Wow! What a headline. That definitely supports Donald Trump's order to ban all refugees from this country.
Oh, except it's from 2013?
By JAMES GORDON MEEK CINDY GALLI and BRIAN ROSS Nov. 20, 2013
About something that happened in 2009?
The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky...
And the oversight was addressed in 2011?
"An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago..."
Well, they did catch two guys who slipped through. What percentage of the Iraqi refugees was that exactly?
Most of the more than 70,000 Iraqi war refugees in the U.S. are law-abiding immigrants eager to start a new life in America, state and federal officials say.
That comes to roughly .00286%. Rounded up.
Yeah, even two is too many. I hear ya! But if this is the best reasoning you have for banning all refugees from completely different conflicts and countries-- two guys who were caught before they could actually do anything, almost 8 years ago... Well, that sounds like pretty flimsy reasoning.
No one does Google better than a right winger desperately looking for something to cherry pick out of context in order to sustain their worldview.
But hey, f*ck the refugees, right? Their fault for being born in countries destroyed by colonial powers and our own foreign policy.
In 2009, the Cartoon Network show "South Park," skewered the "political commentary" style of Fox News luminaries like Glenn Beck, who sometimes made outrageous accusations with no basis in fact, couched in their defense, "I'm just asking questions." The character Cartman accuses student council president Wendy Testaburger of, among other things, committing genocide against Smurfs. Several students, believing that the questions wouldn't have been asked if there wasn't truth to the allegations, form a mob and demand Wendy face justice.
It seems like a ridiculous scenario, the kind of thing that can only happen in the cartoon world. But in the real world, a bunch of people have started the same behavior--"just asking questions"-- and it's already causing real world violence.
Is Hillary Clinton covering up a worldwide pedophile ring? Is the Clinton Foundation cover for an international pedophile syndicate? "I'm just asking questions." To a lot of people, these questions sound ridiculous. But to a growing number of self-professed sleuths gathering on internet message boards, these are questions worth investigating... and the more questions they ask, the deeper down the rabbit hole they go.
It boils down to this. First, some white supremacist on Twitter made up a story about Anthony Weiner's emails revealing a Clinton pedophile ring. Then, among the thousands of embarrassing emails uncovered by Wikileaks in the days leading up to Donald Trump's election, there were a few in Clinton adviser John Podesta's gmail account that referred to pizza. For example:
John --
Hosting pizza party at Belmont for HFA on April 10.
Maya Harris is joining, but need you.
Can you come?
Thanks much,
Tony
Now, this looks totally innocent, to some people. The people who don't ask questions. But some of the other pizza emails seemed strange to people who have never left their basements or had a social life. A bunch of staffers joking about how to split up the last slice from an office party. An email from a realtor asking if John had left a handkerchief with a "map that seems pizza-related" on the kitchen island at a rental property. Just look up the word "pizza" in Wikileaks and you'll find 149 results. Is it possible that these emails were all just about pizza?
Yes, but no. Because, get ready for this... the site 4chan proposed that some of the words in these emails are actually code words. The source for these code words is.... well, unknown, but this 4chan user figured it out. By plugging in the code words for innocuous words like "pizza," it turns out that Podesta, the realtor, a dozen staffers, a pizza parlor owner and everyone else in the emails were actually talking about the cutie underage minors they were going to kidnap, torture and rape.
If this seems like a stretch to you, these good-hearted internet citizens would tell you that you're not asking enough questions.
Snopes did a pretty thorough teardown of why the "evidence" uncovered is most certainly bullshit, but all the debunking has done nothing to dissuade people from threatening the owner of a pizza parlor in D.C. and neighboring businesses.
But of course, if your one who "asks questions," then you're already suspicious of the timing. What a coincidence that just when people are starting to believe pizzagate, a guy walks in with a gun?
You can see a pattern in anything. If you look hard enough, everything is a conspiracy. Just because some things look alike or some people know each other or some places exist side by side doesn't mean they have a nefarious connection.
I believe in facts. Not speculation based on what art someone owns or whose party someone's brother once attended. Find a victim, find a crime scene, find forensic evidence, find one iota of proof that isn't an attack on someone's character or something you found that originated on 4chan. Nothing here would stand up in a court of law... that should tell you something.
These are real people that are being accused of gruesome, terrible things. They're not abstract cartoon characters. John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, the pizza guy, etc. You may not like their politics. You may not like them personally. But an accusation of pedophilia is pretty heavy. An accusation of running child trafficking is even heavier. That's pretty big weight to be throwing at someone based off of conjecture. Even an accusation is something that sticks with someone. You put it out there, you give it a semblance of validity, you might convince someone, not just that you're "asking questions," but that it's true. And that has consequences. False accusations can have real life negative effects. Especially something like this that gets people rightly fired up. You want to encourage some righteous wannabe hero to engage in some vigilante justice? Intelligent people don't make charges without real solid evidence. Find it, tell the world! But engaging in witch hunts based on circumstantial (to be generous) evidence, guilt by association tactics, and pure speculation doesn't help anyone. It hurts people.
That's my view. But it isn't the view shared by those whipping up pizzagate hysteria, the "just asking questions" crowd. Unfortunately, it seems to be spreading like a sickness. Now this same crowd is saying that the fake news sites that proliferated this election cycle weren't fake at all.
How many people who voted for Donald Trump did it because they believe Hillary Clinton runs a pedophile ring? You can laugh that off, but you can't laugh off the fact that there were millions of people who thought that there was something about her emails that made her more untrustworthy than a man involved in a fraud lawsuit he would later settle for $25 million dollars.
We're taught to question what people tell us. That's a good thing. But when the truth itself becomes a question, when there's no such thing as "fact," only the level of "digging" you've done online, reality itself becomes distorted. It's one thing to question the bias of the media.... its another thing to claim all media is in on one big conspiracy to protect a pedophile ring. Again, the media is not a bogeyman, it's made of individuals, many of whom actually have children they'd be interested in protecting.
Consider this... if the Clintons were running a pedophile ring, wouldn't some media outlet want that story? The Boston Globe won a Pulitzer for outing the Catholic Church for protecting abusive priests. Wouldn't there be some intrepid reporter going undercover, finding that dungeon below the pizza parlor?
I know it's math and Hillary will get the pledged delegates she needs to win tomorrow regardless of who wins the state, but the AP announcing Hillary's win the day before the California primaries has gotta seem like an insult... sorry, conspiracy... to Bernie supporters.
To Hillary's credit, her first statement was one of humility and reserve:
We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow! https://t.co/8t3GpZqc1U
— Christina Bellantoni (@cbellantoni) June 7, 2016
That'll get some conspiracy theories smokin'.
Of course, the AP article isn't exactly something that helps Hillary. In fact, it very well could play into Bernie's hands-- Hillary supporters, thinking she's a sure thing, might do their hair or learn to play glockenspiel instead of voting in tomorrow's as-it-turns-out-not-really-crucial Primary elections. Bernie could, as a result, gain ground on Hillary or perhaps eke out a slightly larger margin of victory. None of that will change the fact that Hillary will receive the pledged delegates she needs tomorrow (added to the superdelegates the AP says have committed to her) to reach the magic Primary-clinching number of 2,383 delegates. Bernie's campaign rightly points out that superdelegates can change their minds before the convention, and that 400 made up their mind before the Primary campaign even began. But that ignores the fact that those 400 who went all-in for Hillary at the very beginning are most likely among her biggest supporters, who will never change their minds. And unless you flip the vast majority of superdelegates (not just some), Bernie's still going to be behind. So Bernie supporters, I feel you. I know this seems unfair as shit and rigged as hell. But if that's your reaction to today's headlines, it's good preparation for when the official nomination is declared, possibly Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, or on convention day. And that means it's a good time right now for all of us to consider what we do next.
Hilldawgs gotta open their hearts and minds to the powerful needs and desires of a young, frustrated, progressive movement that deserves to be taken seriously. And Berniebroskies gotta reckon that Hillary is far more likely to represent their interests than a megalomaniac manchild who, at best, will nominate a wildly conservative supreme court justice who strips away our civil liberties, or at worst, will seriously endanger this country's safety. Otherwise, no one is gonna be liking any of the headlines that come next...
It didn't take long for New York magazine's Kevin Roose to change his tune on Bitcoin, the "internet currency," which made headlines this week because... well, because people were writing headlines about it. The value of a Bitcoin rose more than $200 in just a few days, which as we all know, means it will keep going up, forever, cause like, duh man.
Except, you know, then it took a swan dive the next day. Its value is going up and down like a roller coaster, and the systems in place to buy and sell the currency make it difficult to capitalize on the swings. Basically, its a penny stock that's even less regulated and less liquid.
As Roose wrote in his original piece (emphasis, mine), "Several friends warned me about buying a Bitcoin now, since prices are
at an all-time high, and most smart people are predicting that the
bubble will pop eventually. But many people expect the price of Bitcoins
to go higher than $140. Henry Blodget
half-jokingly suggested that Bitcoins could reach $400, and there's no
logical reason why they can't keep rising beyond that. The more
publicity Bitcoins get, the more demand there is. And since supply is
limited by design, and no central authority can step in and "print" more
Bitcoins, it's theoretically possible that the price could keep rising
for a while before a bubble burst happens."
It's also theoretically possible that Kate Upton will sleep with me, and my wife will be cool with it.
My Bitcoins are Up Here....
How long will it take Slate's Farhad Manjoo to backtrack? After all, he also went into Bitcoin with blind enthusiasm:
"Let me begin this column with a lengthy disclosure. One morning last
week, I stopped at my bank, filled out a withdrawal slip for $1,027.51,
and walked away with an envelope full of cash. The odd amount was
deliberate; I had been instructed by LocalTill to be exact in everything
I did. What’s LocalTill? Don’t bother Googling it—its shady-looking website
offers only murky details, explaining that the firm is a way for
“merchants to accept secure transactions when selling goods online."
Sounds super!
"Bitcoin, of course. Bitcoin is a “digital currency” invented in 2009 by a cryptographic expert who went by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, but whose true identity remains unknown."
Well he sounds like someone I'll trust my money with!!!
"Meanwhile the price just kept going up: Early last week the value of
bitcoins soared past $100 each. This week, it went past $200. If you
want a bitcoin today, it will cost you about $235, and if you wait till
tomorrow, it will be more."
Because the value of imaginary currency just goes up, up, UP!!!
"The world’s supply of bitcoins is
essentially fixed, but because people in the media keep talking about
it, demand keeps rising. This leads to higher prices—and as prices go
up, people who currently hold bitcoins develop greater and greater
expectations for the currency. This causes bitcoin holders to hoard
their stash, which further reduces supply, which in turn boosts the
price and sparks yet more media attention—and the cycle continues until
the bubble pops.
Thus, by writing about bitcoin, I’m serving, in some small way, to
raise its price. And as of last week, that benefits me directly."
Some of the worst economic analysis I've ever read. Buy Bitcoins, then get your friends to buy Bitcoins, and then they get their friends to buy Bitcoins. Every friend you get, the more money you earn! THIS IS A PYRAMID SCHEME, PEOPLE! PYRAMID SCHEMES COLLAPSE TERRIBLY!!!!!
"When the bubble will
burst, at what price and for what reason, is completely unpredictable.
And until then, while prices are going up, you could make a lot of real
money from this digital funny money.
My own guess is that the bubble’s popping isn’t
imminent, and I think that when prices do fall, they’ll land somewhere
higher than the $138 I paid for my bitcoins."
This is based on nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's irresponsible financial reporting. Farhad might as well just take the money from your pocket and throw it into a paper shredder. U.S. currency is no longer backed by gold, but it is backed by the power of the U.S. Government. It has something real to peg it to-- the American economy. Bitcoin's central authority is a guy using a fake name that nobody has ever met. Bitcoin could easily be worth ZERO.
As of this writing, one of the biggest Bitcoin websites, where Manjoo bought his Bitcoins, is down due to technical difficulties. According to a MtGox spokesperson, "Upgrading computer systems means ordering more servers (2 weeks
timeframe), setting up (1 day), load testing (2 weeks) and deployment (1
day). It's a process that can take up to one month in total."
Just like the stock exchange!!!!
MtGox is claiming a Denial of Service attack by hackers, but in reality, it's probably closer to a "gold rush" that's overwhelmed their substandard servers. All the media has caused people to flock to these sites, which were unprepared for such a large influx of customers.
A Bitcoin's value now, by the way, is $75 and dropping fast.
Manjoo and Roose should by publicly flogged for touting this speculative nonsense.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Anatomy of a Hoax, or "How The Web Makes Journalism Lazy"
Yesterday, many news sources, beginning with the Huffington Post, reported that a banker left a 1% tip on a check at a restaurant to make some kind of point about his wealth and to insult lowly paid restaurant workers. This story raised ABSOLUTELY NO RED FLAGS among these news outlets.
Then the website Smoking Gun did incredible, undercover investigating reporting that required hours of research, tons of money and all the manpower they could muster. No, actually, all they did was CALL THE RESTAURANT. Using the information on the picture of the receipt that had been plastered all over the web. You know, like you'd expect A REPORTER TO DO.
Sadly, this is how the media operates these days. In this fast-paced internet-driven world, a successful news story is only successful if it appears first or second. The drop off after that (in terms of the click thrus and page reads their article will get) is huge. So news organizations jump on interesting nuggets quickly, sometimes Twittering about things before they even know what's going on, just so they can claim they "scooped" the story.
This is how "new journalism" works, in 6 easy steps:
1. An interesting rumor or unverified story appears on Twitter or Reddit, lazy journalists' web sources of choice.
2. News organization writes a quick summary, links to the original post, and says something like, "this has not been verified yet, but isn't it cool? Share with your friends!"
3. News organization never attempts to verify the story, instead, spends the majority of its time pushing the story out through its various social media arms and adding the story to the evening's television news scripts.
4. Hours later, the story is debunked by a blogger, a site like Snopes or the Smoking Gun, or an enterprising three-year-old with Googling skills.
5. News organization issues an "update," while leaving the original story up because that way it still counts towards their readership metrics.
6. William Randolph Hearst chuckles, Edward R. Murrow rolls over.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Bad Intel
Stoners in New York were excited by a Daily Intel blog post this morning...
Unfortunately, there's a reason that link is to NBC Connecticut...
Oh Noreen!! This is why no blog posts should be made before 10 in the morning.
Sorry stoners. You'll have to go to Yale to avoid jail time. Like George W.
In the meantime, I commend the great state of Connecticut. Decriminalize, not legalize. (click the link for my reasons why) It's a happy medium.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Minnesota Paper, MSNBC Invent Horoscope Horror
So yesterday, I almost had a heart attack. I read an article on MSNBC that claimed Zodiac signs had recently changed, due to "Earth's wobble." Yes, because of Earth's weak cankles, I was no longer a Gemini.
This was like learning my dad isn't really my dad, or that I've secretly been living in a giant snow globe all my life. Hell no, I am not a damn Taurus.
I wasn't the only one who panicked. According to Yahoo, searches on "zodiac signs" went through the roof.
"When [astrologers] say that the sun is in Pisces, it's really not in Pisces," said Parke Kunkle, a board member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society.
But this morning, Kunkle's quote was proved to be total baloney. According to Yahoo, Kunkle's statement was based on a form of Eastern astrology, called Sidereal astrology. We use the sensible kind of astrology, Western astrology.
"It's a huge point of confusion for the public," says Bing Quock, assistant director of Morrison Planetarium at the California Academy of Sciences. For those who follow Western astrology, "astrologers are not talking about the constellations at all. When an astrologer says the sun is in a certain sign, they're talking about the sign, the location relative to the equinox. They're not talking about the location of the constellations. "
A recent shift in Eastern astrology signs would still be considered some sort of news, if not the panic-inducing variety. However... it's not new news. The shift happened thousands of years ago and Eastern astrology accounted for the shift with the advent of modern astronomy hundreds of years ago.
What's the deal, Star Tribune and MSNBC? Slow news day? Couldn't interview the Arizona shooter's neighbor's cousin's best friend's manicurist's dry cleaner? Media organizations should have to pay a fine for upsetting people with bullcrap articles. And they should pay it to me.
Clearly, the lesson here is never trust a man named Parke Kunkle. Instead, trust people named Bing Quock.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
New Poll Determines Polls Are Now Officially Useless
In a new poll conducted by the Adam's Life blog, 79% of Americans admitted often lying to pollsters, providing inaccurate or sarcastic answers, or "just plain f*cking with Wolf Blitzer's mind."
"The pollsters ask such ridiculous questions, I really just try to have fun with them," said Roger P. Nobodi, a frequent online poll answerer. "The other day, there was a poll asking if we thought the sun was just the ash from God's cigarette. I thought, 'Okay, well why the hell not?'"
Bill Fakerton, who often responds to polls on Fox News and other conservative news sites, also admitted to not telling the truth.
"Do I really think Obama was born in Pakistan? No," Fakerton said. "But I don't like him. So sure, I'll click he could be from Pakistan. It's not like anyone's gonna call me out on it."
The Gallup Institute, which conducts polls for media, government, and business, expressed doubt that the Adam's Life poll was accurate.
"People lie or give jokey answers to polls all the time," said Arthur Imagenari, spokesman for the organization, "So I don't trust the results of this poll that finds people aren't honest when responding to poll questions."
He then exploded.
"I never lie to pollsters," said Faye Person, a housewife who has nothing to do all day but answer online poll questions. "I just try to give the answers I think they're looking for. Like when they ask if President Obama is secretly part of Bin Laden's inner circle, I figure they're getting that question from somewhere, so it must be partly true."
She did, however, admit to pretending to be in the coveted 18-25 demographic.
"They just care about those people's opinions more," Person said. "And who hasn't lied about their age?"
Nobodi, for one, doesn't plan on answering poll questions honestly anytime soon.
"I'm just having way too much fun. I told some guy the other day that I thought Michael Jackson wasn't dead," Nobodi said. "I'd rather be part of the 10% who feel that way than cowtow to the majority."
Additional findings of the Adam's Life poll discovered that only 65% of Americans use a toilet to go to the bathroom, and only 35% believe the sun sets in the west, 53% think that Terminator 2 was based on a true story, and 92% think Jessica Alba is a MILF.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Bah Humbug
Time Magazine features an article about Christians bemoaning the commercialization of a holiday that is supposed to celebrate the birth of their savior:
[Pastor] McKinley and his friends decided to try a radical experiment. They urged congregants to spend less on presents for friends and family and to consider donating some of the money they saved as a result. At first, church members weren't quite sure how to react. "Some people were terrified," remembers McKinley. "They said, 'My gosh, you're ruining Christmas. What do we tell our kids?' " The pastors had to reassure people that they weren't advocating a Grinchy no-gifts kind of Christmas, but rather one in which people spend a little less and think a little more, expressing their love through something more meaningful than a gift card.
Then of course, at the bottom of the article, Time posts this link:
Time's Holiday Gift Guide 2009
Ah, 'Tis The Season... for the media to pay lip service to religion and promote GIFTS, GIFTS, GIFTS!!! (which earn a lot more advertising revenue than Jesus does.)
Not that I'm complaining. I had a pretty sweet haul for Hanukkah this year. Thanks Family!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Wait A Minute, What Did He Just Say???
Ernie Anastos of Fox 5 New York may have... er... misspoke...
Yes, you heard correctly. Look at his co-anchor's eyes pop.
Need proof that the news media is really just a conduit for the ravings of madmen? Look no further than the non-story that is the non-existent debate over whether or not President Barack Obama was born in this country. If he wasn't, of course, that would make him ineligible to be President, like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sarah Palin.
The thing is though... Obama was born in Hawaii. Which, most schoolchildren ages 6 and up know is a state. This is a fact. It's been backed up by government records, a Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement on the day Obama came into this world, and Obama's family and friends. It's a fact like, "the ocean is wet," or "the New York Mets are a blooper reel that never ends." 2 + 2 = 4
Yet, strangely enough, all the major cable news networks have had segments this week giving voice to "Birthers," a group which believes Obama was born outside the country, possibly in some terrorist training camp (Fox, of course, being the worst offender). Make no mistake, these Birthers are racists. Many of them are the same people who believe the concentration camps were really health spas for Jews, and that our southern border should be turned into a river of hellfire from which no Mexican can ever escape. Their view on Obama's citizenship is indefensible: they can provide no proof that their insane ravings are the truth, only wild speculation and statements like "Sumthin' 'ere just don' feel right." The only proof they have is a ideological belief that Democrats are made of tiny communist nano-robots who will soon divide and swarm middle America, swallowing precious supplies of corn and wheat, leaving behind fields full of abortion doctors. There is no reason any of these crazies should ever be on TV. Except cable news ratings, apparently.
I've already urged a total media blackout of Sarah Palin... can we just quit entertaining racist conspiracy theories too? Honestly, Fox, we get that you're Republica...er... fair and balanced... but does that really mean you need to give every KKK member a microphone?
[Hawaii] Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said she hoped to end lingering rumors about Obama's birthplace.
"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," she said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."
Ok, good, got it?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
New York Times Spends Way Too Much Time Writing About Naked Five-Year-Olds
I'm not quite sure how naked kids running around became news that the Times just had to cover. All the news that's fit to print??
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Why Is The Media Still Reporting On Sarah Palin?
Since losing the 2008 election, Republican vice presidential nominee and (former) governor of Alaska Sarah Palin has been featured in Vanity Fair, her husband was profiled in Esquire, her daughter has been on the cover of People, and her former son-in-law-to-be was in GQ (also with her naked grandson). She's been on TV seemingly more times than President Barack Obama. Despite not accomplishing one thing in her entire political career, despite not even being a member of the government any longer, Sarah Palin is still very much in the spotlight.
Why?
The question becomes more baffling when you consider the contempt Sarah Palin has for the media establishment. Just check out these quotes:
“This is to provide notice to ... the Huffington Post, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law" -Palin's lawyer, in a letter to media organizations.
"It's a sad state of affairs in the world of the media today, mainstream media especially, if they're going to rely on anonymous bloggers for their hard news information. Very scary. Reporters, especially, not taking one extra step to get to the facts and report the facts, but instead continuing to spread things that are not true. Is it political? Is it sexism? What is it that drives someone to believe the worst and perpetuate the worst?" - Palin in an ABC interview
"The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans." -Palin on the reaction to her resignation speech
Okay Sarah, we get it. You hate the media. So... stop using them to spread your message. Whatever it is. Apparently, your only message these days is "I hate the media."
Or better yet... why doesn't the media just simply stop reporting on Sarah Palin? She doesn't like the media? Fine. The media will leave her alone. They won't report on her or her family anymore. Her press conferences will go unattended. Her photo-ops will go un-photographed. Palin thinks the media is a bunch of liars? Okay, so they won't say anything at all.
I'm sure Palin will love that.
The truth is, Palin loves the media. The media made her into whatever she is today. If it wasn't for the media, Palin would still be someone no one in the lower 48 states ever heard of.
No, rather, Palin can't stand criticism. She can't stand any bad words against her, even if they're true. It's something that Republicans seem to have in common. If you never criticize them, and accept every word they say as gospel, you're a patriot. But point out the sky is blue, and not orange like they claim, and suddenly you're worse than Osama Bin Laden.
Palin needs the media to survive. But if she keeps biting the hand that feeds her, how long until they tire of her and turn the other way?
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Did Michael Jackson Molest Anybody?
Jackson's Kids
The recent outpouring of grief and support for pop star Michael Jackson in the wake of his death has caught some people by surprise. Isn't this someone who most people dismissed as "Wacko Jacko," a child-molesting weirdo who endangered and warped his own strangely conceived kids? Someone whom, admittedly paid a sum of money to a boy in 1993 to settle molestation charges? Someone whom media pundits like Nancy Grace and Shepard Smith called a "Teflon monster" and "not guilty by reason of celebrity" when he was acquitted of kidnapping and molesting a child in 2005?
That's what I thought. Sure, I dance to "Billy Jean" like everyone else, but I wouldn't invite Michael Jackson to babysit.
But watching clips from the memorial service at the Staples Center, I have to say, I started to wonder. Just how real were those allegations? Part of what made me wonder was watching 11-year-old Paris Jackson, the pop star's daughter, give an emotional, raw, and very real statement about her father's death. This wasn't some f-ed up kid... this was someone who seemed very much like a normal 11-year-old who'd just lost a loving father. In fact, in her brief appearance, she displayed a maturity and dignity well beyond her years. Seeing her, and the rest of Michael Jackson's brood for the first time, it was suddenly a lot more difficult to demonize the singer. Suddenly, calling him "Wacko Jacko" seemed wrong. Just because the New York Post says it, does it mean it's true?
Another thing that caused my opinion of Michael to waver is simply watching the media. Its impossible to turn on the television and not think that these news guys are completely loony. The 24-hour blanket coverage, the over-analysis of everything from the cars Jackson's family rode in to interviewing the journalists who made their careers exploiting Jackson's weirdness... it was all too familiar. The media decides on a storyline and runs with it... even if their story doesn't fit all the facts. They've spent a week deifying a man they once demonized. They've reduced the molestation charges to a footnote, whereas before, they defined Jackson as a pedophile. If the media is capable of turning on and off the demon switch at will, then how are we supposed to know where the truth lies??
I mean, read this. Some guy analyzing all of Jackson's public statements about the molestation in 1993. Is his analysis fair? The guy says over and over that the words "I am innocent" aren't the same as "I didn't do it." Really? Are we taking Jackson to task because he didn't use the right vocabulary?
O.J. Simpson drove away in his Ford Bronco... that made people pretty sure he was guilty. Michael Jackson paid a settlement to one accuser... that made people pretty sure he was guilty. But of the hundreds who slept over at the Neverland ranch, only three ever said anything happened. None ever testified against Michael. In the 2005 case, jurors agreed there wasn't enough evidence to convict, and the mother of the boy had successfully extorted money from a department store a few years earlier. Back in 1993, one boy told police he'd only testify is someone else did. The boy whom Jackson settled with (conflicting reports say it was his lawyers, not Jackson, who made the settlement) accused his own father of abuse:
NY Daily News - The accuser, now 26, says his ex-dentist dad Evan Chandler "struck him on the head from behind with ... (dumbbell) weight ... sprayed his eyes with Mace or pepper spray, and tried to choke him" last year, according to court documents filed in New Jersey.
So the accusations aren't that strong. You'd expect that somewhere in the outpouring of Jackson support, if there were victims of the man, they'd come forward. Why allow the deification of a man if you know him to be a monster?? It's surprising that none has come forward, even anonymously, to "tell the truth."
We don't know what happened in Michael Jackson's bedroom. But I know what I saw yesterday. And it was three kids who look really really upset to have lost their dad. By the accounts of those who actually knew Michael, and haven't just relied on FOX News and Nancy Grace, he was a doting father and someone who never would have harmed a child.
Did the media kill Michael Jackson before they deified him? It's within the realm of possibility.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Palin's Bailin'
After a busy 4th of July weekend, I'm back to comment on some recent news. No, not Michael Jackson. Nor the beloved Billy Mays (whom I met in person 2 weeks before he died). But rather, Sarah Palin. I had feared that somehow, with all the endless media attention, Republicans would actually take her seriously, and the mockery of the American electoral process that began when John McCain tapped her as his Vice Presidential nominee would continue.
Luckily, Sarah Palin did a great job of torpedoing her future and freeing up the Republicans to find someone actually qualified for the highest offices in the land. Although, they don't have a lot of choices.
According to Sarah Palin, she couldn't sit back and let the media tell everyone how unqualified she was to govern. So, to show everyone that she can govern, she quit being governor.
"It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down [and] plod along," Palin said. "That's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out."
Yes, Sarah. Doing your job is the "quitters way out." What do winners do? According to Sarah, they quit.
Now, I'm sure somewhere in Sarah Palin's comely MILFy skull, this logic makes sense. And maybe somewhere in America, there's a person drunk on moonshine and high on crystal meth who thinks, "Gee, that Sarah sure proved to me that she's presidential material." But in the rest of America, the America where people are struggling to find a job that pays $125,000 dollars a year (like Sarah's did), and can't afford to quit in order to prove they're not quitters, that sort of logic doesn't fly. And so ends the tale of Sarah Palin, public servant, and so begins the story of Sarah Palin, joke.
Of course, Sarah became a joke during the 2008 campaign. This merely adds punchlines. "Sarah took 'quit while you're ahead' a bit too literally."
The most insane thing is Sarah's primary reason for quitting. The media. Apparently, their criticism was too much to ignore from the statehouse in Alaska. And this woman wants to be President!?!?! The most powerful person in the world!?!?!?! The person who wants to become the most powerful person in the world QUITS when people say bad things about her!?!?!?!?!?!
Can you imagine....
November, 2012
PALIN: My fellow Americans. Since you elected me as your President two weeks ago, the media attacks on me and my family have been unending. Just this morning, I read an editorial in the New York Times saying that I should have been tougher on Kim Jong Il after he bombed Pearl Harbor, and my plan to distribute guns to schoolchildren was "deeply flawed." These elite media critics also say that my husband is unqualified to be appointed Secretary of Defense, and that my daughter Bristol is in over her head as my chosen Secretary of State. I can no longer keep my head down and ignore these vicious, baseless attacks. Therefore, I am resigning the Presidency of the United States, effective immediately. I'd like to wish good luck to your new President, my former vice president Bubbles the Chimp.
PRESS: Mr. Bubbles, care to comment?
BUBBLES: (sticks out tongue) Pbffft...
PRESS: Adorable.
I'd like to thank Sarah for stepping so gracefully aside. If only more terribly unqualified leaders would quit their posts and let somebody else give it a try.
How about it, New York State senators?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Esquire Web Site Seeks Perverts
I'm all for search engine optimization, but titling a web page this way feels a bit dishonest:
It feels cheap, like a trick a softcore porn site would try to pull off. You go to click on "Nude Photos of Connie Chung" and there's one photo of Connie Chung fully dressed in a suit, surrounded by ads for "Extenz."
Not that I've ever done anything like that online...
Are magazines really getting that desperate that they're resorting to Porn website tactics to draw pageviews?? What's next? CNN titling their web pages "Hillary Clinton Bikini Pics"?
Ugh.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Megan Fox Is... Well, A Fox
Esquire magazine put together a borderline pornographic video shoot with Transformers star Megan Fox. While I can do without the book she's printed on her left side, I will say, if magazines are looking to drive readers to their websites, more of this kind of thing will certainly do the trick:
Exclusive: Fox News Buries Evidence For Dramatic Effect!
It's a common cliche in movies: The big media reporter cares more about ratings than anything else, so he or she breaks all codes of moral behavior to break a big story.
Apparently, Greta Van Susteren is a case of life imitating art.
She recently aired a segment on Fox News about Joran Van Der Sloot, the boy accused of murdering Natalee Holloway. Pumping up her audience beforehand with promises of "shocking new revelations," Greta didn't disappoint: she not only had an interview with Joran saying he sold Natalee into slavery, but had an audiotape of him and his father discussing the dastardly deed.
Such a revelation would clearly open Joran, and his father up to prosecution. But despite receiving the tape in July, Greta Van Susteren waited until late November to air the story-- and as of yet, has not turned over the tape, or a copy of the tape, to any law enforcement agency, here or abroad.
In human trafficking, time is of the essence. The longer someone is gone, the greater likelihood that they'll get killed. For Greta to hold back potential evidence for months--evidence that could have led to the discovery of a human trafficking ring or at least developed promising leads--is inexcusable. How is what she did any different than a criminal who hides evidence of their own crime? In fact, it's worse-- she's hidden up until now in order to get ratings!!!
Read the transcript below, in which Greta tries to take the moral high ground over Johan's former lawyer... and gets absolutely schooled:
VAN SUSTEREN: Coming up: You heard Joran van der Sloot in an interview done in Thailand say he sold Natalee, but eight hours later, before we had even gotten out of Thailand, an e-mail flashed across my BlackBerry. Joran said he lied to us. Did Joran lie to us? And if so, when? When he said he sold Natalee or eight hours later, when he said it was not true? Joran's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, joins us next.
Plus, you will hear an audio recording. Joran says it is a conversation between his father and him. And two of the words mentioned on the recording that you need to pay close attention to are human trafficking. You have to hear this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAN SUSTEREN: Joran van der Sloot says he told his father Paulus that he sold Natalee Holloway to a man in Aruba. Joran says he recorded conversations between his father an him that refer to this sale and could possibly corroborate what he told us on tape.
In a moment you will hear one of those recordings that Joran says took place early in 2008. Now, we have repeatedly reached out to Joran's van der Sloot's father Paulus, but he has refused to respond.
We cannot verify whether if the voices on the tape are Joran and his father. The prosecutor in Aruba could do this with his subpoena power. And note, Joran says this is his father on the recording.
We had two different experts analyze if the recording was altered. One expert is confident it is not altered, while the other expert has concerns that the recording may have been modified. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J. VAN DER SLOOT: Hi, dad, how are you?
P. VAN DER SLOOT: I'm all right, you?
J. VAN DER SLOOT: I'm sort of fed up. I can't stand it any longer.
P. VAN DER SLOOT: Joran, hang in there a bit longer. You must keep tough.
J. VAN DER SLOOT: I just want it to be over. I don't care what will happen to me.
P. VAN DER SLOOT: I understand, but too much has happened. You have to be strong.
J. VAN DER SLOOT: I do my best, but I really don't know. I feel rotten.
P. VAN DER SLOOT: Joran, you have no choice.
J. VAN DER SLOOT: Yes, I can come forward and end this.
P. VAN DER SLOOT: Yeah, not a good idea, I think. You have to think about us too.
J. VAN DER SLOOT: Yes, I will do that, but if they find the girl, there is at least proof I didn't hurt anybody.
P. VAN DER SLOOT: But what you have done is pretty bad. Human trafficking is a serious crime.
J. VAN DER SLOOT: I know, but how could I know where all this would lead to?
P. VAN DER SLOOT: Joran, it's a shame you made certain choices, but there has to be a moment it will stop. Okay? You cannot talk with anyone about this, do you understand?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN SUSTEREN: Joran van der Sloot's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, joins us live. Joe, am I right, you still do represent Joran?
JOE TACOPINA, ATTORNEY FOR JORAN VAN DER SLOOT: I represent him, Greta, for the purpose of the Aruba investigation, which for all intents and purposes is over.
Quite frankly, when you asked me to come on last week or a few weeks ago, I hadn't seen this tape. Had I seen this first, I probably would have declined your invitation, Greta, because I just - we could do this - and look, obviously you paid him some money to either give him a tape recording or have him give you tapes or to submit to an interview.
VAN SUSTEREN: Stop there. Let me explain something.
TACOPINA: Please.
VAN SUSTEREN: Just so you get it right. He contacted us. He said he had a tape.
TACOPINA: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: I said we couldn't buy it, but we could license it. That's what the media does. You license photos, you license recordings, you license tape.
He gave us the tape. We've had it sent to someone to have it checked out if there were problems with it. I went to Thailand to find out what the story was on the tape to fill in the blanks to corroborate it.
TACOPINA: OK. So whatever I have - I mean, an email from one of your producers, Steph Watts, you know, to Joran, talking about the Western Union transaction. Greta, look --
VAN SUSTEREN: That is how the money is transferred. There's no secret. There's no secret.
TACOPINA: You paid him for a tape that he made and wound up getting an hour interview with him. And so be it, Greta. Great TV, great ratings- -
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have a problem with that?
TACOPINA: Yes, I do have a problem with it, Greta, because if you offered Joran $10,000 tomorrow and ask him to tell you a fifth story, he would do it.
Clearly, he's a sick kid. Clearly, I have nothing to say in defense of his actions, Greta. OK?
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you deny...?
TACOPINA: But I still tell you, and I stand by the notion that the investigation regarding the disappearance of Natalee Holloway has not led to Joran. That's the bottom line.
No one expects anyone to believe anything this kid has to say anymore. Quite frankly, he's on the verge of sociopath and despicable, but--
VAN SUSTEREN: Explain something to me, Joe.
TACOPINA: Please.
VAN SUSTEREN: According to the timeline --I'm trying to figure this out, because I really want this investigated. That's why we're bringing this information in.
TACOPINA: Really?
VAN SUSTEREN: Now stop. There's has been resistance from Aruba. There has been resistance from you, which, of course, that's your job as the lawyer. I understand that and I have an appreciation for a defense lawyer.
TACOPINA: I know you do.
VAN SUSTEREN: But when he comes to us and says look, I have my father on tape saying about the human trafficking, this explains what happened. I'd like to find her alive is what he told us.
Of course, I didn't believe that it was true, that she could possibly be alive. But he said that he sold her.
So I said "What do you have?" And he came to us. We didn't go after him.
TACOPINA: Greta, that's fine. But look at the source. He's told so many different versions.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, but what about his father in - what - how do you justify what his father said on this tape? Is his father also telling us different versions?
TACOPINA: Oh, that tape--
VAN SUSTEREN: Skip Joran. What -- Is the tape made up?
TACOPINA: I spoke to Paulus last night as this was going on. I mean, talk about a guy-- you don't know Paulus. I do. Paulus is a simpleton.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is this tape made up? Is this tape just crazy?
TACOPINA: He absolutely denies ever having that conversation, ever. So yes, I believe that tape's false.
Think about it for a second--
(CROSSTALK)
VAN SUSTEREN: So we can do a comparison, so we can check it out? I'm willing to check it out.
TACOPINA: Listen, Greta, Greta, just hold on a second. Think about the logic of this. Joran calls you and tape-recorded an incriminating conversation with his father. Why? For what purpose? So he could sell it to you? I mean, why would he have an incriminating tape recording of himself and his father?
VAN SUSTEREN: All I'm trying to do, Joe, all I want to do, Joe, is try to find out - stop.
(CROSSTALK)
TACOPINA: If that's the case, why in July did you have this interview, and why hasn't it not been turned over - why didn't you just send it to the authorities? How about the FBI? Did they get a copy of this?
VAN SUSTEREN: Because if you want to know the practical matter, no sooner than we had it done, we needed to corroborate it to make sure it wasn't lies, because he named a lot of people. In fact, if you notice, we bleeped out some names as we're trying to investigate.
Then we went into what you may have noticed was a presidential election. So we've been busy doing that.
TACOPINA: Oh, but you don't have to do this investigation, Greta. Give the tape to the FBI. They're not involved in the presidential election.
VAN SUSTEREN: The FBI has no jurisdiction, for god's sakes. You know that.
TACOPINA: Oh, they can't investigate? You know they investigated this case!
VAN SUSTEREN: Joe, let me find out one thing--if this is a made-up tape, give me a voice sampling from Paulus van der Sloot so that I can do a voice comparison analysis. There is a forensic way to do that. Get that for me, and if this turns out to be a lie, I'll say this tape is a lie.
TACOPINA: FOX News does not - as much as I respect you and this network, FOX News is not the end-all, be-all for investigative services. There is a law enforcement agency involved. So you don't just say, give you the power of attorney. Or give you a voice sample.
VAN SUSTEREN: If you're saying this tape is a fraud, I'm willing to investigate it, and I'm willing to say if it is a fraud, I'll say on the air we did this analysis of Paulus Van Der Sloot's voice to the tape, and it's wrong. I'm willing to do that. But if you come on and tell me it's not true, at least give me the ability to prove or disprove it.
TACOPINA: Let me just say this, let me say this -- I'm not saying it's true or not. I'm telling you what Paulus said. I wasn't there. I wasn't a witness to any of this.
VAN SUSTEREN: Call Paulus up right now and we'll go into the green room and say, Paulus, give them a voice sample, if this is a fraud.
TACOPINA: Greta, why was this tape not sent to the authorities, then? Why hold it until like November if you did this in July if you really think - because you said on the interview last night, you said to Joran when you were trying to get him to speak, you said what if she's still alive, Joran? I still think there is a chance Natalee could still be alive. Time is of the essence. Why? Because of the elections?
VAN SUSTEREN: Joe, because you know what, unlike you and the others, I've been spending my weekends actually working on this case. Do not criticize me for not working it. It's 2008.
TACOPINA: Don't be defensive, please, Greta. I'm not criticizing you for working. But send the tape to an authority. Send the tape to an authority. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying you're not working on it.
VAN SUSTEREN: If they're willing to use their police powers, subpoena power to subpoena a voice exemplar from Joran van der Sloot, and our FBI doesn't have the authority, but the Aruban prosecutor does, he's got it. He can have it.
TACOPINA: So you have conditions on giving over possibly incriminating evidence?
VAN SUSTEREN: No.
TACOPINA: You have the tape, send them the tape right now.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do something, not sit on it. Not to just sit on it.
TACOPINA: I have no control over that, Greta. You know that. Ok? You know I have no control over it.
VAN SUSTEREN: You do have control over getting a voice sample from your client. Get it and you and I can both go to the forensic expert together. I'll go with you.
TACOPINA: Greta, I know for a fact, because you said it many times, "That doesn't make sense, Joran." That doesn't make sense. You don't believe a word he was saying on that interview last night, do you?
VAN SUSTEREN: You're dodging. You're dodging. Get me the voice sample.
(CROSSTALK)
TACOPINA: Listen, it's not my voice, OK!
VAN SUSTEREN: Get me the voice sample and you ... Joe, I got to go.
TACOPINA: Greta, send the tape to the investigators and I'll give you a voice sample. How about that?
You heard it from Greta first. The election was such a big deal that she couldn't be bothered to send police evidence of a crime.
That's a new one.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Hoaxer Fools Bloggers, MSNBC
The Times has an article about a blogger who fooled a lot of people into thinking he was the source for the "Palin doesn't know Africa is a country" story. Worse, it seems he's fooled major news organizations before.
Shows that you can't trust blogs, really. Except this one, of course.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What's Wrong With This Picture??
Above is a screencap from the MSNBC site. It also highlights the reason I can't allow myself to get too optimistic about Obama winning this election in a landslide.
The AP poll actually says McCain has gained ground since the third and final debate. Read it and you'd think McCain's "Joe The Plumber" argument is making believers.
Then you read this NBC/WSJ poll, and Obama's up by ten points.
What's the truth? I find it so hard to believe--after 8 years of Republican mismanagement of the economy, the war, and just about everything else--that McCain will win. But then again, the logic of many Americans isn't always sound:
The screenshot above also provides a some reasons not to vote for McCain. The same man who claims Obama will be a "Tax and spender" has a running mate who's using $150,000 of public funds to add to her personal wardrobe. The economy, which McCain claimed was a-ok, is an empty shell hollowed out by the same corrupt businessmen McCain's such good pals with.
With the election right around the corner, Obama supporters can not afford to be overconfident. The New England Patriots were undefeated-- and lost the Super Bowl. The first season of Heroes was great-- until the season finale. Just because things may look rosy for an outsider seeking to upend an inept ruling party doesn't mean Obama's got it sewn up just yet. The AP poll should remind us of this.
