A satire of this.
Followed shortly by this. And of course this.
HUGE BREAKING MASSIVE INSIDE SCOOP POLITICAL STORY By a political correspondent somewhere gunning for the Man Booker Literature Award.
It was 10.40pm on a mild, temperate evening. The harbour water sparkled with reflections of Sydney's capitalism. Kevin Rudd was entertaining guests at Kirribilli House. It was just like any other social gathering. The chink of wine glasses. Polite, erudite conversation. Occasional bursts of civilised laughter. Cate Blanchett would smile that illuminating smile as Rudd regaled them with stories of the gloriously successful 2020 summit only months earlier. Kevin would blush at her solictitude. It was just like any other gathering.
Only at this one, their quaffing was to be interrupted by an event which would shake Australian politics forever to their core.
Rudd's aide approached hesitantly, almost furtively, with the news. There was a phone call. It was George. The guests tried not to fuss, but the sudden hush gave away their tension. Kevin stood, erect. Purposeful. It was George. That George. "Excuse me" he said, with a knowing nod in the direction of Hugh Jackman. "I need to take this call". With a swift tug to uncrease his rented suit, he strode off in the direction of his study.
The most powerful man in the world was lost in the messages on hold. Kevin picked up, hit the speakerphone and fired a firm but polite instruction to his aide: "Take notes". He caught the POTUS halfway through humming the jingle.
Very, very informed sources very close to the real sources, smuggled out of Kirribilli against the wishes of a humble Rudd who clearly seeks no attention for himself, have confirmed it. This was the conversation which took place:
"Gud-day" said GWB, attempting the traditional Aussie greeting. Kevin winced. "I just rang to talk about this economic summit we got..."
"Damn it George" Kevin blasted, politely but firmly. "You know how I feel. G7 just won't cut it..."
"...but Kevin..."
"Don't 'but Kevin' me, George. You know damn well we need China. I love Europe as much as anyone, who doesn't. But they don't have the stones to deal with Asia Pacific financial matters. For starters, everything in Europe is really close together, so transport is cheaper than here. I know. I've been there. I was there last week".
He was right. He had. And the month before that. And the month before that, twice in July, and once in June with a stopover in Dubai where he met the Maktoums. He repeated. "We need China, and you know it." He was firm, but polite.
"...but Kevin.."
"Damn it George. We're in a dangerous new phase and all you want to do is pander to your Euro friends. We need China. We need South America, and the Middle East. Hell, if you don't want to talk to China, I will. I speak Mandarin, you know..." He was right. He did. GWB wouldn't hint at it, but Kevin knew he was impressed.
"...but Kevin..." again, and again the Prime Minister stood tall. "You know we have to go G20 George, it's the only way." He waited. The pause grew longer. Kevin, and his aides, could hear GWB's breathing labour on the other end of the phone. Slowly, Kevin was flooded by a shocking realisation, his countenance changed as it does when his polls drop.
"George....?" Kevin said politely but firmly. "George? Don't tell me...you don't even know what the G20 is, do you?" The response was silence. "Good God" said Kevin, glancing at his aides and shaking his head discreetly. There was fire in his eyes now.
There was a muffled response. Another realisation, almost as shocking. "George..." said Kevin, firmly but politely, as a parent counselling a guilty child "George...are you holding the phone the wrong way up?"
Shuffling and scratching sounds at the other end. "Of course not, Kevin. I know how to hold a dang phone". The Texan accent was beginning to irk Kevin. "Fool" he said under his breath so that only his aides could hear. He didn't care if Washington heard it too. He was past worrying. There was a worldwide economy to centralise and plan. The puppy love cravings of an outgoing American president were the least of his problems.
"I've spoken to them all, George. Get with it. Taro, Bambang, Ange. They all agree with me. What about you George? What's it gonna be?".
As one aide told me later "He was like a bull terrier- polite, but firm. He stood up to the most powerful man in the world, made him look deep inside himself and question his manhood. Kevin exposed this supposed world power broker for the bumbling, uneducated buffoon that he is and in doing so became a real, credible, world political player himself. It was inspirational. It was damn near sensual..."
It's history now that within two days GWB had caved, defeated, deflated, and called a G20 summit for Washington, just as Kevin had urged, politely but firmly.
But for now, it was all about K. Rudd. To the rapturous applause of his assembled aides, some in tears, Kevin Rudd, erect, proud, strode back to his guests on Kirribilli's slightly browning lawns. They too stood and applauded, barely able to quantify the realisation of being in the presence of sheer political will. Kevin smiled, raised his hand. "The Flirtinis are on me."
This time, it was Cate Blanchett who blushed.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What media bias?
I must get around to reading Rules for Radicals one day. I might really learn something. The manifesto of how-to-grab-power by the militant, amoral socialist Saul Alinsky has long been the activist handbook for many Democrat-funded groups in the USA. It was the creed of the vote fraud enterprise ACORN, from which Obama bravely (read: falsely) distanced himself in the final presidential nominee debate.
In brief, Alinsky's mantra was one of rise-against-the-establishment, and get what you want using whatever means possible (including physical violence and intimidation). Agitate others to get alonside you. No, you are NOT happy with your lot! You are oppressed! And disadvantaged! And you are angry! And it's the government's fault, and big business's fault!
To give you further insight, Alinsky positively acknowledged "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom". To whom was this professed atheist referring? That's right- Satan.
Well, that was in the first edition of Rules For Radicals. The Democrats eventually realised that praising Satan might lose them one or two Christian votes, so they had it removed. Who says Democrats know nothing about the Bible?
But I really want to know if fear-mongering and stigmatizing your opponent's supporters is one of Alinsky's radical rules.
The claim amongst Democrat boffins recently of "Republican Rage" (how adept they are at giving their alleged hate crimes special names) was so well coordinated it made it onto Australian primetime news. Democrat advisors were interviewed, with their ashen faces and morbid narratives of "we're really worried about the anger and incitement from the republican crowds...in some cases people calling to 'Kill Obama'. What will they do if he gets elected?". At this point I was surprised they didn't break down in mock tears, only to be comforted by their adoring media friends.
Please. Firstly, the "kill him" allegation has been investigated by the Secret Service and found to be false. The journalist for the Pennsylvanian newspaper who broke the dramatic story seemed to be the only one out of several thousand who actually heard the offensive remark. The newspaper never retracted it, naturally.
In fact, the only known case of this kind of thing is that of an assault charge against a Democrat supporter who attacked a Republican demonstrator in NYC. It's actually real. But I never saw that on the news here. So, only the fantasy stuff makes it onto the mainstream media.
It gets worse. American News Project, a leading freelance journalism portal, is convinced that they can find more evidence of this hate crime phenomena which doesn't actually exist, by offering to pay people to get it. Here is a snippet from an open email from ANP's chief editor to all registered freelance journalists:
ANP is working on a series between now and Nov. 4 analyzing the phenomenon of rage among McCain-Palin supporters which has surfaced in the past few weeks...
...we need your help. Between now and Nov. 4, we want to document this rising rage nationwide at GOP rallies or anywhere else. If you have any evidence of rage, bigotry or deliberate misinformation among McCain supporters, whether at an official rally or elsewhere (local GOP groups, etc.), we need your help to video these events.
...If we use your footage in our series, whether it is 5 seconds or 5 minutes, we will pay a fee of $500 and give you producers credit.
In the email, they enclose a YouTube piece giving their example of "Republican Rage" to demonstrate what they are looking for. In the video, an elderly man uses the word "nigger", and a very inarticulate woman worries that the country will be run by black people. That's it. The rest of the comments are typified thus:
"I believe (Obama) is a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I think Sarah Palin is full of the Holy Spirit and she will bring honesty and integrity to the White House".
Well, they can't possibly think using a well-known cliche involving animals is hate speech, that would make Obama's "pig and lipstick" reference to Sarah Palin a little awkward. Perhaps the references to the Holy Spirit was the problem?
"He is friends with terrorists of this country". Correct. His ties to William Ayers are provably deeper than Obama claimed at the last debate. Surely telling the truth, anecdotal or otherwise, is not hate speech.
"I am concerned that Obama and his wife might be anti-white". Fair concern. Being under the wing of Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't good for you if you're trying to avoid racism. And references to "white greed" in some of Obama's speeches whilst a state senator would be called racist under any other circumstances.
All other comments were equally innocuous. So, the filmmakers then wave Obama/Biden signs to passing Republican supporters to see what horrible hate crimes and violence they can provoke. The only audible reference made is a republican supporter calling out "baby killers...you can call it what you want but that's what it is".
I presume they were referring to Obama's attempts as a senator to block the born alive infant protection act in 2000. Or perhaps they were referring to his promise that he would enact the Federal Freedom Of Choice Bill if elected, effectively removing all state restrictions on abortions and opening up federal funding of abortions. At least, this was what he told the Planned Parenthood movement in 2007. He denied it when talking to a Christian group in 2008, as well as denying his attempts to block the infant protection act in 2000. But you can read all about that here.
The point is, the filmmakers then cried persecution and feigned fear of attacks from these crazed republicans. It was the most incredible display of conniving, sabre-rattling and brilliant acting I have ever seen.
But the most morbidly laughable thing about this "evidence of republican rage" movie to illustrate ANP's point- it was provided by Al-Jazeera.
Al-Jazeera! The mouthpiece of terrorist dogma!
Okay, so even if these were legitimate examples of gun-toting, raging, frothing-at-the-mouth republicans threatening to kill everyone who even thinks about voting Obama, here's the problem; ANP want to pay people to produce similar "evidence". In any legal forum, where evidence is required to prove a crime, evidence paid for is tainted and inadmissable... for reasons which should be painfully obvious.
I'd love to think Democrat supporters are above dressing up in republican garb, spewing racist, violent rhetoric while their mate films them, and sending it to ANP to cash in. But watching that YouTube footage again, quite clearly, and sadly, it is totally possible.
UPDATED 24th Oct: Here's what makes the mainstream news: This assault on a McCain supporter was proven to be "false". So, let me get this straight:
- the MSM give airtime to democrats decrying "Republican Rage" without the slightest piece of tangible evidence (a bit like giving them free campaign time)
- an actual case of a democrat supporter assaulting a republican is nowhere to be seen on the MSM, however
- the discovery that a republican claim of democrat rage was falsified gets prime time.
No media bias? Please....
In brief, Alinsky's mantra was one of rise-against-the-establishment, and get what you want using whatever means possible (including physical violence and intimidation). Agitate others to get alonside you. No, you are NOT happy with your lot! You are oppressed! And disadvantaged! And you are angry! And it's the government's fault, and big business's fault!
To give you further insight, Alinsky positively acknowledged "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom". To whom was this professed atheist referring? That's right- Satan.
Well, that was in the first edition of Rules For Radicals. The Democrats eventually realised that praising Satan might lose them one or two Christian votes, so they had it removed. Who says Democrats know nothing about the Bible?
But I really want to know if fear-mongering and stigmatizing your opponent's supporters is one of Alinsky's radical rules.
The claim amongst Democrat boffins recently of "Republican Rage" (how adept they are at giving their alleged hate crimes special names) was so well coordinated it made it onto Australian primetime news. Democrat advisors were interviewed, with their ashen faces and morbid narratives of "we're really worried about the anger and incitement from the republican crowds...in some cases people calling to 'Kill Obama'. What will they do if he gets elected?". At this point I was surprised they didn't break down in mock tears, only to be comforted by their adoring media friends.
Please. Firstly, the "kill him" allegation has been investigated by the Secret Service and found to be false. The journalist for the Pennsylvanian newspaper who broke the dramatic story seemed to be the only one out of several thousand who actually heard the offensive remark. The newspaper never retracted it, naturally.
In fact, the only known case of this kind of thing is that of an assault charge against a Democrat supporter who attacked a Republican demonstrator in NYC. It's actually real. But I never saw that on the news here. So, only the fantasy stuff makes it onto the mainstream media.
It gets worse. American News Project, a leading freelance journalism portal, is convinced that they can find more evidence of this hate crime phenomena which doesn't actually exist, by offering to pay people to get it. Here is a snippet from an open email from ANP's chief editor to all registered freelance journalists:
ANP is working on a series between now and Nov. 4 analyzing the phenomenon of rage among McCain-Palin supporters which has surfaced in the past few weeks...
...we need your help. Between now and Nov. 4, we want to document this rising rage nationwide at GOP rallies or anywhere else. If you have any evidence of rage, bigotry or deliberate misinformation among McCain supporters, whether at an official rally or elsewhere (local GOP groups, etc.), we need your help to video these events.
...If we use your footage in our series, whether it is 5 seconds or 5 minutes, we will pay a fee of $500 and give you producers credit.
In the email, they enclose a YouTube piece giving their example of "Republican Rage" to demonstrate what they are looking for. In the video, an elderly man uses the word "nigger", and a very inarticulate woman worries that the country will be run by black people. That's it. The rest of the comments are typified thus:
"I believe (Obama) is a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I think Sarah Palin is full of the Holy Spirit and she will bring honesty and integrity to the White House".
Well, they can't possibly think using a well-known cliche involving animals is hate speech, that would make Obama's "pig and lipstick" reference to Sarah Palin a little awkward. Perhaps the references to the Holy Spirit was the problem?
"He is friends with terrorists of this country". Correct. His ties to William Ayers are provably deeper than Obama claimed at the last debate. Surely telling the truth, anecdotal or otherwise, is not hate speech.
"I am concerned that Obama and his wife might be anti-white". Fair concern. Being under the wing of Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't good for you if you're trying to avoid racism. And references to "white greed" in some of Obama's speeches whilst a state senator would be called racist under any other circumstances.
All other comments were equally innocuous. So, the filmmakers then wave Obama/Biden signs to passing Republican supporters to see what horrible hate crimes and violence they can provoke. The only audible reference made is a republican supporter calling out "baby killers...you can call it what you want but that's what it is".
I presume they were referring to Obama's attempts as a senator to block the born alive infant protection act in 2000. Or perhaps they were referring to his promise that he would enact the Federal Freedom Of Choice Bill if elected, effectively removing all state restrictions on abortions and opening up federal funding of abortions. At least, this was what he told the Planned Parenthood movement in 2007. He denied it when talking to a Christian group in 2008, as well as denying his attempts to block the infant protection act in 2000. But you can read all about that here.
The point is, the filmmakers then cried persecution and feigned fear of attacks from these crazed republicans. It was the most incredible display of conniving, sabre-rattling and brilliant acting I have ever seen.
But the most morbidly laughable thing about this "evidence of republican rage" movie to illustrate ANP's point- it was provided by Al-Jazeera.
Al-Jazeera! The mouthpiece of terrorist dogma!
Okay, so even if these were legitimate examples of gun-toting, raging, frothing-at-the-mouth republicans threatening to kill everyone who even thinks about voting Obama, here's the problem; ANP want to pay people to produce similar "evidence". In any legal forum, where evidence is required to prove a crime, evidence paid for is tainted and inadmissable... for reasons which should be painfully obvious.
I'd love to think Democrat supporters are above dressing up in republican garb, spewing racist, violent rhetoric while their mate films them, and sending it to ANP to cash in. But watching that YouTube footage again, quite clearly, and sadly, it is totally possible.
UPDATED 24th Oct: Here's what makes the mainstream news: This assault on a McCain supporter was proven to be "false". So, let me get this straight:
- the MSM give airtime to democrats decrying "Republican Rage" without the slightest piece of tangible evidence (a bit like giving them free campaign time)
- an actual case of a democrat supporter assaulting a republican is nowhere to be seen on the MSM, however
- the discovery that a republican claim of democrat rage was falsified gets prime time.
No media bias? Please....
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Is it really all a game?
"It's gonna be a looong night at MSNBC if I manage to pull this thing off..." Senator John McCain
Nobody can help be exposed to coverage on the US elections, but I feel almost envious of anyone who is trying to avoid it.
Like most, I have my leanings, best summarised here. But forget that for a second, and examine the massive weight of media bias and that of the cultural elite, Hollywood and the arts. It is so abundantly clear where their affections lie. From the cheap, nasty, personal and at times sexually depraved savagery of Sarah Palin, to the cynical vilification of John McCain's young wife, the coverage of dirt has been heavily weighted to one side. The underhanded way journalists from the Treason Times (sometimes known as the New York Times) approached McCain's daughter on facebook to dig for material on her mum was an exercise in shamelessness.
Some of the detective-like tasks given to journalists by their respective media bosses to uncover (any) dirt on Palin was enough to even make some of the journalists ashamed. Now that is something! Journalists developing a moral value. Pity they didn't stand by it.
The ideology war over the hearts and minds of the public is fought less by the nominees themselves and more by the media. And it's a one-sided battle.
Which is what makes the Alfred E Smith memorial dinner such a delight, and it makes you wonder whether all the muck-shovelling is really the result of genuine political beliefs and passions, or just a game.
Certainly there are speech writers involved, but some people can just pull it off well. Senator Obama's speech was beautifully delivered, wickedly funny and done with relish. Senator McCain's was a little less eloquent, but still incisively funny, barely touching on unwanted political issues and even so, with light hearted apolitical humour. His quips on the absent Bill Clinton had Hillary in stitches.
Notably absent from Obama's speech however, and I don't say that to be provocative, was magnanimity of the kind which came from McCain, delivered with obvious, genuine sincerity;
I don’t want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in eachother, but I’ve had a few glimpses of this man at his best, and I admire his great skill, energy and determination. It’s not for nothing, that he’s inspired so many folks in his own party, and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when a mere invitation of an African American to dine at the White House, was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time, and good riddance. I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well.
How nice it would be if such good spirit prevailed in the respective parties, and more importantly, amongst their supporters. But it won't. Because the media will not allow it. They will continue to give maximum prime time to anything, regardless of it's relevance, which shows the Republican ticket in bad light. They will continue to ignore Obama's extreme socialist history, no matter how relevant it is to the shaping of Obama's political present and future.
This means, the only people who can highlight these alarming priors- are McCain and Palin. But if they do that, it's "smearing". No wonder it all looks so dirty.
.
Nobody can help be exposed to coverage on the US elections, but I feel almost envious of anyone who is trying to avoid it.
Like most, I have my leanings, best summarised here. But forget that for a second, and examine the massive weight of media bias and that of the cultural elite, Hollywood and the arts. It is so abundantly clear where their affections lie. From the cheap, nasty, personal and at times sexually depraved savagery of Sarah Palin, to the cynical vilification of John McCain's young wife, the coverage of dirt has been heavily weighted to one side. The underhanded way journalists from the Treason Times (sometimes known as the New York Times) approached McCain's daughter on facebook to dig for material on her mum was an exercise in shamelessness.
Some of the detective-like tasks given to journalists by their respective media bosses to uncover (any) dirt on Palin was enough to even make some of the journalists ashamed. Now that is something! Journalists developing a moral value. Pity they didn't stand by it.
The ideology war over the hearts and minds of the public is fought less by the nominees themselves and more by the media. And it's a one-sided battle.
Which is what makes the Alfred E Smith memorial dinner such a delight, and it makes you wonder whether all the muck-shovelling is really the result of genuine political beliefs and passions, or just a game.
Certainly there are speech writers involved, but some people can just pull it off well. Senator Obama's speech was beautifully delivered, wickedly funny and done with relish. Senator McCain's was a little less eloquent, but still incisively funny, barely touching on unwanted political issues and even so, with light hearted apolitical humour. His quips on the absent Bill Clinton had Hillary in stitches.
Notably absent from Obama's speech however, and I don't say that to be provocative, was magnanimity of the kind which came from McCain, delivered with obvious, genuine sincerity;
I don’t want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in eachother, but I’ve had a few glimpses of this man at his best, and I admire his great skill, energy and determination. It’s not for nothing, that he’s inspired so many folks in his own party, and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when a mere invitation of an African American to dine at the White House, was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time, and good riddance. I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well.
How nice it would be if such good spirit prevailed in the respective parties, and more importantly, amongst their supporters. But it won't. Because the media will not allow it. They will continue to give maximum prime time to anything, regardless of it's relevance, which shows the Republican ticket in bad light. They will continue to ignore Obama's extreme socialist history, no matter how relevant it is to the shaping of Obama's political present and future.
This means, the only people who can highlight these alarming priors- are McCain and Palin. But if they do that, it's "smearing". No wonder it all looks so dirty.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
