Shut Up And Listen 179

The Decline Of The American Empire Continues Unabated

John Kerry Is A Fucking Moron Pt. 2

So, it turns out that if John Kerry knew then what he knows now, he'd still vote to give the president authorization to go to war, but when he does that, he's not imagining George Bush as president, no, he's voting as if he were president, while still being a member of the senate so he could vote to give himself authorization to go to war if he so chooses, but wouldn't because he's against the war in Iraq now. Apparently, John Kerry isn't a complete and utter moron, he's a "nuanced" thinker.

Me Against The Military

So, yeah, I said some stupid things last week. I don't really agree with them. But . . .

What am I supposed to think?

I am opposed to the military. From what I've seen, it's just as bad as the terrorists they try to fight. Just as bloodthirsty and willing to kill civilians to accomplish their goals. Just as willing to compromise every shred of humanity in an effort to gain information and "save lives". And thus, I am left with a paradox: how can I wish to see the downfall of the military, for it to be punished, but at the same time not wish to see anyone harmed? Is there any way that those two wants can coexist?

Also, if some little punk in Canada can get so upset over what is going on when it really doesn't affect his day-to-day life at all, how do you think the people of Iraq are really responding to it?

Journalism? I Know No Journalism!

Do you respect any "news" sources? CNN? Fox News? The New York Times? USA Today? The BBC? Well, to be honest, I don't. That's going a little far. I don't trust them more often than not. I don't think they're lying, they're just not telling the truth. Subtle difference. The problem is they try to make you think they are objective. They have no agenda except to bring you the News.

That's a load of shit right there. Objective news doesn't exist. Aside from surveillance cameras, that is. They all have a perspective and an agenda. Why do you think Fox News is a joke to so many people? Or why people will read The Globe & Mail, but won't touch The National Post with a ten-foot pole? So-called "objective journalists" are just frauds. To be honest, I believe editorialists more than I believe other sources. Not that I believe editorialists one hundred percent, but I know what I'm getting with them. I know where they're coming from, what their agenda is, and because of that, I can interpret what they say correctly. It's like in Jackie Brown where Samuel L. Jackson's character says, "You can't trust Melanie, but you can always trust Melanie to be Melanie." Meaning, you may not be able to trust editorialists to give you the whole story, but you can always count on them to behave in a certain way. (My column is a good example of this. I may not give you the news, but you know what you're getting with me. When I say "Bush is a fucking moron" I'm not lying, but I'm also not giving you a fact. I give you the truth as I see it, and am trustworthy in a strange way like that. Most editorialists are like that.)

Not so with the "objective news sources". Their behaviour is erratic and strange. Their agendas are hidden. They'll make an issue out of one thing and then ignore another. They'll act in such a way so as to not alienate their audience. To be put bluntly, they can't be trusted to give you the news, because they'll always only give you a small bit. They're insiders in the world they're supposed to tell us about. That's why the White House never gets any of the tough questions, as we all know. Any reporter who takes a step too far is suddenly out of the loop. The media has been reduced to lap-dogs for The-Powers-That-Be because they're afraid should they cross TPTB they'll get spanked. At this point, the only real news is coming from outsiders who don't give you facts, just truth. Hell, how sad is it that The Daily Show With Jon Stewart is the best news show in America? Even when they lie, they tell more truth than anyone else.

There's a certain amount of freedom though in not being constrained by facts. It's like, prove Dick Cheney is corrupt and getting kickbacks from Halliburton. If it could be proven, he'd get his ass kicked out of the White House and thrown in jail, but we all know that it's true. That's the problem. The so-called "objective news sources" rely on facts too heavily, not truths. It's all a game of technicalities and documentation, not just simple truths. And the shitty thing is, that's the way it has to be. They have to rely on facts. But that's why we have editorialists, I guess. To tell the truth when the facts aren't enough.