Lying Is Where The Money Is, Now More Than Ever

June 25 Editorial

Today the Editors have finally decided to be quiet on the Iran issue, not unlike their friend George W. Bush (and themselves) during Tehran's crackdown on student protesters in 2003 or about the crackdown on reformist candidates in 2004 that led to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Instead they've chosen to, brace yourself, rant and rave about Government spending (the kind that does not directly benefit rich guys, of course).

In today's piece Soft landing: Economic pain unequally shared they start off with the statement "...The U.S. House has approved an 8 percent increase in the budget for office expenses. Members will get an average of $1.5 million for the fiscal year that starts in October. The increase comes at a time when businesses and households are cutting budgets by 8 percent or more."

The article as you can probably guess continues with no mention of Goldman Sachs hot-shots being, as Reuters reports here, on pace this year for record bonuses, or perhaps bringing into question the salaries of Red-Prime Steakhouse frequenting Chesapeake execs in these rough-times, especially when they've destroyed $16b in shareholders wealth the prior year.

Mentioning such things would have been nice, but one thing that I think no question should have been brought up, if the editors for once could possibly sway from their constant "Blame the government" rhetoric, is that the Public Relations Industry is flourishing. And in a similar fashion as it was in the heyday of Edward Bernay's in the run-up to the great depression.

It makes perfect sense that the PR industry is doing so well (anyone who gets on Twitter sees the place flooded with PR folks promoting fancy lifestyles and whatnot), as these are no doubt times when disgraceful, unjustifiable things (like Goldman Sach's bonuses, or nice guys like Aubrey McClendon making over $100m for his part in erasing $16b of shareholders wealth) need to be justified by any means necessary.

But do not take my word for it regarding the propaganda industry, read this sickening piece from July '08 by The Oklahoman's good friend Renzi Stone , (note 2-12-10 page archived....actual story link on his site redirects to new page) head of local Public Relations group Saxum Communications. In it he discusses how well the industry is doing, and how it is important for them to do their best lying to ensure the status-quo is preserved. He states:

"According to a March 2008 report by M&A experts StevensGouldPincus, PR firms stand to gain ground this year. Highlights included 75 percent of firms under $3 million predict higher revenues and 83 percent say client budgets will increase. If the first two quarters of this year are any indication, we are in line with the industry, if not exceeding predictions. In a declining economy, PR will play an important role in helping businesses and issues...continue to move forward."

Pretty terrifying that our nations future is in the hands of these people who lie for a living, and it is especially troubling that our City's paper wont even discuss this stuff, primarily because they are a big part of such non-sensical, harmful things.

So again, these are the types of things we would hear about if we had a newspaper in our town with an editorial staff that pays attention in the many bible classes they attend, and therefore would at least attempt to tell the whole truth from time to time.

Her Name is Neda Agha-Soltan You Lunatics

June 24 Commentary

In the June 23 Editorial "Iran, North Korea putting Obama’s strategy to test" The editors write "...a young woman bleeding to death after being shot...graphically and intimately assigning a face to the uprising and deepening Obama’s dilemma..." Now, I am just one person with a not so remarkable income, rather than an entire news department with the backing of the Gaylord Empire...yet I am able to discover quite quickly that the woman's name is Neda Agha-Soltan.



The Editorial staff does not care about Neda. They do not care about Iran. They only care about partisanship, power, and control.

Early on in his presidency, when America was siding with the Iraqis, George Bush Sr. was questioned about the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes (also known as "Robo-cruiser" because of the extremely aggressive behavior of her commanding officer - Read Robert Fisk's increadible book "The Great War For Civilization" for more). It had recently fired missiles at Iran Air’s Flight 65, which was on a routine flight scheduled from Bandar-Abbas to Dubai. All 290 civilians on board died. “I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.” was Bush’s reply.

Now that all the facts have come out, it was nothing short of an act of terrorism on the part of the Vincennes, and Bush and The Oklahoman just laughed it off.

How many Neda's were on that flight and what the hell did this sick newspaper, let alone what did their partisan buddy Bush care about these people? And now they think they can lecture us about what Obama should be doing, and even worse subtly blame him and everyone else who supports the way he is handling Iran for Neda's death? Why are people not out protesting in front of this sick, perverted newspaper? It is not as if it has zero influence over anything.

Consider more facts: As Stephen Kinzer notes "in the 1980s, the U.S. sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, providing him with military equipment and intelligence that helped make it possible for his army to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians...Given this history, the moral credibility of the U.S. to pose as a promoter of democracy in Iran is close to nil."

And of course, the overthrow of the parliamentary elected Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 which started this entire hell-disaster for the people of Iran. Why can The Oklahoman not acknowledge these things? It is pretty obvious that a paper that can not even say the name of Neda Agha-Soltan would never have the decency to acknowledge any of our disgraceful history in the region, especially the history of their party.

My good friend Arash Manzori helped put on a huge rally in Dallas today. Have a look at this column in the Star-Telegram about the rally. Also pay attention to the quote at the bottom from Charlie Bates II, 35, of Garland who was complaining to police inside city hall "..."I think it’s a pity," he said. "These people want to protest what’s going on in their country. If they don’t like it, they should move back over there and fight it." Sounds a lot like something The Oklahoman Editorial Staff would say, and perhaps they were down there trying to find one Iranian who could agree with their deeply perverted views after finding none here.

These Guys Are Getting Worse By The Day

June 23 Editorial

Today is one of those days where you have to wonder just how bad this paper can get. Have we reached the bottom, or is there worse things to come? No question reading things like Today's piece "Iran, North Korea putting Obama’s strategy to test" is one of those editorials where you really just wonder about these people. I certainly worry that my Mother reads this crap, it makes me sick knowing she's is exposed to this disgraceful garbage, it really just makes me sick.

The writer's state "The president’s defenders said criticizing Iran’s regime or even reaffirming democratic principles, such as the rights to self-determination and public assembly, would worsen things for the people in the streets. Besides, Iranians already know where America stands, they said." and fail to mention who the defenders are. It would not be good for them to mention some of them, people like Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Lugar, George Will , Peggy Noonan, Pat Buchanan, the list goes on and on and on.

There can be little doubt The Oklahoman Editorial writers do not join these list of supporters for simple hard-core partisan reasons. And these are the games of children. In a barbaric fashion, they write "...Video of a young woman bleeding to death after being shot, allegedly by state authorities, is circulating on the Internet — graphically and intimately assigning a face to the uprising and deepening Obama’s dilemma..." pretending that this is his fault. This is the same editorial staff that never mentioned, amongst a countless number of things, that 14 year old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was never brutally raped and set ablaze, along with her family by Pfc. Steven D. Green and friends. Mentioning such a thing might suggest that their hero George W. Bush and his crazed war in Iraq which played a hand in bringing about mahmoud ahmadinejad was something less than spectacular.

I will have more on The Oklahoman's sick coverage of the Iran issue in a couple of days....

Nevadas's Citadel, Texas' Clear Channel Promoting Anti Free-Market Legislation, Why No Oklahoman Commentary?

June 22 Commentary

Friday I was listening to San Antonio, TX based Clear Channel radio's 1340 AM KEBC - Sports Radio, and sandwiched in-between Ad Council spots were back-to-back ads on the so called "Local Radio Freedom Act" (S. Con. Res. 14, H. Con. Res. 49.)

I have been told the far right leaning, allegedly "pro free-markets" KTOK is running the ads as well, and an internet search verifies that Nevada run Citadel (The Sports Animal, The KATT, KQOB, KYIS, WKY) are running these ads as well.

This legislation was written in the last Congress, but did not come to a vote. However, it will this time. Essentially what it is, is that labels are showing an interest in charging a small fee for stations who play their music. The stations are against this, because in the interest of their shareholders (note that Citadel has gone down from around $15 a share in 2004 to 4.5 cents a share as of Friday, so no question they have reason to be upset!) do not want additional costs.

Oklahoma Reps who support regulation to prohibit labels rights to charge fees include a group that quite often claim interests in free markets, and they are: House Reps Mary Fallin, Dan Boren, Tom Cole, Frank Lucas, and John Sullivan. Inhofe and Coburn are not included in the 16 co-sponsers of S.Con.Res 14, however it is clear that Inhofe does as I obtained a letter he wrote to San Antonio based Clear Channel saying he supports the bill.

Inhofe specifically says he "Supports local broadcasters such as (Clear Channel)", not taking into consideration that San Antonio is in Texas, not Oklahoma therefore not a local station. Such details are irrelevant when trying to prop up folks who say nice things about you, I imagine was his justification but that is just speculation. I do not want to be cruel and say he is stupid and can not deduct these things, although most 2nd graders can tell you San Antonio is not in Oklahoma.

Now, my thing with this legislation is pretty simple. If labels want to charge fees, let them! Stations can simply say "no thanks" to their awful music, and go to other labels that choose not to charge a fee. These labels will surely across the board be independant labels who more often that not have good music, and many times have actual LOCAL music.

The Oklahoman Editorial Staff has yet to offer any comment on this matter, however I would be quite interested in their opinion on the matter.

Here is a very detailed (updated) video I put out last time this bill was proposed, and I highly recommend watching it, and considering what I lay out next time you hear one of these ads on so-called local radio, telling you that you need to call you Congressman to support this stupid legislation. I believe it is a no-brainer to not support it, especially if you claim to be a supporter of "letting the markets decide".

I welcome anyone who has any legitimate arguments supporting this bill. I also want to point out that a lot of the discussions put forward last year by Free Press last year about the coming non-sensical campaigns about the coming "Fairness Doctrine" (which Obama, FCC head Michael Copps, FCC Chair Jonathon Adelstein, and all the rest strongly oppose) where only out there to try and support things like the so-called "Local Radio Freedom Act" which huxsters are already ranting and raving about being a "Fairness Doctrine Lite" which makes no sense, whatsoever.

I could say much more, but here is the video:

Mark Green Didn't Say What???

Mark Green's June 10 "Scissor Tales" blog

I've been meaning to point this piece out, it is another very fine example of how disgracefully one-sided this alleged newspaper is, and on a ridiculously consistent basis.

Mark Green, The Oklahoman’s national editorial writer gave us a blog last Wednesday entitled "He Said What?" (best to read the title aloud in a angry Rikki Lake guest-voice) that points out how the new Chairman of GM knows nothing about cars. Here is the blog in full:

“I don’t know anything about cars.” Uh, not exactly what you want to hear from the guy who’s going to lead General Motors when it emerges from bankruptcy protection later this summer. Former AT&T chief Edward E. Whitacre Jr. admits he’s not a car guy, but the man known as “Big Ed” figures business is business, and he was pretty good at it over a 43-year career. The White House is confident Whitacre will do fine, noting that Ford’s current CEO, Alan Mulally, came from Boeing. Still, taxpayers jumpy over the public investment in GM — $20 billion already and another $30 billion to come — must hope Whitacre studies up a bit before he officially takes over. GM can’t afford any more missteps.

I do not have a big problem with Green pointing these things out. I just wish he would point these things out when people his paper support do the same kind of things.

Note that Green does point out Whitacre was good at what he did in the business world, and those who support the appointment of Whitacre say the same things. Here are a couple of those supporter's quotes from a recent article on the matter in The Huffingon Post:

A bachelor's degree in industrial engineering and record in shaping a "monolithic" AT&T into a diversified enterprise make Whitacre "a good choice," said Jim Hall, principal of 2953 Analytics auto-consulting firm in Birmingham, Michigan.

"He was one of the guys who helped create a new AT&T that wasn't so dependent on land-line phone service," said Hall, a former GM engineer. "There's a parallel with General Motors. GM is not now about just making cars. It's about re-creating itself as a 21st-century car company. They have to have somebody at the top that understands they have to make a new GM."

Now let me point out someone Green and the entire Oklahoman Editorial Staff completley ignored during the Bush years. And this is one of countless examples.

This is a brief excerpt from Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". In this excerpt she is discussing the countless non-sensical contracts and appointments given to people as a part of the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

John Agresto also saw a silver lining as he watched the looting of Baghdad on TV. He envisioned his job - "a never-to-be-repeated adventure" - as the remaking of Iraq's system of higher education from scratch. In that context, the stripping of the universities and the education ministry was, he explained, "the opportunity for a clean start," a chance to give Iraq's schools "the best modern equipment". If the mission was "nation creating," as so many clearly believed it to be, then everything that remained of the old country was only going to get in the way. Agresto was the former president of St John's College in New Mexico, which specialises in a Great Books curriculum [which emphasises an education based on broad reading]. He explained that although he knew nothing of Iraq, he had refrained from reading books about the country before making the trip so that he would arrive "with as open a mind as I could have". Like Iraq's colleges, Agresto would be a blank slate.

If Agresto had read a book or two, he might have thought twice about the need to erase everything and start all over again. He could have learned, for instance, that before the sanctions strangled the country, Iraq had the best education system in the region, with the highest literacy rates in the Arab world - in 1985, 89% of Iraqis were literate. By contrast, in Agresto's home state of New Mexico, 46% of the population is functionally illiterate, and 20% are unable do "basic math[s] to determine the total on a sales receipt". Yet Agresto was so convinced of the superiority of American systems that he seemed unable to entertain the possibility that Iraqis might want to salvage and protect their own culture and that they might feel its destruction as a wrenching loss.

*(footnote) When agresto failed miserably at his job of rebuilding Iraq's university system, leaving the country with the job undone, he revised his early enthusiasm for looting, describing himself as "a neoconservative who's been mugged by reality."

It was not until September 18, 2007 that The Oklahoman even mentioned Agresto's name. Three years and three months after he left Iraq. They did so by giving a blurb from this column by Thomas Sowell.

Oh yah, if you get bored..look up a guy named Gary Heldreth!

More Looney Views Defending Our "Health Care System"

June 17 Editorial

Today, believe it or not The Editors are presenting another piece defending our disgraceful health care system and the wealthy worthless insurance corporations. In "President Barack Obama rolls out health care ‘Trojan horse’ " they find some fancy far-right AMA member hip surgeon by the name of Norman Dunitz, who essentially spews the radical-right generated talking points on "socialized medicine" and what The trash at The Oklahoman say "...Experts talk of a slippery slope toward government dominance of health care."

Please read "The secret Right-Wing Strategy on Health Care Reform" which I posted several weeks ago. It is interesting to see how all these things are playing out, and how folks like the Oklahoman Editors are playing their part to ensure nothing changes, and that all kinds of lies are told to ensure they get just what they want, and the population continues to suffer.

Now, this Dunitz hoodlum they found is ranting and raving about how a public health option will be a trojan horse for socialized medicine. This is THE talking point the radical-right wants repeated over and over and is why in his talk to the AMA folks, Obama stated very clearly "a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”

Dunitz states that Obama has said some things and done others. What he does not clarify is that literally everything Obama has backtracked on has greatly benefited people like himself. What kind of progressive President hires people like Summers, Rubin, Pritzker etc...? Dunitz seems to have missed out on this stuff as he is so busy memorizing radical-right propaganda talking-points. If he could give one thing where Obama backtracked on something and it was for the good of the people, not the elites, I would be very surprised.

To hear a decent view on these matters, here is an exerpt from a piece from DemocracyNow! yesterday entitled Dr. Chris McCoy: “Dear AMA: I Quit!”

This exerpt is Dr. Quentin Young speaking, National coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program. He has been a member of the American Medical Association since 1952. He was Reverend Martin Luther King’s doctor when King was organizing in Chicago and was a close ally of Barack Obama in Chicago:

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Quentin Young, you, too, are a member of the AMA. You haven’t quit yet. You’ve been a member for more than half a century. What was your reaction to President Obama’s speech right there in your hometown of Chicago, where he was addressing the AMA?

DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Well, I was deeply disappointed, because Obama, as we all know, is a brilliant politician and a student of America’s problems, and he has abandoned earlier commitment to single payer for expediency reasons, as far as I can tell.

I am a member of the AMA. But let me explain. I’ve agreed with their policies in the last half-century about a minute and a half. I’m a very severe critic of what AMA has done. And it’s worth noting that AMA membership has dropped from some 90 percent of doctors when I started out a half-century ago, and now about a third of America’s doctors do belong.

The problem is the diagnosis here. America’s difficulties, indeed the crisis in healthcare, is due to one big thing: the multi-payer and private insurance companies. Everybody knows that. Obama knows that. He said he was for single payer not that many years ago, and if he was starting from scratch, was the way he put it, he would go with it. Well, he is starting from scratch, and the failure to grasp the nettle and really give America the kind of healthcare reform system it deserves is very painful and very dangerous.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama said what are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming “a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.” He said, “When you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run healthcare, know this: they’re not telling the truth.” Dr. Young?

DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Well, to that extent, he’s accurate. This public option is not a slide toward single payer, unfortunately. This is a bugbear that has haunted American medicine debate, and we have to bring it to an end, because it’s too costly, the whole idea that this is socialized medicine, government medicine. We have magnificent examples of government medicine; reactionaries would never dream of calling them back. I speak of the VA system for veterans; the public hospitals, the safety net for the very poor. We have a variety of public systems. Medicare. Is anybody here advocating an end of Medicare? And that’s the government medicine that they’re making a fuss about.

We haven’t got much time left. The system, as Obama aptly notes, is running amuck, and it’s up to $2.5 trillion and, as we all know, rising at a rate two or three times the rate of inflation. And he’s right in saying the economy can’t tolerate it.

Where he’s wrong is his unwillingness to do the serious job of getting the multi-payer insurance companies out of the mix. They add nothing; they subtract a great, great deal. Public experience with this system is horrible. We have a million people having personal bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills, and that just went up from 50 percent of personal bankruptcies to 60 percent—62, to be accurate. And this country, rich as it is, in this economic downturn cannot tolerate it.

Mr. Obama would be wisest to challenge the American people to support single payer, which, I might point out, America’s doctors, in a poll in the University of Indiana last year, April, showed 60 percent of our doctors now support a tax system that provides for healthcare. Doctors have learned there’s something worse than government; it’s called corporations. And we must trade on that insight. And the American public wants it. So, why is there this hesitancy and this currying favor with the reactionaries who talk about socialized medicine? It’s nonsense. It’s American medicine, and it can only grow and serve the people if we have a single-payer system.

Full interview here

Why are we forbidden to hear from people like this in The Oklahoman? Why do they hate giving both sides opinions so much? What are they afraid of?

A Few Days Have Passed, Safe To Bring Up Ex-President Clinton Again

June 16 Editorial

Six days ago The Editorial Staff wrote a piece "Blame game: Just leave former president out of it" discussing how George W. Bush is no longer President, so therefore we should not hold him accountable for anything or complain about him anymore. I didn't even bother critiquing the piece.

Sure, I could have easily gone into the 2001-2008 archives and pulled out hundreds of editorials where they knock Clinton (I am NOT a fan of the man by the way) but one can only do so much and preserve their sanity.

I did consider briefly mentioning the bit I included in my "Empathy in the Bush Years" where I pointed out how they were ranting and raving about the Lewinsky scandal Ten Years later, but figured I would pass.

So today, The Editorial Staff figures their victims (readers) have such short memories that they can rant and rave about Clinton, and not recall how they were saying it isn't good to do so with past Presidents. Had one member of The Editorial staff ever paid attention in just one of the enumerable bible classes they attend, their is no way they would try and pull this garbage off.

Sadly, it is quite obvious that none have so Today we are blessed with a disgusting piece entitled "Mediscare II: Obama health plan evokes ’96 campaign". There are too many things to point out in this piece, and I will do my best to keep this short.

First, they state "..In some of the most shameless fear-mongering ever seen in Washington, Clinton drubbed the GOP for its plan to save $270 billion over seven years by holding Medicare growth to 6 percent instead of the projected 10 percent."

It is fairly safe to say the editors recall "Harry and Louise", the disgraceful ad campagn that ran during the Clinton years when he was trying to pass reforms. Note that Harry and Louise are back again to fight Obama's reforms, along with a cast of other characters, including the firm that ran The Swift Boat Campaign against John Kerry.

Now, putting aside the disgraceful partisanship of this newspaper, lets look at how things are in the real world. The Editors are screaming unfair that Obama is discussing cutting back on Medicare expenses. Their gripe is that when Gingrich proposed them, Clinton went bonkers and won the next election based on his gripes about what the Republicans wanted to do, backed by Gingrich. Ignore all other factors, this surely had to be the reason!

What the incompetent staff is incapable of understanding, is that it surely is a conditional thing he is proposing. Note the recent article on the Foxnews website, "Obama Praises 'Historic' $2 Trillion Health Care Savings Plan" that Health Care Industry hot-shots have promised him and the people a massive savings over the next ten years. Putting whether we believe they'll pull it off (I can't imagine shareholders will like them doing this very much), those of us who are interested in the real world can deduct that Obama "...who said Saturday that he wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending by $200 billion over the next 10 years..." will probably do so conditionally. And those conditions will be based on what is probably a delusion that the Health Care companies are not filthy, disgusting liars and will deliver on the $2trillion in cost-cuts.

Man I can not stand The Oklahoman editorial page/staff. What the hell is wrong with these people?