banner_200806270008.

March 2013

S M T W T F S
     1 2
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728 2930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 19th, 2025 01:43 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios