Wednesday, April 27, 2016

The Arizona Right Wing Propaganda Press

I used to wonder why so many people voted for and claimed to be conservatives in Arizona. I also remember the tag line from the movie "Brave New World" which states that he who controls information controls the world. I want you to adjust your thinking here a minute.  Imagine what it would be like if you, like a jury in a court, after hearing something a lawyer or witness that was perjuring themselves said, and then being told by the judge that you are to disregard that last statement. What is I could prove to you that a monopoly bent on serving up fresh propaganda gives you your daily news? Would you listen? Could you actually listen to something said at this and ask yourself to disregard everything they say? 
Here is the truth about Arizona Newspapers. 


The Arizona Republic is a daily newspaper which became the largest in Arizona and is published in Phoenix, AZ. 
History: 



  1. It was established May 19, 1890,  and run by Dwight B. Heard, under the name The Arizona Republican. Heard continued running the paper, while being a Phoenix land and cattle baron, from 1912 until he died in 1929.
  2. The paper was then run by two of its top executives, Charles Stauffer and W. Wesley Knorpp. 
  3. Stauffer and Knorpp changed the newspaper's name to The Arizona Republic in 1930. 
  4. Stauffer and Knorpp also had bought the rival Phoenix Evening Gazette and Phoenix Weekly Gazette, later known as The Phoenix Gazette and the Arizona Business Gazette. 
  5. It was bought by Midwestern newspaper magnate Eugene C. Pulliam in 1946.
  6. This paper was ranked tenth in U.S. daily newspapers by circulation in 2007.
Like News Corps, the conglomerate news agency owned by Rupert Murdoch, Gannett controls a huge amount of the News Businesses. It overshadows News Corps in the amount of news it "oversees". It is the largest newspaper holding company in the United States. It's listing of holdings is listed at: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=gannett  and I will warn you, you are going to be reading awhile. Does being the most widely circulated news make it more accurate. Not according to the tabloid news companies like News Corps.


[edit]< From Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arizona_Republic#Pulliam_era

"...

Pulliam era

Pulliam, who bought the two Gazettes as well as the Republic, ran all three 
newspapers until his death in 1975 at the age of 86. A strong period of growth 
came under Pulliam, who imprinted the newspaper with his conservative brand 
of politics and his drive for civic leadership. Pulliam was considered one of the 
influential business leaders who created the modern Phoenix area as it is known
today.
Pulliam's holding company, Central Newspapers, Inc., as led by Pulliam's widow 
and son, assumed operation of the Republic/Gazette family of papers upon the 
elder Pulliam's death. The Phoenix Gazette was closed in 1997 and its staff 
merged with that of the Republic. The Arizona Business Gazette is still published
to this day.
In 1998, a weekly section geared towards college students, "The Rep", went into
circulation. Specialized content is also available in the local sections produced for
many of the different cities and suburbs that make up the Phoenix metropolitan 
area.

[edit]Gannett purchase

Central Newspapers was purchased by Gannett in 2000, bringing it into common 
ownership with USA Today and the local PhoenixNBC television affiliate, KPNX
The Republic and KPNX combine their forces to produce their common local news
website,www.azcentral.com. It is the most-visited site in the state of Arizona 
and is among the most-trafficked newspaper websites in the U.S.  ..."
Now, let's suppose some cosmic judge told us to disregard everything we heard 
from a corporate monopolized news organisation and think for yourselves. ..."
Now, let's look at the word MONOPOLY and I don't mean the game from Parker 
Brothers. Let's look first at the criticisms of the game Monopoly. Again from 
Wikipedia:  "...Wired magazine believes Monopoly is a poorly designed game. 
Former Wall Streeter Derk Solko explains, "Monopoly has you grinding your oppo-
nents into dust. It's a very negative experience. It's all about cackling when your
opponent lands on your space and you get to take all their money." 
Most of the 3 to 4 hour average playing time is spent waiting for other players 
to play their turn. Board game enthusiasts disparagingly call this a "roll your dice,
move your mice" format. ..."
So, even the game monopoly is about learning to be greedy, selfish, and vindictive
which is why monopolies are supposed to  be ILLEGAL in the United States. 
The legal term is defined as:
"...1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control. ..."
So, you tell me, should we disregard everything they tell us or maybe the ques-
tion that is more pertinent should be, "CAN YOU disregard the statement?" con-
sidering it came from a biased source?
If you can, keep reading. If you can't then you need to read this: Blocks To 

Friday, April 15, 2016

An Epiphany Wrapped In Disappointment (SMH)

I am finally, like several people I know, disillusioned. I say that as I realize I have been fighting a good fight in my mind and expecting change when all I got was eight years of smoke and mirrors. I am not upset with Barack Obama because he is black. Those people STILL deserve to be living in a cave or under a rock.
I am upset because he implied that he really wanted things to change. He got all the incremental things that are just realistic, like the ACA implemented. He got some things done on evolution of thinking started that allowed for Gay Marriage. He has been really good at speaking about healthy intelligent educational opportunities for those who need it. He has helped the "judgement free" poor people harder for the banks and other financial predators to virtually destroy. Those things and his wife's health for children initiatives will go down as shining achievements.
He can't change congress and we are watching this year, how they have inserted themselves through corruption and malfeasance, election fraud, bold faced election tampering and voter machine hacking, into the biggest control position in history in the U.S., congress. That will be material for a whole different article.
Last year before this election sequence, I would have disagreed with anyone saying that Barack Obama was Republican Lite. I was expecting him to do some really "down with the people" things the way Bernie wants to do, and I realized it is NEVER going to happen. The Republicans in congress have taken on the role/persona of being the bad guys but they are all working together. This whole "screw the tax payers for/to our benefit" thing going on in D.C. is in every chamber, oval office to the Supreme Court, and it is powered by big money interests, and THAT is the great American problem.
Throwing us a bone that is purely superficial is NOT what the Democratic Party is supposed to be. When he came in asking for change, then has been changing shit that doesn't matter, isn't really what I expected, either. Pragmatic to these people (The catchword they keep using to describe slow change.) doesn't mean what they think it means.
What the mood is saying is, "We screwed you and put you between a rock and a hard place and then made YOU, the American Tax Payer, pay to fix the things we screwed up so we could get paid.
What Republicans run on are matters that are either already decided or insignificant to anything in reality. They might as well be saying, "We want to make it a law that all people bathe with lye soap! That is the only way people who are truly spiritual and conservative/Republicans should smell. We are presently in congress, wasting the time of the taxpayers, and have written and act like we we are trying to enact legislation to return us to the days of lye soap!" Meanwhile, a certain portion of the country that doesn't know anything but that their friends or relatives told them they were "conservatives, religious, and Republicans", as if those things were genetic and unavoidable, jumps up and down cheering, only pausing to drag their knuckles, metaphorically speaking, like a tie to an ancient past that never has existed and logically never will be - as long as anyone with brains can muster one last sensible argument.
Those people have developed a word to use that means it is OKAY FOR ME to act anyone I want because I have a) Jeebus, b) the 'gubment', or c) my community, on my side. That is the Republican excuse, as I am going to call it from now on.
I recently heard several people who have bought into the whole Republican Lite ideals expressed by the "Clintonistas". (I say this collectively since they have shown they think alike and have an idea how this "democracy" for the Oligarchy should work.) Bill Clinton very clandestinely put the repeal of Glass/Steagall which helped destroy our economy, the implementation of NAFTA, which helped destroy our factory base, and opened the door to Republicans, as well as Democrats, using money from special interests in place. Basically, behind our backs with no media scrutiny or public fanfare of any kind, turned the Democratic Party into Republican lite and Barack, after coming to Washington, fell in line.
I miss the vision I had of the young African American crusader who was going to change us but now that he has really just jumped right into bed with the Clintons, The DNC, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (No lite about her, she is PURE Republican while calling herself a Democrat just to get paid, because, well, evidently the opportunities in the GOP are limited for women.)
They have been throwing around this word I don't like, which is like saying "fecal matter" when 'shit' would have sufficed, and I am tired of it. The word is "PRAGMATIC".
They might as well be saying, "Change - which we will let occur, SOME DAY, after we think about this for A REALLY LONG TIME (indefinitely), LIKE YOU HAVEN'T BEEN WAITING SINCE 1964 FOR EQUALITY AND THE 1950s FOR THE CHANGE WE WERE PROMISED (After we had already tightened our belts BECAUSE OF being patriotic through WWI, WWII ,and the Korean War), and pick EVERYTHING to pieces over fears that (I don't know, maybe JEEBUS wouldn't like it, yeah, that sounds good!) when in reality, the problem is merely that, it might actually work (OMG!) and people might actually achieve ACTUAL equal opportunities."
There are several definitions, but "treating historical phenomena with special reference to their causes, antecedent conditions, and results", and "of or relating to the affairs of state or community." are what they seem to be trying to tell us it means.
But the archaic versions of the word is what they are doing: "busy; active.
officious; meddlesome; interfering" and "dogmatic; opinionated" as well as "an officious or meddlesome person" is what they are using it to do.
What they are saying, in other words, is using much thought to bring about change, only if historically significant, while what we want isn't radical, it is realistic, and if we ever want to stop being screwed over by the (I even have to use this word, since the rednecks always blame the wrong people in it saying, "GUBMINT") (all three branches of the fed and all branches of state) government.
I would almost contend that Fox News isn't a antecedent of the government and an instrument which is against the White House, as it is portrayed, but another tool, poised to play devils advocate in several non-important arguments, in order to placate and distract us, like most churches, and professional sports are put in place to do.

Monday, March 21, 2016

The Progressive Party Day One

What I am calling for today is a new party, conceived in the original intention of the founding fathers, except not owning slaves and not deciding only rich white land owners vote. Shall we say, for the sake of my argument, an ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but since that name has already been copyrighted by people who now seem to be moving towards the same fascism which is disturbingly familiar in the hearts and minds of Republican candidates for the past 20 years, I am calling for a new party. Right now there is a split between progressives and Democrats. All this need for a party split is going to change the face of politics.
The Clinton-ese establishment DINOs, (Democrats in name only) have become a blue coated branch of the right wing. Basically, they are undercover Republicans and many of them have been exactly that since the sixties and only used the name to give us the illusion of caring about the middle class and not being racist.


I think they actually have deluded themselves into believing having two parties on the same side of ideological thinking is a democracy BUT those of us who view pro-corporate policies for the dictionary version of corporatism: ( corporatism  [kawr-puh-ruh-tiz-uh m, -pruh-tiz-]  noun 1.  the principles, doctrine, or system of corporative organization of a political unit, as a city or state.  ) don't want that as our version of democracy. (democracy [dih-mok-ruh-see] noun 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.)
You see, people who are democratic believe in actual government for the people (and that means ALL of the people) and not for the corporative powers because that word in itself means the same thing as fascism. (fascism [fash-iz-uh m] noun  1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.) That definition, in thinking about it, is what some people call communism and uninformed people on the right now believe that's Democratic socialism means, even though it is the opposite.
So in order to maintain a fascist state, one must be a dictator, not a governing servant of the people, although no fascist state comes right out and says that's what they are. When I was a kid, I was told one of the biggest differences between wonderful old U.S.A. and the other countries is that we have "free elections" and other more communist countries had "controlled elections" where the people didn't really have a say it in who won. Then I got to be around 13 years old and asked a pertinent question about "the electoral college" when I was being taught about that. I asked my 'Social Studies' teacher, "Do the electoral candidates necessarily have to vote the way the people of their district vote?" and I was told, "No, they don't. They can vote however they want."  That is number one on my list of "points of corruption" in the system.
Then there are Political Action Committees or PACs as they are referred to. My question is, why are these legal and not regulated the way they should be? And now there are PACs and SuperPACs so anyone who wants to start one can go to the election commission and start one. Stephen Colbert proved that a few years ago when he started one. It is illegal to bribe a government official. But any special interest, private citizen, corporation lobbyist, etc. can go to a PAC and tell them that if your elected official/officials don't vote the way I want, I won't donate this suitcase full of money to their campaign.
Soft money contributions are now unlimited and unregulated, as of Citizens United. The reason Mitt Romney cut his campaign staff off immediately (leaving them to pay their own hotel bills) when he lost to Barack Obama in 2012, is that he / the candidate, is able to keep any monies left over at the end of campaign expense. In this manner, many candidates run for office, never expecting or even wanting to win, only to get rich by collecting soft money contributions and keeping the remaining proceeds.
Also, there are the ultra-rich, who influence the elections through political advertising, which in my opinion, should be illegal. The person who can afford the most advertising, should not be able to control information to the public without anyone regulating whether or not there are ethics involved and the ads are true. This corruption allows the same people who sell us unhealthy foods, drugs that are dangerous, liquor, cigarettes/tobacco in any form, and anything else we shouldn't be doing by lying to us in advertising - to sell us a legal policy, candidate, or politician. 
Caucuses are corrupted. The horror stories emanating from that circular firing squad were really evident in states where the "district leaders" never showed up so no one knew how to regulate the vote and therefore had questionable motives/actions throughout.
Voting machines should be illegal. They have been hacked and corrupted in EVERY election since their inception. Also, the delegate system that Debbie Wasserman Schultz made us all painfully aware of is corrupted when someone can - or even assumes that they can do what they want despite the will of the people: her actual statement was, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” (which is what we were told Barack Obama was) So she just said that the Democratic Party voting in NOT DEMOCRATIC. She needs to be removed from her position first. I don't know how she/whoever gets appointed or elected to office or by whom she did.
Also, is she saying that President Obama was NOT a grassroots candidate and that the whole "grassroots" campaign we heard about was fake?  I think that question needs to be addressed. The main reason it needs to be addressed is so we can return to a real democracy. When that happens will be determined by us, the voters. I think we need a new party with the name "Progressive Party" to verbalize the actual change, ideologically, of what our founding fathers would have wanted, it they weren't some slave owning White Supremacists.
In my opinion WE ARE BETTER BECAUSE WE HAVE EVOLVED so our political party should also. No more two party system. When the actual system is divided by many parties on both sides, we can't let the lines be blurred or let wealth influence us. Also, in my opinion, the guy we need to fashion and lead this party in his own incorruptible image is Bernie Sanders. Please tell me what you all think.
On my last note, I will say, Bernie Sanders is right. It is high time for a political revolution in this country and no one in congress is going to pay any attention to us until about one million of us (I would suggest several million.) show up at congress doorstep and ask them, "How do you plan on getting home tonight?" Bring a fresh rope, actually more like several. Maybe we could set up and build several gallows on the front lawn of the capital building. Start discussing a date or dates (at least one week) and we should all start organizing transportation.
Welcome to the revolution. The time has come. Let's do this.
UPDATE:
Okay, today is March 25. 2016 and something happened. For those of you who don't know, the video has gone viral of Bernie Sanders at one of his election rallies and as he was speaking a tiny bird flew near him. As the crowd said something, Bernie stopped and asked, "What?" and then he saw the bird, As he was saying, "That bird doesn't know it..." the bird flew up and landed on the podium, watching him. The video is cute, here:

Some people on social media (Facebook) came up with this emblem for the Progressive Party:

So, another update today. This is the sort of flier for the progressive party that surfaced on Facebook today: 


Saturday, March 19, 2016

Pay Attention - This Is History!

I want to impart a little history on some of my Facebook Friends. LBJ was in office from November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969. When Martin Luther King was personally lobbying Washington, D.C. politicians and the White House about the civil rights act, they ended up meeting in the oval office a few times. As to the exact words used, only they would know, BUT, if the recollections of people who knew both of them are accurate, this is what transpired.
Lyndon Baines Johnson told Martin Luther King that they had to be "pragmatic" and use a more subtle approach about civil rights and people of color protesting. What he was asking him to do, the same way politicians and other do today is, to tell you to wait until "the country is ready" for change. Actually only small hand fulls of people weren't ready for change. That would be Southern racists.
Recently someone from my past told me she was voting for the more "pragmatic" candidate, and because Hillary is a woman. Now think about this, feminists, politicians told you for years that you had to be pragmatic about Women's Rights. Did you want to wait some more? That isn't what I remember you telling me while you were burning your bras and marching on capitals.
In my opinion, this causes me stress to hear for two reasons. One, that word I can't stand, pragmatic, means "wait longer" and nothing ever gets done. I actually know black people who are voting for Trump and Hillary Clinton, considering she hasn't done women, minorities, or children any good for decades and was originally a Republican, I find that amazing. Her ideologies still are conservative.
I would like you all to imagine if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had decided to be pragmatic (wait longer for something to change on it's own) and gave up the civil rights movement which, some people don't realize, actually installed civil rights for all people, with black Americans in the forefront, which was the closest thing to reparations they are ever going to see.
Today a friend of mine saw black people like Chris Rock seeing things from his own perspective and sees Chris Rock's view as one sided. As I reminded him on social media, you never saw black people treating white people like this:

And you never saw Native Americans killing White Europeans over their native lands, or for that matter, handing them blankets full of small pox to wait and watch them die. I could go on, but the point is, it has been one sided as far as that goes. I don't blame anyone who has been s**t on for being upset. I, as a recovering alcoholic don't want to hang on to resentments (Especially ones I learned from someone else through fear and insecurity.) so, as the Dalai Lama says, "We all need to learn global responsibility". I am not asking people to not watch your back I am only saying don't let the defensive attitude control your frontal approach.
When we realize that we are all creatures of the earth and STOP letting past resentments based on fear based insecurities rule our lives, we will be free. That means no more acting superior for any reason (religion, race, social standing, success, etc.). 
No matter what you think you don't deserve more respect, love, or compassion as a human being, than anyone else by virtue of who you are, only by how you treat other people.
AND NOW -
To those who keep wanting to be more pragmatic, and wait for life to change slowly on it's own, I have been hearing those words from people who don't want us to progress, since I was a child. I am done waiting.
I want you all to think about this one question.
Where would African Americans/Black Americans be right now in America, if Dr. Martin Luther King had waited to be "pragmatic"? Like I said, LBJ used those words in 1963 and signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and when I look at footage of a Trump convention I see people who still haven't learned ONE F**KING THING about equality in FIFTY TWO F**KING YEARS.
THAT is what being pragmatic with ignorance gets you.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Get A Real Job!

I found an article on a website that was posted by a Facebook friend today. When I looked for an author's credit, I found the name Moira Mora under edited and then the credit TMZ. This is what it said,
"...Just when we thought this Beyonce boycott matter couldn’t get anymore ridiculous, here comes another update."
(That is an understatement. This article is smoke and mirrors that explains or verifies NO SOURCES.)
"...The New York Police Department reportedly wants the “Formation” singer to come forth and explain to the public that her Super Bowl performance wasn’t an attack on cops, according to TMZ."
(The whole department called? That must have been one hell of a conference call!)
"...“Our NYPD sources admit they don’t believe Beyonce was advocating hostility toward police in her homage to the Black Panthers. Problem is … they say that’s the way it came across for millions of viewers,” states the site. Sources say cops are not happy and don’t want the singer to promote violence, though they’re willing to protect her once she explains her motive behind the performance."
(Once again, who the fuck is THEY? they say that's the way it came across for millions of viewers? Are those viewers stupid? How does "stop shooting us" advocate violence towards anyone?)
"...This comes shortly after Miami police decided to boycott the singer’s upcoming concert in their city this April...." 
(No, they weren't. They do their job, that is what the police do. You posted this to make it seem like someone was only going to change their minds based on your say so.)

It seems definite to me that TMZ and the rest of the media trolls are out there trying to turn something that wasn't anything into a fight between the police and Beyonce's entertainment company. That just isn't so, if it is, it was one sided. This whole, "Look at us, we are writing something!" like a little kid screaming for the mommy to watch them jump off the diving board for the first time, thing with the media is getting monotonous. They need to find a real story and write about that or STFU, NOW!

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Michele Bachmann Exposed

In reaction to Michele Bachmann's many ravings, trying to convince people who are stupid enough to listen to her, that "Obama is going to reveal himself as the antichrist".  It occurred to me that when people, who are uninformed about religion, refer to the anti-christ, they are talking about the book of Revelations which has nothing directly to do with the antichrist and that the only place it mentions that word is in the book of John. This is an important difference which many people seem to be confused about.
I searched revelations and found that ALL of it was about beasts of the apocalypse but the antichrist is ONLY MENTIONED IN JOHN, and in reading between the lines, realized that he actually was quite childish in his writing. Kind of a schoolyard bully type of remarks.

All he was saying is that if you don't believe in Christ being God, then you are not Christian or that you are of a different belief or lack of belief. It doesn't accuse anyone person directly. I defy anyone to go to the Bible Gateway website < https://www.biblegateway.com/ > and search the whole bible for the word "antichrist" and see if these aren't the only references
( Also: Tell me which of these from John, the zealot, doesn't describe anyone who doesn't believe in Christianity. )

1 John 2:22
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. (This could describe anyone who doesn't believe in the holy trinity principle, which are many.)

1 John 2:18 [ Warning against Antichrists ] Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. (This is a threat about admonishing those who don't wish to believe his message.)

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. (Any non-believer is the antichrist. This is a common theme in some churches.)

1 John 4:3 and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

As anyone can plainly see, the ravings of John later in life (Revelations) after he was released from prison are not related to what he was describing in the book of John. All he was describing, in John, was a non-believer and anyone who tries to equate this to the stories of the beasts in Revelations needs to remember that John was cast into prison in solitary confinement for eight years and was considered, by most people at the time he wrote Revelations, to be quite insane. I learned this in catechism class in the Methodist church at 13 years of age from an actual clerical scholar and minister who studied the known history of John in his college days.
Many of today's Christians try to read whatever they can into ancient texts that were never deciphered correctly in order to rationalize their own selfish desires and have no desire to actually read the bible for what it is - a book of parabolic stories meant to inspire a sense of personal responsibility and a moral attitude in people who would be directionless without it. If one is a Christian then they are supposed to be fluent in the New Testament which is the Christian part of the bible. The Old Testament, which is developed from ancient rabbinic law, was only meant to be used as examples of the difference between what they wrote for Jews and what Jesus said, because he was a reformer who thought the rabbinic law was corrupted. It also, is about principles, not a literal book or a historical record.
In summation, this shows that Michele Bachmann is just talking out of her a** again and with all her credentials and education in religious universities, she still has no real grasp of what the bible actually says or else has reinvented it in her own mind. It is no surprise to me that the meme about "today's Christians" has a picture of Marcus and Michele Bachmann singing in church.

I hasten to add that isn't all Christians. I know many who don't use their religion to feel superior instead of learning the strength and humility of what the "Jesus Message" is really all about - love, tolerance, and helping others. As an an example I can point to people like our ex president Jimmy Carter whom I admire greatly, as a person who I consider a real Christian like the type of people I grew up with.