Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Tough Talk For The Left (Ava and C.I.)

If you really pay attention, some days the left is so stupid it is sickening.

Or maybe it's just sickening if you're of the left.  Maybe if you're of the right, you're rolling on the floor in laughter?  For us, it's sickening.

Yesterday, a conviction took place.  It was a military court.  So some can assert that it has little meaning outside of the military and they would have a strong point.  But does a case have meaning or not?

This month, a number of left idiots thought a case did have meaning.

They couldn't stop crying and embracing 'coverage' of the verdict on George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin.

Bob Somerby (Daily Howler) deserves credit for calling out MSNBC and others lying repeatedly.  He continues to do so so.

He misses a few points or else hasn't yet had time to make them.

Most importantly, while he has noted the repeated lying by the lawyers for the Martin family he really hasn't addressed how this poisoned the public (the ultimate jury).  He has documented the lying.  He has corrected it.  This week, for example, he compiled a list of popular falsehoods:

Some of the false claims from last year:
The Sanford police didn’t take Zimmerman’s clothing for testing! (False)
The Sanford police didn’t even take Zimmerman’s gun! (False)
The Sanford police were so racist they didn’t inform the Martins that their son was dead for a week! (False)
Zimmerman weighed 250 pounds! (False)
It was obvious that Zimmerman had sustained no injuries! (False)
Zimmerman was such a nut that he had made 46 phone calls to Sanford police in the previous 14 months! (False)
Zimmerman was told to stay in his car by the police dispatcher! (False)

But when you lie and you lie repeatedly -- as the attorneys did, as the reporters did, as the supporters did -- on air or in print corrections no longer matter from news outlets.  They have poisoned the well.

A stupid actress we both know (so stupid, she's failed to yet grasp her leading lady days are long gone -- she should talk to her agent) likes to mock Zimmerman and say she's been hit harder than he ever was.

With her stupidity and her mouth, we're not surprised she's often been slugged and slapped.  We don't condone it, but we're not surprised.  We're not even surprised that she parrots every MSNBC talking point.  We are, however, surprised she manages to wipe her ass every morning without Rachel Maddow reminding her to do so on air.

Reality on Zimmerman is presented by Somerby each day.  We don't have time for it -- we're in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing right now, sliding the tablet back and forth.  As briefly as possible, Zimmerman is not 'the man.'  He is not the police.  He is a neighborhood watch person, someone of the neighborhood in question, someone with enough support from those in that neighborhood that he was able to hold that position for several years.

It's rather surprising how a neighborhood watch person got spat on for that position from the same howling mob that, in 2008, wanted to insist that (failed) community organizer was a position that provided the experience needed for the US presidency.

Zimmerman was doing what he did for years, he was watching the neighborhood.  He saw Martin.  He did not know Martin.  Martin's actions struck him (right or wrong) as something worth alerting the police too.

He was never 'ordered' to stay in his vehicle. He was already out of it, for one thing; for another, police can't make orders over the phone.  More importantly, who the hell are you that you repeat such a lie?

When you repeat that lie, do you realize what you're embracing?

You're saying that you want to live in a world where the police (or a 9-11 operator) not present can make a call regarding you, your safety and your actions and order you to do something.  In other words, you're on the phone with your friend as you're walking through Queens at 7:30 pm when a 9-11 operator breaks into your call and says, "Stop walking.  We have dispatched a unit to your location due to a robbery 12 blocks away.  Do not move."  Is that the world your stupid ass wants to live in?  Maybe so.

If that has you sputtering, we're sorry -- we're sorry you're so dense.

We're sorry you waste our f**king time and destroy the country with your f**king stupidity day after damn day.

Zimmerman and Martin had a physical altercation.

Martin ended up shot dead.

It's sad that Trayvon Martin is dead.  There is no denying that Zimmerman killed him.  There is also no denying, if you're a functioning grown up, that the jury outcome was in any way surprising.

Some of the more extreme idiots wanted to pretend that the nonsense that followed the verdict was about justice or a dialogue.  What a laugh.

We covered this at Third in "Media: The wall-to-wall so-called 'discussion'."

You're a real idiot if you embraced that 'coverage' from so-called 'journalists.'  If you thought Piers, Nancy, or any of those quacks were providing journalism, you really do deserve the world we currently live in.

There are no implications from the Zimmerman verdict.

Martin was racially profiled!

That's a claim. It's not one supported by the evidence.  That includes the 9-11 calls Zimmerman made.  Yeah, remember those?

In 2012, there were numerous false claims about the calls Zimmerman had made.  We covered those April 1, 2012 and found out just what liars the so-called press could be.  For "TV: Cable Nation's New Model," we went over every 9-11 call.  So when liars show up on TV -- or at The New Republic -- lying about the span of the calls, the number of the calls, or that Zimmerman was talking race in those calls, they're damn liars.  They're lying to you and a large portion of you are more than willing to be stupid enough to take it, to embrace it.  At the start of April, 2012, we were able to go through every call, it was public information.  So for anyone, over a year later, to speak or write about those calls and not get the information right?  They don't care about the facts and, worst of all, they didn't give a f**k about you.

If they did, they'd be honest with you.

There's no support for the claim that Zimmerman was racial profiling in the history of Zimmerman's 9-11 calls.

Well 'stand your ground' laws! I don't like them! Trayvon would be alive today if it weren't for stand your ground!

Stand your ground wasn't used by the defense.  More importantly, existing self-defense laws and verdicts long on the books would have supported Zimmerman's actions.

We really recommend the piece Somerby wrote this week about E.J. Graff's stupidity and hate.  It's wonderful.  But we're going to note it here in terms of the self-defense issue.  For those late to the party, Graff didn't just lie to the public, she lied to her son and then was so pleased with her ability to spread lies and hate that she wrote up a little column on it.  Taking on that column, Somerby noted:

The jury believed that Zimmerman was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin at the time of the shooting. They believed that (1) because that’s what the one real eyewitness said, and (2) because Zimmerman had injuries.

In every state, you get to defend yourself, even with deadly force, if someone is beating you up and you think you’re at risk of serious injury or death. And the jurors thought that Zimmerman was getting beaten up that badly.

We've got a life to live and we're very busy.  If you want to be stupid, and a lot of people want to be stupid, that's your right.  Have at it.

We've written two pieces on the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman case in two years and we honestly would have preferred to have written zero.  We don't care for nonsense.  We don't care for faux outrage.  We don't care for liars.  Most of all, we care about real issues.  That's why, for example, we're at the Senate hearing right now on the unconstitutional spying.

If Trayvon were White, he would be alive!

Racism has never been established.  It's been tossed around.  Zimmerman's been demonized.  He's also faced a strong effort to strip him of his own ethnicity.  We're fully aware of the many 'outraged' African-American commentators on TV who've insulted Zimmerman and insulted Latinos.

Don't like that reality?  Too damn bad.  One of us is Latina.

We saw the Black on Brown hatred early on.  That's a story we may write about someday and write about how various White-Anglos played into that and note how that really plays out in the Latino community.  In fact, the Black - Brown divide will be the real legacy of the media 'coverage.'

In trying to pimp Martin as a victim of a racism, real hatred was heaped upon Latinos over and over, from channel to channel.  No one wants to talk about that.  But it did happen (and it continues to).

What people want to talk about is how it was 'racism'!  They know this because what?  A taxi cab didn't stop for Barack in NYC?  We remember that story from 2008, right?  And we also got, in his last remarks on Trayvon, how Barack was suddenly the other men in the story he once told about his White grandmother (clutching her purse)?  We are getting how personal narratives (some apparently false) were used as 'evidence' against George Zimmerman?

No, we're not.

On the left, we're not.

On the left, and this is why we're writing about this topic today, what we're getting is pieces like this at The Huffington Post where people marvel that the verdict on Zimmerman resulted in weeks of 'press' coverage but Bradley Manning's verdict yesterday resulted in about 4 minutes coverage on each cable 'news' network yesterday. 

We already spent last night and early this morning working our friends in the press to cover Brad.  As we sit in this hearing and endure nonsense from so many in Congress, we know we've already eaten our greens, cleaned our plates and brushed our teeth.

If you haven't, there's a CNN video in "Who is Bradley Manning?" and you should go stream that video

Because Brian Todd is doing an exceptional job of reporting?

Forget Brian Todd.  When we were talking to CNN friends early this morning and berating them for the lack of coverage on Brad and the verdict, we were offered this video as an example of why there wouldn't be more coverage.

'It won't even hit 2,000 views,' one CNN producer told us.

There is no interest in Brad, we were told, and stats like streaming numbers for that video were offered as proof.

The reality is always that the public only knows about what what the press chooses to report.

So their slender-to-non-existent coverage ensures that few will know about the verdict, few will know about what was at stake, few will be prompted to think about what Brad did and whether the punishment was appropriate.

So if you want to make a difference, one thing you can do is stream that video and prove CNN wrong.

Will that result in massive coverage?

Probably not.

In "Media: The wall-to-wall so-called 'discussion'," we pointed out what your 'talking head' 'experts' on Zimmerman didn't want to:

And if the verdict surprises you, maybe it goes to the fact that you've refused to grow up and examine reality but have instead sought out an echo chamber of talk shows that provide you the same comfort as a pacifier?  Maybe it's past time to stop (as Ann pointed out) talking down to people and time to instead challenge them?
Challenge them with reality, such as what last week's trash-fest was really about.  Easy finger pointing.  The murder of Oscar Grant did not warrant such coverage.  The gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi did not warrant such coverage.  But in those cases, you had the police and the military as killers and, heaven forbid, we acknowledge -- let alone dwell on -- that.  Cheap and easy talk shows can always be found at their most talkative when they avoid questioning power.

If you were stupid enough to think that suddenly cable 'news' and its hosts gave a damn about African-Americans or the topic of racism, then you're pretty sad, not just stupid.

Oscar Grant was African-American.  His death means nothing to the false gods and goddesses of cable news.  Even now.  Even now with Fruitvale Station in theaters.

Zimmerman, the man whom so much scorn was heaped upon, was actually 'the people.'  So was Trayvon.  And when there is an incident between 'the people,' the whores of gas baggery will never shut up.

It's so much easier to conjecture and speculate and flat out lie if the stakes aren't high.  But calling out police actions, calling out military actions?

That's too much for a media that exists to distract and 'entertain' and mitigate and defend the brutal realities that so many people live under.

That includes the brutal realities that so many African-Americans live under.

Racism is neither gone nor dead.

One of the most racist of all components in the United States?

The media.

Whether popularizing and creating (or helping to create)  'crack babies' or 'welfare queens,' the media's recent past should be well known even if its historical support for racism isn't.

Did that suddenly change?

We're missing the part where the media suddenly stood up and said, "Oh, no, not to Detroit!  Back off, you will not have a tag sale on its assets, you will not force this city and its residents into bankruptcy."

What's going on in Detroit, we believe, is about race.  And where's Nancy Grace?  Where's Piers Montgomery?  Where's MSNBC around the clock?

Were Detroit predominately White, we don't believe it would be the lab experiment for what a group of hateful people are attempting in Detroit (to sale off the people's assets, to break contracts with workers and retirees and much more).  We could be wrong in our opinion.

Trayvon's mother has announced she's going to be doing various actions.  Good for her.  And it's how her son can live on. and how she can honor his memory and share him with others.  His death was very sad and horrible.  It was not, however, what the media portrayed it as.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Zimmeran is you.  Zimmerman is just another civilian the media can trash.  This decade's Wen Ho Lee, if you will.  He's a private citizen.  And the media goes to town on them while staying silent on government abuse and government abusers.

NYC needs to make their decision about Anthony Weiner and whether or not they want him as mayor or even in the race.  But let's be really clear that Weiner sexting is not a political 'scandal.'  There are political scandals.  Dianne Feinstein, for example, steering business to her husband was both unethical and illegal.  But the press didn't want to cover that.  Not even The Nation magazine, which killed the story despite paying for its research.  You can feel that Weiner's actions were a scandal and you may believe that they would leave him at risk for blackmail (you can also argue with two major sexting scandals now under his belt, is Weiner even 'blackmail-able' at this point or is he immune from additional sexting scandals at this point).  But for us, a political scandal is where a politician abuses the power placed in them by the citizens.  That's DiFi handing over contracts to her husband.  That's corruption. That's unethical.

But it's Weiner that everyone wants to talk about because no one wants to deal with reality.

The obsession with Zimmerman by cable 'news' was not about them suddenly giving a damn about racism or race.

It was about having a cheap, easy target (a private citizen).  It was about offering 'commentary' which is always cheaper than either investigative journalism or actual journalism.  It was about cheap production values and huge profits.  It was about sensationalism.  It was about distraction from real issues -- including Brad, including the NSA scandal, including the assault on Detroit, including real acts of racism in the US by government institutions.

Day after day for over half a month, the media served up comfort food.

The bad guy, the Hitler of our times, was George Zimmerman.  And if you'd join in the hate rush, you too could have the giddy high of self-righteousness.  But when the media's self-righteous, if you pay attention, it's never in calling out the government.

For example, the New York Times editorial board has written some strong essays on the unconstitutional spying.   But if you pay close attention, you'll note that they maintain a deference for the government even when noting illegal actions.  No such deference is needed to go after private citizens -- the New York Times certainly proved that as they maligned Wen Ho Lee repeatedly.  Their failure to own up to those deplorable actions (which took place in the 90s, not that long ago) should make clear that racism really isn't an issue to the Times.  They played the 'yellow menace' and 'yellow peril' cards constnatly when they falsely accused Wen Ho Lee in story after story (most bearing the byline of Jeff Gerth).

The press doesn't care about race (except to inflame race wars which may have already happened).  It cares about cheap nonsense and distractions and easy targets.

Let's drop back to the April 30th Iraq snapshot:

December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed.  We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way.  It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

How many cable hours have covered the Memo of Understanding?  How many hour of cable have covered Barack sending more troops into Iraq in 2012?

These are things that actually matter and these are things that the government has done.  So they don't get the attention they require.  In 2004, James Risen was ready to report on the illegal spying.  The New York Times chose to kill the story and hold until 2005 -- after the election. They would never, ever show such deference to a private citizen like Wen Ho Lee or George Zimmerman.  So stop pretending that suddenly the media cares about the people.

They wouldn't serve the toxic crap they do if they gave a damn about the people.


That's whistle-blower Bradley Manning above.  He exposed War Crimes.  February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks.  And why.

Bradley Manning:   In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.

Both what he exposed and why he did so are huge news -- unless you're in the business of distracting the people by setting them up against their fellow citizens instead of doing what the press is supposed to do which is hold those in power accountable.

The First Amendment guarantees that if Kerry Washington has a nip slip or Channing Tatum a crack slip, photos can be taken and published.  It guarantees many things but it exists because the founders believed that a functioning press was necessary to keep the citizens informed and to hold those in power accountable.  CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al will gladly cover Channing's trunks falling off.  They're a little shy, however, about stripping down what the government is actually doing.

The e-mail address for this site is

iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq