A media bulge leads down a prickly rabbit hole
Full text with HTTP: hinks at: http://politicalcommentator.blogspot.com/
We could be on the cusp of condoning minority rule and lower the standard
of
acceptable behavior in politics to dangerous levels.
"23% of the American population makes up the outright majority for a
government"
Whether the "bulge" matters to you or not: we need to stop the corruption
all over the Bush administration, so I invite you to read on.
David Lindorff wote a new article about the Bulge today:
"
Bloggers have been pretty much alone in dogging this story, and some
have
suggested that the president may be hiding a medical device -- the
prevailing theory is an external atrial defibrillator. But at least one
physician, Dr. Stephen Tarzynski of Pasadena, CA, says most such devices
are
worn on the front of the body, closer to the heart. Another suggestion is
an
electrical impulse machine that could be designed to relieve chronic pain.
In either case, the public has a right to know the health condition of the
man they are considering as a candidate for the next four years --
particularly as the vice pesident, Dick Cheney, himself suffering from a
serious heart condition [.]
(Remember, the U.S. media have been criticized in the past for covering
up
President Franklin Roosevelt's leg braces and President Kennedy's
Addison's
disease, as well as President Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's in office.)
"
Most defibrillators are worn from the front; certainly this information
from
the quoted doctor above reduces the chances that it really is a
defibrillator as described in another article I wrote. Bushwired has an
excellent summary of all the photographic evidence. One similar to this
defibrillator could have been used by choice, for better concealment so it
must logically remain possible. It is also highly possible the President
was
also wired. What is for certain is that the bulge exists. That is all we
have proven so far, so the focus must be on getting an answer on what the
bulge really is.
It still troubles me: not submitting a physical goes against a long
standing
tradition. Politicians don't ignore this sort of thing without good
reasons.
It could quite be the case that Bush has a health problem and nothing on
his
body to identify it.
In general, I find the apathy regarding this issue shocking. The media
sets
the course in America: they do not like to be told what to report. The
media
has a responsibility to inform Americans, and now when websites like this
evolve to fill this "fact hunting" void the media has left, it becomes our
own fault we don't have credibility. They printed stories about Watergate
when it wasn't clear what was happening yet, just a strange event. So what
is really the difference?
The credibility, I guess, comes with time because it is the very same
mainstream media which discount these efforts who heralded them when CBS
seemed under fire. They sit on the sidelines and wait for the work to be
done for them here, and call them 'dark chasms' warding off others of the
'salacious rumors' being written about. So, in this nefarious little
world,
have people like us stepped forward to become what used to be called
"investigative journalists" and taken over for what would then be "old
media"*?
*Journalism subscribing to the culture of "figure it out for us and we
will grace you with our access to the masses" their than looking into it
for
themselves
Why are there now so few attorneys like Eliot Spitzer and journalists like
Seymour Hersh, Greg Palast, and David Lindorff?
It's because of the complicity of the media we didn't already have more
evidence that Bush was wired a long time ago. Is it going to continue to
be
that way with the President's health? Is it going to stay hidden how
obvious
it is he is wired?
Let me pose two potential media failures:
Do the media know Bush is wired? All indications seem to be that many in
the
media do. I point to that video of the Chirac news conference as to why:
I read an article recently in which an earpiece coach stated "what you're
supposed to do is speak a split-second after you hear each word", actors
use
them and say that its easier to hear their own voice in an earpiece and
repeat it. The news conference is littered with examples of Bush's voice
not
matching the recorded voice (which was also his own), too many, in fact to
list here. Any audio expert, at that time could have easily confirmed
this,
but, shockingly, it's wasn't news. we have a President who is wired but
calls what you are reading now "internets"? We have a Bush which is an
eastern prep school graduate turn cowboy clearing brush? The media decided
for us this wasn't news? And today, months after the fact, it's another
'salacious rumor'? Let audio experts decide. If eyes don't lie, neither do
our ears.
So our press covers scripted press conferences, does that go down another
level beyond being able to write your story the night before? We can't ask
this pillar of society if they are cheating us too. There would be
widespread embarrassment in the media if this were discovered to be true.
If
it got out enough they would do what the UN does: change in secret when
nobody is looking.
Whatever the truth is, when the media doesn't ask obvious questions they
usually, as a culture, have a reason: self interest, whether career,
integrity, job security, et al.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full text with HTTP: hinks at: http://politicalcommentator.blogspot.com/
David Lindorff also writes:
"U.S. media have been criticized in the past for covering up President
Franklin Roosevelt's leg braces and President Kennedy's Addison's disease,
as well as President Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's in office"
How many Americans know these past cover-ups of health problems exist?
Is there another health issue here to protect? Has the media decided not
to
make health a campaign issue? Remember, they set the agenda, terrorism,
national security, Iraq, and by following the talking points of the
campaigns. The "and ask once and case closed" or "get it on the record"
mentality is clear here:
President Bush's advisors were quoted as saying the President was too
busy
to have a physical this year. (During his vacation in Texas) The media
have
asked why there was no physical, and there was no further follow up to the
answer given: the answer is still the President is too busy" (while on
vacation).
Not in my backyard?
If you took a poll, and asked people "Is the health of the President of
concern to you?" what would you imagine the answer being? Does you health
matter? Or the health of your friends? Does the health of the person who
is
supposed to represent you in a "more dangerous" world matter?
What if the media were like an attorney who you pay to represent you,
would
you feel let down by this attorney if you didn't get all the information
you
deserved? Have the media become a culture that waits for public outcry to
report on anything better than the same stump speech blurb every day? I
mean, they look the same, sound the same, same flags, banners, smiles,
cheers, um, and then Bush say's Kerry's a flip flopper and Kerry says Bush
screwed up Iraq. And then tomorrow you see the same thing again.
Why didn't the media demand a physical? If "national security" is
important
to explore with so many pundits and so many talk show hosts, and swift
boats, why didn't a serious discussion mount on this? One theory is that
media insiders know of a health problem that "they have decided is not a
significant enough worry". They are also worried about the reaction of a
secretive and vindictive administration if pushed further on any topic.
Remember, the Bush Administration shuts you out.
Is this media complicity, liberal-bias sting, or worse, media collusion.
What do you call Abu Grhaib? Other than Sy Hersch, or an editorial, have
we
heard a breath about this other than a few more trials and convictions of
scapegoats? If a story that big can get smushed, so can the "bulgegate".
Collective power, minority rule
It seems the media wants to publish their stories on the same internet
which
they undermine. By discounting the collective power of the internet, "old
media" undermine a place where they can get more information than ever. If
you want us around, stop labeling us as "unhelpful" and heralding us when
you can't avoid publishing on the story any longer.
Big budget media outlets have access to highly skilled professionals that
can apply scientific techniques to discover the exact dimensions of the
visible bulge on Bush's back. Astronomical research uses image analysis
and
in forensic studies they are commonplace and highly sophisticated. It's
common scientific practice, it's a matter of desire.
Is it time for me to consider my thinking 'old world' and modernize to
this
new paradigm which seems to want to take hold in the way news is presented
to us?
People keep asking me why I care about this, my response: look, pick an
issue that matters to you and do something about it. Right now this is
mine,
so stop telling me there are other, worse, examples of Bush corruption.. I
know that. All of them need to be told and there is a gap here to fill
right
now, before it becomes lore.
A note came in from a newsgroup in which an Englishman pointed out that in
today's America 46% of people vote, meaning that 23% of the American
population makes up the outright majority for a government. If you
consider
the Republican "southern strategy", habits of vote, the Supreme Court
selecting a President, and not a single senator stood up in congress to
fight the disenfranchisement, there is a strong care minority rule is at
work.
Republicans know they are the minority, which is why they play electoral
games and present an air of a majority, just like they present the air of
a
competent President.
I wonder if the Electoral College has outgrown its shoes and the "southern
strategy", laid out bare, is just the mathematical result of a vote in
Wyoming having more value than a vote in California.
Whoever we do elect (hopefully not select) on election day, it will be a
reflection of exactly who we, as a people, are.
Full text with HTTP: hinks at: http://politicalcommentator.blogspot.com/
|
