Category Archives: Media

Updated Again: A Storm in a Tea Cup, Apparently

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Media, The Zeitgeist

The first thing to note in the aftermath of the biggest windstorm to hit Washington and Oregon in decades is the lack of coverage in MSM. The feminized media allots plenty of coverage to human interest stories–the girls are currently eulogizing endlessly the “experienced” mountaineers gone up Mount Hood during the most treacherous month of the year, just before one of the biggest blizzards ever. (Hey, do a story about electricity deprived, peeved pets or something.) But nothing about at least a million residents in the Pacific Northwest stranded without power for days, in primitive conditions, befitting a Third World country–or perhaps states overrun by greens, where the Prius is the “People’s Car.”

Well, as I say, we were plunged into a primitive, Third-World existence. Temperatures in my home plummeted to 45 degrees for 4 days. We coped thanks to the generosity of a neighbor with a massive generator. Now that I know I live at the mercy of Luddites, I fully intend to go survivalist: a generator, extra gas for the BBQ (I made a stew with the remaining chicken in my freezer, although I was forced to discard the rest of the meat and fish therein), and piles of candles.

So what are the questions Journalism of Old would have asked here? Utilities are only nominally private and are heavily regulated. How have regulations affected their response times and, most crucially, the maintenance of the power grid? Should power lines be buried? Why aren’t they? (Earthquakes would be one consideration, in addition to costs.)

But above all: the grid and power lines suffered mostly tree damage. In this part of the world, the trees everywhere are intertwined with the cable. Why? Why isn’t a wide tree-free swath maintained around these vital structures? Why are trees not chopped back?

I suspect the explanation lies in the self-defeating dementia of tree fetishists, and “Watermelon” legislation — green on the outside; red on the inside. However, as usual, the “Watermelon” worldview creates more havoc than it prevents. Because of wood fires, the usually pristine air in our part of the world resembles the air above the shanty town of Soweto. The resources and energy spent–and the lives lost–because of this mess are many times the cost or worth of a few thousand trees.

Update: While MSNBC noodles on for hours about the “experienced” climbers of Mt. Hood, and their relatives who, like all Americans, have an amazing knack for suctioning themselves to TV cameras and addressing “the nation” in their time of sorrow, some residents of King County, WA, got told they may be without power for yet another two weeks.

Updated Again: S. Johnson of Oregon backs up what I’ve surmised so far. He writes: Thank you for telling it like it is. We are on a private, co-operative power co. (Blachly-Lane), and they do exactly what you suggested be done as far as maintaining a tree-free zone around power lines. The Greens/tree huggers/libs thwart their efforts to a degree, as do liberal property owners, so guess what? The trouble we do experience is ALWAYS on/around their property! “They” never get it. I have a neighbor that refuses to let the power co. install a pole on his property because he maintains that it isn’t necessary as it’s been that way for 40 years and he is not going to change his mind. Guess what again? The power outages caused by winds are ALWAYS because the power lines span such a long distance over his property that they whip severely and bring down the poles! EVERY TIME! Yes, during the storm, down came the power pole and we, and about 500 others, were out of power for 23 hrs. Not a big deal for us, as I have generators, but some others don’t. I’ve lived here for 31 years (it’s a very rural area) and our power co. only serves about 2500 customers. I have talked to the “neighbor.” He is a Berkley educated hobby farmer who is as stuck on himself as he is dense. I’m sure he can absorb light. Won’t budge even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Oh, well, I won’t bore you anymore. Thanks for letting me vent. Keep up the good work and MERRY CHRISTMAS to you.

Media War-Profiteers

Media, The Zeitgeist, War

The elections have certainly brought a change in the tone of “debate” conducted on the networks. One sees less of those Republican, media “Madame Defarges,” their faces twisted in orgiastic war frenzy, accusing any and all of treason if opposed to the carnage and wanton waste in Iraq. It’s nice to see less of these clones of the French revolutionaries.

I even felt sufficiently buoyed to write, “At Least Saddam Kept Order.” And duly, hate mail—the kind I was knee-deep in from 2002 until late 2004—was almost non-existent.

This makes a nice change.

Groupies of the media “Madame Defarges,” assorted Robespierres, and their knock-offs, should remind themselves that their media heroes are part of the media elite. I know; you’ve been brainwashed to think only in terms of liberal media elites. But all those moneyed populist poseurs—they’ve all benefited financially from firing up poor sods with untruths about the war. Many then enlisted; some came back in body bags or bereft of body parts.

In the financial benefits they derived from whooping it up for war, a great many media types were as good as Halliburton war profiteers.

Canada Joins Running of the Jew at U.N. for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Canukistan*

Anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Canada, Israel, Media, Middle East, UN

I received this from the Canadian Coalition for Democracies. The information is well good, as Ali G. would say, but the title is even better. Big up to the CCD for the title (and also for standing up for justice).” ILANA

CANADA JOINS RUNNING OF THE JEW AT U.N. FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF CANUKISTAN*

Toronto, Thursday, November 30, 2006, The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is disappointed by the voting of the government of Canada in yesterday’s slew of anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations.

“Canada has again legitimized the use of UN resolutions to demonize one nation, while ignoring the truly serious human rights violations of other member states,” said Alastair Gordon, president of CCD. “Until resolutions are applied evenhandedly to all UN members, Canada must express its condemnation by voting ‘no’ on all such resolutions.”

In its first 42 years, the UN tabled 370 resolutions condemning Israel and zero resolutions critical of the PLO or any Arab state. When Syria slaughtered 20,000 of its own citizens at Hama in 1982, or when it sponsored the destruction and occupation of Lebanon, or even when Iraq massacred its Kurdish citizens with poison gas, there were no UN resolutions criticizing the perpetrators. In recent years, a handful of resolutions have targeted other Middle Eastern states, but the lion’s share is still reserved for Israel.

In October 2005, former Prime Minister Paul Martin referred to “the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions” at the UN. In November 2004, Canada’s then ambassador to the United Nations, Allan Rock, announced to the General Assembly that “resolutions [against Israel] are often divisive and lack balance.” Yet even with this recognition, both our past and present governments’ anti-Israel voting pattern has barely changed.
The Fourth Committee yesterday tabled nine ritualized resolutions targeting Israel for criticism. Canada voted against Israel on seven, and supported Israel on two. The only change from last year’s voting pattern was the change of one abstention to a ‘no’.
“The Stephen Harper government has taken a number of principled foreign policy positions that Canadians can be proud of. Yet it is choosing to continue the despicable bullying of one nation, a travesty that was identified by our former Prime Minister and UN ambassador,” added Gordon. “Until UN resolutions are an unbiased tool applied equally to all member states, Canada’s response to all ritualized anti-Israel resolutions must be NO.”

* With apologies to Borat
Founded in 2003, the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is a non-partisan, multi-ethnic, multi-denominational organization of concerned Canadians dedicated to national security and the protection and promotion of democracy at home and abroad. CCD focuses on research, education and media publishing to build a greater understanding of the importance of national security and a pro-democracy foreign policy.

O.J.’s Manual For Murder

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Media, The Zeitgeist

What a performative contradiction: cable’s point men and women have been contorting like Cirque du Soleil contortionists because of the despicable antics of HarperCollins publisher, Judith Regan, in publishing the sociopathic rants of the killer, O.J. Simpson. Yet they’re all giving this uninteresting, idiotic development time—almost as much time as they devote to the bubblehead with the double chin and chubby cheeks, Britney Spears.

From an impassioned interview Mark Fuhrman gave Hannity & Comles, it transpired that Allan Colmes is a pretty weird gnome; he believes O.J. is innocent, and has written as much in his “book.” On the program, Colmes attacked Fuhrman furiously.

I admire Fuhrman. He did his job and was slimed for it. He then bootstrapped his way back into so-called polite company. There is something utterly revolting about a liberal who, bereft of an argument, reaches for his standard stock-in-trade: accusations of racism. Colmes threw everything but the kitchen sink at a guest who’d come on to speak about this latest low in the American publishing world—a How-To instructional by a murderer—because he had investigated the case.

Fuhrman told the two talking heads, whose books Regan has published, that he would no longer be dealing with said publisher. Needless to say, the two hosts did not join Fuhrman in a show of principle.

What was also of interest was Hannity’s contaminated perspective. Conservatives have absorbed the therapeutic idiom completely. Hannity expressed the view that O.J. was consumed by guilt—could no longer contain the remorse, and was using a book as a confessional. He, Hannity, wanted closure too.

My God. I don’t know if there’s anything that disgusts me more than this meaningless, immoral mumbo-jumbo. Fuhrman, far more intelligent than his hosts, tried to explain to both about the nature of evil. There are people in this world, O.J. being one such specimen, who can kill another human being (or a couple), and then pop into KFC for some chicken, he said. Murder is nothing to them. (At this stage, Rumpelstiltskin intensified the racism accusations, because of the mention of KFC. Don’t ask me why.)

Neither one of these gents got it. The root-causes rot runs too deep in both. As for publisher Regan, she says, “What I wanted was closure, not money.” Since when is every self-appointed proxy of pain in a position to seek closure (whatever that means) for pain she has not sustained?

The only two people who have the moral authority to forgive this monster have been dead for a decade, their throats slit from ear to ear. (There’s more here. Send these on to Judith Regan so she can have “closure.”)