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.