Obama talks about "my Muslim faith".

Wrong on two counts: I am not Muslim.
and he's talking about McCain not talking.

If you think this is serious, get a grip.

Actually it is.

In proper flip-flop(con text) everything is explained.

Freudian slips? Sometimes just errors. Sometimes one wonders. Obama at least was sitting before someone who could correct or side-track him, but was not diverted. Bush or McCain should have faced more such opportunities, let alone Palin.

I can provide that for the catapult situation: One does want to repeat the truth that can catapult over the propaganda. Ironically, propaganda is the act of repeating things as well. Hopefully seniors have nothing to worry about for social security, it may be true, but everyone else? That is the smokescreen of so-called reform or privatization.

TIP OF THE FLAME

Among the things that attract my attention are the various organizations that overlap in purpose. Checking the DNC petition, it seems that details were lacking in the wording * or maybe I just expect too much or need to work more myself, but I cannot help but feel that those we petition may not have it any clearer than many of us. Our own representatives may get it, but as Democratic Leader Harry Reid points out the PR problem as $3 million (that is as far as I read) we are already off on a few tangents that may be parallel.

Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.

Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.

I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)

I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?

Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption

Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)

-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion

-- Free Speech, just a question...

-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?

[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]

To: The United States Senate

Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.

Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.

I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.

--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.

-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech

Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.

OH REALLY FOG

OH REALLY FOG. "Labeling U.S. as terrorist is anti-American."
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?

Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.

But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.

Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.

By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.

Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?

[Update: 2-13-12 labels and links]

Mis Ledes

Or relatively grammatically correct?

Bloomberg is definitely on the Whine List or is it running for the Tea Party or just sweeping things under the Astroturf?

[Catapulting the Propaganda? A refudiation. With a sense of irony and con text, I mean validation.]

The Pressure Is?

...should be on MSNBC! But...

...mainly on them (Democrats) to craft a bill that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance troops in a time of war.

If MSNBC wants to eject opinion into their pieces they should note which of their authors contribute such propaganda so that readers can turn elsewhere. Just because they deign to have different perspectives does not mean they are any closer or farther from "fair and balanced". To inject the opinion that it is not Bush that failed to "finance troops in a time of war" does injustice to their profession if they consider it journalism.

(further context... or Con Text?)

Lawmakers in both parties agree that a workable compromise is a huge challenge in the coming days or weeks. Because Democrats control the House and Senate, the pressure is mainly on them to craft a bill that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance troops in a time of war.

The pressure is on the troops and Bush is putting it there by vetoing a financing bill that was a compromise from what may come next. Options? Sending a bill back that simply separates the Military from the Domestic supplemental. Sending a tougher bill possibly with non-"artificial time-lines" or leaving the pressure on the Republicans to override the next veto. Oh, and the President did not just veto funding for the troops but for funds for addressing domestic supplemental needs.

Republicans Cuts and Runs

"Distract and Conquer" (Maddow's links) but Ed's Heading!
Not to mention skirting issues.*

*scroll up
(i.e. links from bottom up)
9 The Ed Show: Dissecting the details of "Romney-care".
8 ibid.: Ann Romney talks tax returns.
7 TLR: b.s. (or more mention) skirts
6 TLR: b.s. WOE
5 The Ed Show: They're literally running to their mommies.
4 Lean Forward: Dean on Soviet Propaganda
(ibid.: Really / Running to Mommies )
3 The Ed Show: Distract and Conquer
3b ibid.: The Great Medicare LIE
2 Rachel Maddow: Romney takes on Ryan Social Security baggage
1 ibid.:  Americans not eager to gamble on Social Security, Medicare privatization   

[ Butt Heading Re: Fuse shUn ]

[8-17-12 Not to pun on Trilogies or Tetrahedronogies, but there is some ironic order ! ]
.

Global Communications

I was just wondering what the Office of Global Communications has been up to. Not to mention where the dialogue has been and where the Global Messenger has been going.

Now there has been a new project to add to the amount of work that we must all do since the three branches of government and the press have done such a heckuva job.

My comment is that the light of day does not necessarily clarify if the source is not trusted. That and the reasonable caution that there will be so much more put out there. In fact if the source is in the dark, who would you trust, and how would we verify, unless we trust someone. I'm sure the answer is somewhere.

Meanwhile my concern is the link to the word propaganda. It is not a bad thing, but it is more likely an unverifiable thing.

Meanwhile 2.0 or <-0.0> meaning preemptively: the Neo-Context
as in excuses to review a recent NIE and that is being reviewed as to the quality of its estimate.

The Straw Bear

If a Republican runs in the woods and can’t see the forest for the trees and the Republican falls, does anyone hear what the bear does in the woods?

A little riddle on the straw bear of propaganda.
Ah, the power of myth.
Maybe this is a mother goose chase but those were the days. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Speaking of Teddy Bear, did you know that Wilson made Pershing the first general since the Civil War? The Palin Romney romp through the woods with a bear is quite humorous. It reminds me of, if a tree falls and what a bear does and if anyone will see the forest for what we hear* fall.

The point is that the use of "some people" makes faulty facts bearable. I do not think there is any information that the U.S. was anywhere near losing its dominance in military spending or economic might. In fact I believe that it was over twice the combined spending of the China and the former Soviet Union at the time it fell. In fact it was them coming to an economic grip with reality that did them in. So now China is a different bear and we need no bull in our cabinets.

So war is a straw bear argument. That just means that you have to keep fighting it; the fear mongering and comedy that goes back to our nations birth. Heck beyond, I will say probably cave paintings. But it is no laughing matter that even if the current 6 to 1 ratio has the profit factored out, we could be in trouble.

* the tree is yet to fall on Countdown re: Congressman Cantor listening tour denial
[5-7-09: I did not hear this coming. Nor see "the tree" fall. At least not in real time.][Not to mention lost in the forest I am trying to dig up a Romney reference to us and them(found 6-3-09), the revolutionists versus the royalists which is more flip-flop.]

Bupkis or Zilch?

Thank You Randy Rhodes.
And Senator Leahy, and The Washington Post

TSP? Terrorist Surveillance Program or something else?
Thanks Think Progress
The Swamp. Just about says it all, without reading at all. Thanks Chicago Tribune

My original google of "bupkis": beans
Googled without Snow.

With Snow:
Thank you Editor and Publisher

Old Beans.
For Tony Snow, bupkis is nothing new.

NOW...
[I was originally concerned with the usage of bupkis as Randi had noted as being Yiddish for "goat droppings". Not exactly what she said but it is not nothing. I thought maybe I didn't know beans about it, but thought it meant zilch.
Here I have closed a loop,
but had not made my point yet.

ATTENTION POWER BROKERS AND BRAKERS!
Congress MUST clarify the difference between what Tony Snow is dropping and what the Administration means by providing funding of zilch for such propaganda.

Meaning? All funding for press related offices should be cut, until the administration addresses congress's questions.]

[The only way that may happen anyway is by the process of impeachment, and several from the right are well ahead of too many that should be left.
Thom Hartmann has had three guests in the last week or so that believe it is not only the proper tool of inquiry, but the judgement if facts merit.
See MP3s here:
Bruce Fein Getting Ahead
Paul Craig Roberts Another Righty!* Bob Barr ]

*Impeach Now

The Fudging Point!

Clarity and Correction:
Doing politics and your jobs.
[Hold the line on habeas corpus, warrant-less wiretapping and torture. ] No on Sen. Resolution 3930

We owe it to our leaders and Bush and the country to provide not just courage but clarity and correction where needed.

We must give them the backbone that President Clinton showed this weekend in the below context, to face the truth and fight the propaganda, to do politics and their jobs, to uphold what should be uniting principles for the Democrats and are our founding principles.

Who will face the fudging point?
Democrats must do their job while running,
not avoid it to run like Republicans.
One can tell when one is right,
when you don't hear it on the Right.
One does not hear Thom Hartmann
or Keith Olbermann addressed by the Right.

"...not a very fruitful discussion"

Rice is right, it is not very fruitful to catapult the same propaganda, especially when you cannot be direct. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."

The Point?

What some people call talking points are to others real points. But if ABC comes to their senses and scraps "The Path to 9/11", we have made a point or more. They will have talking points about "liberal control" of the media but the point must be that 9/11 should not be used for profit or propaganda and there is a difference between talking and reality.

Entertainment should have some freedom, but the 9/11 tragedy and it's investigation should not be used in that regard on "public" airwaves, especially on the anniversary and without comparing contrasting with work such as Orwell's "1984" and Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" both of which would be more entertaining and related to our reality, and which "Path", even with alterations would fit more as the character and subject in these works.

QCON: Or JUST Quick Rant?

(Quick Comment On News)
Paraphrasing President Bush: the troops deserve unwavering commitment to the mission and a clear strategy for victory.

My comment: These are both fine, but out of order and missing much more. The commitment to the mission should come after a clear strategy which cannot come before the recognition of facts as well as the reality of cause and effect.

Given the emphasis on repeating propaganda and forcing not balancing wills, not to mention the fog of accountability that is the chain of command, we are a far cry from the troops getting the commitment they deserve which should come in more than just words. Words that if you look at them are more about the mission than the troops. And are more about words than actual support for the troops.

It seems a vicious cycle which of course should end, but they in so many of their own words recognize it will not. Noting this, the only answer is for the vicious cycle to return to the "hard work" cycle that others were doing before the vicious cycle thinkers took charge. Given their choice that others will do the hard work, we would think they should agree that others take the cycle back to better support the troops, let alone the people.

[Sorry only link is below]

Big Ed Goes To Washington

Just fired from Armed Forces Radio yesterday morning before his debut congress should investigate why the adminstration cannot survive under our freedoms and depends on propaganda.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat and Catapult.

Today the president gave an important* presidential ADDRESS, according to the administration, before the National Endowment for Democracy. Rather than primetime it was snooze time for the West coast at least. As listeners woke to their clock radios and the president's voice, it just may not be the right time of day for propaganda. As opposed to Tom DeLay’s remark about his indictments not passing a test of the shortest glance, minds may be their most keen while hitting the snooze button. One caller to the Ed Shultz Show claimed to have an epiphany during the speech. His point being that anyone who runs a successful business must lay out success metrics in order to succeed, and all Bush has is failure metrics.

The first point was embedded in the first paragraph of my comments "Intelligent Design? More Irony." The balance of it covered the endless recycling of Bush's excuses.

A further case in point, while I am uncertain if it came from the speech, is the question: Would Iraq be better off with Bin Laden in charge? While we can’t go home again,(well I don’t really know) but if Bin Laden is now an option, why not ask if Iraq is better off with Sadam? My point not being to answer that, only that the options are now even worse. So if a red herring is what we faced, we can always imagine smellier fish.

Maybe it is fertilizer but I don't imagine it will help democracy whether it is a fragile flower or a tree, whether it is homegrown or outsourced.

*Originally scheduled for September 11th. My original September 11th, 2001 probably already had it covered.

More Mess Age: GO DEAN!

Repeat till it sinks in!

Leap Frog the Propaganda!

Trickle Down MESS of Truth!

Thousand Points of Light or Triple Damages

THANKS TO COMMONDREAMS.ORG (SEE NEW LINK for report on administration propaganda)

Given the propensity for the administration to blame the media while manipulating it, I would suggest a campaign for truth. The fair and balanced media outlets must join together to hold those who advertise accountable. Any campaigns that distribute false information without sources should be penalized with higher costs the next time around. This would cover either the time involved correcting the erroneous information or presenting the rest of the story. In a particular candidates case triple damages would be appropriate that could cover the airtime that will be given to each opponent in a race.

Of course this would be very odious to manage and indefensible on free speech grounds but after all they are paying for it. The side that declares there are absolutes or that things are black and white should especially appreciate this campaign. The irony here is that, sure it would be difficult to asses the use of partial information. But all media should strive to uphold the Fox motto, of fair and balanced reporting. That means that every point of view is balanced by each and every aspect that can be an argument against it. It is not a simple point counter-point, for each point of darkness could need or spark a thousand points of light.

The French. (Why do they hate us?)

Because we are dumb and they don’t. First I must qualify that "we" here means some of us(are dumb), and "they" means most of them(the French, don’t hate us). Second, most of us need to use dictionaries more frequently than emotions.

Just because we want to find out why someone hates us, does not mean it can be attributed to a whole region or nation, or any individual. A poll, or book, does not an argument or emotion-make. It is especially ironic when the search becomes instead, for a caricature of foreigners, for use as propaganda in the war on terrorism.

The bee in my beret comes from the lack of citing any polling indicating that "they" "hate" us. It is only slightly less ironic that a poll is cited where "the percentage of French who viewed the United States 'with sympathy' dropped from 54 to 35 percent between 1988 and 1996". I would wonder whether we ask for any sympathy or need it. But aside from the several interpretations of sympathy, I would say it should be a two way street.

But in the end I guess that Chris Suellentrop makes a good point. That one must sacrifice principles for power. With a "hyperpower", is there any other choice? There should be, other than hate and terrorism. Is it ironic or apropos that we find supporters of the administration irritated about making up words, compounded by the fact that when one checks a dictionary so many words came from "fureners * "?

Touché or "nuke em" that is the question. Which for some reason brings to mind a whole other analogy when I think about why we can’t work together for our principles. Where would any of us be without opposition or dissension? Is this not a good cop-bad cop routine that we all hope will work?

[(My view of what seemed a parody)Same title** by Chris Suellentrop posted Wednesday, January 29, 2003 ]
[* upgraded 6-11-08 caricature of speech ]
** 4-4-14 update link