Conflict of Interest And Media Corruption

Democrats, Elections, Ethics, Journalism, Media, Morality, Republicans

Conflict of interest equals corruption. It is the modus operandi of major media in America. It is why affiliates of large news organizations see nothing outrageous about producing documentaries and miniseries about Hillary Clinton in the ramp up to the 2016 elections.

What can Republican candidates expect from the media mafiosi in the 2016 Republican primary debates? If past is prologue, Republican candidates will be “deposed” by the Democratic operatives of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc. That’s how Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus put it. So one wonders what took GOP invertebrates so long to stand up to the farce of Democratic special interests (most media) moderating or sponsoring the Republican election debates.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus said NBC and CNN must halt their Hillary Clinton programming or the RNC won’t partner with them for the 2016 Republican primary debates.

(LINK)

NBC Entertainment has announced plans to produce a mini-series about Hillary Clinton starring Diane Lane, while CNN has announced plans to produce a feature-length documentary about Clinton that will air in theaters and on the network. Both networks have stressed that their news divisions will have no part in the projects.

(LINK)

Even though this is neither here nor there for liberty, many of us still wanted to see Mitt Romeny get off his knees and quit apologizing to his media inquisitors, who kept berating him for the Good Life he had led.

ObamaCare for Thee, But Not for Me. Yippee.

Barack Obama, Democracy, Government, Healthcare

Despotism is upon us when “government officials write laws that apply only to us and not to them.”

Via Reuters: “When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

Now:

Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the “Obamacare” health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.
In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.
The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama’s blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.

Obama Care for thee, but not for me. Yippee.

This is the law of rule, not the rule of law.

Tidings Of The Vaguest, Least Specific, Most Geographically Inclusive Terrorism

Intelligence, Journalism, Media, Middle East, Propaganda, Terrorism, The State

Cowed into fearful submission by choice, Americans are being bombarded with the “news” of the vaguest, least specific, most geographically inclusive threat of terrorism: Terrorism is everywhere you travel. You’ve got a target on your back. And, while we’re at it, consider yourself lucky to be the recipient of this most astute and accurate news from those who look out for you.

And the reason the NSA saints can look out for you, you ingrates, is that they spy on you. Now can you see what this is about? It’s a proxy for “protecting.”

This alert—what would you do without it? Have a happy holiday?—comes to you thanks to the very “dragnet that scoops up the personal electronic communications of millions of you.”

Or so suggested John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Fox News today, again. Is Bolton privy to this non-specific intelligence? No. But being party to the media-military-congressional-industrial complex, he stands ready to reflexively back it up, down to the nuts and bolts of it.

This stalwart supporter of the Surveillance State gave credit to the “National Security Agency’s sweeping surveillance powers,” and in particular to PRISM and “X-Keyscore,” which some of us have been protesting—these deserve credit for bringing you the tidings of terrorism. The Fox-News twit offered no cross examination.

U.S. officials have not offered many details on the nature of the threat, but apparently are taking it seriously. … John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the alert indicates the U.S. government must have some “pretty good information” about a possible threat.

Yes, that’s logical (not): From the fact of the warning (and not the facts), we can conclude that there is a threat.

The Guardian provides the necessary skepticism absent among US major media:

US embassy closures used to bolster case for NSA surveillance programs.
Congress told that NSA monitoring led to interception of al-Qaida threats but privacy campaigners fear ulterior political motives. News of the fresh terror alert came as Congress looked increasingly likely to pursue fresh attempts to limit the NSA’s domestic powers when it returns in September.
“The NSA takes in threat information every day. You have to ask, why now? What makes this information different?” added Stepanovich.
“Too much of what we hear from the government about surveillance is either speculation or sweeping assertions that lack corroboration. The question isn’t if these programs used by this NSA can find legitimate threats, it’s if the same threats couldn’t be discovered in a less invasive manner. This situation fails to justify the NSA’s unchecked access to our personal information.”

UPDATED (May 7, 2021): GOP Tit-For-Tat Twits

Argument, Barack Obama, Democrats, Feminism, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Reason, Republicans

No, the president does not have to weigh in on sexual scandals. Why should he? (Besides, Obama seems a bit of a prude. That’s good.) If you objected to Obama’s sermon on Trayvon (I did), but think he should weigh in on Weiner, on what grounds do you deny him his Trayvon intervention? I like it when the president puts a lid on it.

The empaneled bimbos on Fox News—where do they find such dumb women? CNN?—have been outshouting each other to protest the president’s silence on the sexual transgressions of The Weiner and the possible criminal misconduct of The Filner.

The arguments the Democratic and Republican factions advance exist on a continuum. There is no qualitative difference between them. Right now, both Republican and Democratic women seem to agree that everyone, including the president, has to be in full-throated protest mode about those who violate the “isms” in the manual of political correctness.

True individualists would never even dignify the category of “sexual harassment.” Touching someone as Filner did without consent is an assault. It doesn’t matter if the assaulted is man, woman, or someone in-between.

But Republicans are as dazed and confused as the rival gang, reducing wrong-doing to these PC “isms,” and partaking in the silly tit-for-tat: “No, you’re a sexist, I’m not. No, Democrats are racists; we’re the party of Lincoln.” Blah-blah. Pathetic.

Republicans have now turned around and are using the “sexism” and war on women bugbear to try and gain a political advantage. Ridiculous. How ridiculous? Silly enough to make JAY CARNEY that broken clock that is right twice a day:

I understand the allure of issues like this in the media, but it is not what — and I do understand it, and I’m not being critical of it. But I’m saying that the President believes his job is not to comment on those issues, …

UPDATE (8/3/013): Huge concession to Fred Cummins, on Facebook: OK, Fred, most, not all, the women on Fox are terribly dense, loud bimbos. I’ve documented that extensively. Exceptions? Gretta on Fox and EMac on Fox Biz, as well as Gerri Willis and Melissa Francis. I’m not far off.