I clearly remember when all of the television networks played over and over and over again the little “primal scream” that Howard Dean has quite understandably voiced, after placing third in the 2004 Iowa caucuses, effectively destroying his chances of getting nominated for the Democratic presidential ticket.

That scream was – as most of television news – totally taken out of context. It was the usual, shallow and oh so typical television sound bite, shown with total disregard for the actual circumstances. Dean happened to be speaking in front of a rowdy and happy group of supporters and was simply giving a sort of a victory speech/pep talk and the ONLY part of it that the TV networks kept showing over and over again was the happy, ebullient scream, which in effect was just the very end of his speech. See and hear for yourself.

As of late, the media, with the television networks as usual in the front of the fray have been salivating over little, chosen segments of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s speeches and sermons and in fact debating in minute detail whether the African-American pastor is patriotic, or anti-American. The big deal here of course is the fact that Wright was the pastor and friend of the Democratic front-runner Barack Obama. As far as we can see, very few media outlets have bothered to watch, quote, or transcribe Wright’s sermons and statements in their entirety, or even to make an effort of trying to publicize them in a more extensive, contextual form, opting instead and as usual to search and find every controversial and inflammatory sound bite.

Before anyone starts to question Jeremiah Wright’s patriotism, let us present a few facts that seem to be very hard to find in the mainstream media – particularly on television.

In 1961, Jeremiah Wright, after hearing President John F. Kennedy’s challenge to, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the U.S. Marines. Having completed his two years of service in the Marines, he volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman and eventually a cardiopulmonary technician. Wright did so well in corpsman school that he was named the valedictorian. Afterwards, he was assigned to the Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief’s medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

While Jeremiah Wright was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born in the same year as he, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than Wright, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections. Who then is the patriot? The man, who served his country and is unafraid to speak his mind, or the politicians, who, despite actually harming the country in many ways, have the gall of questioning anyone’s patriotism?

Let’s also not forget that the mainstream media have supported both Bush and the neocons in their relentless drive to invade Iraq after 9/11. It took the media several years to see the light and to actually do their job and start questioning, investigating and yes, actually asking the morons in power some pointed questions.

We are not African-Americans, and certainly not anti-American, but there is no doubt that Jeremiah Wright is not some anti-American lunatic, but simply a man, who in context of the African-American experience and also in context of the numerous outrages perpetrated by our government courageously speaks his mind. Last time we checked, we still had freedom of speech in this country. We do not agree with all of his statements. After all, how often can you agree 100 percent with anyone, but we think it is time for the media to get a life, get off the sound bite habit and if an issue is serious enough, actually show some background of a story. Lets not repeat the stupid, tasteless and irresponsible Howard Dean media circus again, while depriving the U.S. of probably the most promising presidential candidate in decades.

Have you ever tried to count the percentage of people, sporting the white, Apple ear buds, while walking down the street?

I haven’t really done it before, except for college campuses, where it seems that at least every second person has the ubiquitous white thingies, along with the white cables, snaking somewhere under their clothes. My average street stats were a bit lower. Probably about one in four, but that is still amazing.

What’s even more amazing is the fact that the huge majority of these MP3 players seem to be of the Apple variety – almost like a fashion statement, rather than an actual desire to listen to something. And it appears that a lot of these iPod wearers actually try to talk to each other, without removing the earbuds. Could it be that they are not actually listening to music, or podcasts, but rather opt to keep the little, white earbuds in plain view as a way of saying: “look at me. I am really cool!”

It came to our attention, via an AP story that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has joined the portable music player generation.

Motown tunes, classical music and the Rolling Stones are all on Clinton’s iPod playlist, she told the New York Post.

“I’ve got everything, a total smörgåsbord,” she said.

Songs from Clinton’s youth figure heavily in the selection of about 1,000 songs, said Clinton, who called herself “a child of the ’60s and ’70s.” The mix includes Aretha Franklin’s Respect, the Beatles’ Hey Jude and Take it to the Limit by The Eagles, she said.

Clinton, a possible presidential candidate in 2008 who is running for re-election to the Senate this year, said her favorite time to listen to the device is when she’s following up on paperwork at home.

She received the ever-popular portable music player as a birthday gift from her husband, Bill.

Senator Barack Obama, in turn disclosed that while he prefers “Ol’ Skool” artists like Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and Miles Davis, his kids help keep him abreast with the current music scene.

“On my iPod, I’ve got a little bit of Jay-Z and a little bit of Beyonce,” said the senator. “A little bit of that stuff. I don’t want to pretend that I know as much as my 9-year-old or 6-year-old daughter.”

The presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain not only admitted to having an iPod, but also voiced his preference for ABBA. That’s not surprising, after all, ABBA was hugely popular all over the world for some time.

Bush also admitted to having an iPod, with the additional caveat of ripping Beatles music from CDs and copying it to the Apple gizmo. This of course is a big no-no, at least according to the RIAA. Are they going to go after him for that?

My point is not really, who listens to what, which in reality should be their private business, but rather the ridiculous notion that iPods are an essential fashion accessory and absolutely necessary, if you are to be perceived as being hip, cool and so forth.

After spending forty minutes on the subway this morning, listening to several groups of people, with the white, Apple earbuds in their ears, screaming at each other at at least twice the necessary volume, while still listening to whatever the hell their were listening to on their iPods, I decided to move a few rows forward in the car, where things appeared a bit quieter and continued to read my newspaper. Unfortunately, at the next stop a gaggle of teenagers, with the dumb iPod earbuds firmly planted in their ears entered the car. The combined racket of all of these dumbed-down iPodistas drowned even the not inconsiderable noise of the train, careening through the tunnel. Sticking a couple of hearing protectors in my ears did help a bit, but this whole thing is almost like the plague. It is really hard to find a relatively quiet place anymore. To this you could add all the dumbos, walking around with their cell phones in hand, as if being seen without one of those was a big, huge no no.

What is it with all of these electronic crutches that almost everyone seems to be unable to do without? I do own a nice MP3 player as well. Not an iPod, since my gizmo’s hard drive has given up the ghost quite a few months ago. I haven’t thrown it in the garbage as yet, but certainly do not contemplate buying another iPod for any reason, particularly not for those cute, little and soooo fashionable white earbuds.

There is no question that most of our present and aspiring leaders can smooth-talk almost anybody into submission (that doesn’t apply to Bush, of course).

But let’s go a bit beyond that and try to catch them in their sometimes less public moments, or, since they have become public figures by choice, any moments, when we were either lucky (or unlucky, as the case might be) to have some cameras present.

First of all, our former first lady and aspiring commander in chief, Hillary Clinton:  Much has been said about her many pantsuits. Personally, we feel that Mrs. Clinton should never run out of those.

Then there’s her arch rival, Barack Obama, caught by the implacable camera lens, while exiting the pounding surf. Actually, this photo has earned the Illinois senator and another aspiring commander in chief some pretty good reviews. We have heard comments such as “good pecks”, “nice abs” and so forth. Not sure if Obama can compete in that regard with the present occupier of the White House, who despite some moral, patriotic and intellectual deficiencies is keeping himself in a pretty good shape for his age, or any age for that matter.

We always wondered what actually prompted people to vote for a particular candidate. Is it the intellect? Bush was elected twice and look at him…or the family/corporate connections, or maybe working on behalf of a completely different country than the one he/she was elected in? Or maybe his, or hers good looks, good legs, good abs, boobs and pecks? The last time I looked Bush didn’t really have much in the way of boobs, even though many have called him a boob. Could it be then that his runner’s and mountain biker’s legs got him elected, or was it rather the powerful family, foreign and corporate connections? Some tend to think that it wasn’t so much his lack of intellect, as the stupidity of the American voters.

So, let’s try to help our latest crop of potential commander in chiefs reach the goal of their lives, meaning of course acquiring almost unlimited power – that most powerful of all drugs, and so incredibly popular in Washington – and settle himself/herself in the Oval Office of the White House.

Since we couldn’t even find a single photo of John McCain in the buff, or even while showcasing his legs, we therefore assume that McCain’s legs have been classified as top secret and that for reasons of national security they will not be revealed to the public in our, or his lifetime, but he really knows how to hug Bush. That’s a heck of a touching scene.

As far as Dick Cheney, that eminence grise, behind our current commander in chief, no photos of his legs were made available to us either, so we had to satisfy ourselves with some stock photos of the man trying to kill something with a shotgun, although he seems to be aiming a bit high, if he’s trying to hit another lawyer, don’t you think? Cheney has always been known as a snappy dresser. He certainly did look different than anyone else during the solemn anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Or maybe he had another shooting appointment right afterwards?

Anyway, as far as family/corporate/foreign connections the dynamic Bush/Cheney duo would be hard to beat. Our advice to both Clinton and Obama would be to get a photo snapped, while kissing some influential Saudi prince. At this stage let’s not forget that Obama is a step ahead of Clinton in that regard, thanks to the turbaned photo from Kenya, which was so widely publicized by his foes and which could, if our theory is correct, actually help him get elected, not the other way around.

Clinton in turn, did get to visit Bosnia – a largely Muslim country – and even though she didn’t land and run under sniper fire, as she claimed after landing at Sarajevo airport, the Muslim connection might be a start for her. It better be Sunni, though. The Saudi Sunnis do not get along with Shiites too well, we hear.

A photo op with an oil magnate, or a Saudi prince would probably be better, if either one of our candidates can manage to finagle one before the actual election. Close contacts with groups and organizations, representing interests of other countries, rather than our own seemed to have worked quite well for the Bush dynasty. Maybe our candidates should more actively pursue those kinds of connections? Don’t worry, guys, the American people have been so dumbed down by television by now, that there is little chance of getting caught. Look at those in power right now. Despite screwing the United States out of trillions of dollars, having killed close to a million people and dumping all of our remaining prestige into the gutter, while destroying our economy, they seem to be doing quite well, indeed!

China’s expectations of showcasing itself at and before the 2008 Summer Olympic Games have taken a bit of a hit, with thousands, upon thousands of protesters, trying to wrest the Olympic flame guarded by track-suited thugs of the Chinese Armed People’s Police. China is even using a purposely-painted jumbo jet to ferry the flame and its official escort around the world.

What is this supposed to actually prove? That China is a big, powerful country? That’s a no brainer. Or maybe that China is a benign sudo-democracy? Nice try guys, particularly in view of the fact that it is a repressive communist regime, which has also become a colonial power in the last few decades, by invading, occupying and annexing regions and countries, which do not belong to them. China is the world’s leading executioner, which for years has been exporting the organs of executed people and their bodies for the disgusting “Bodies” exhibits all over the world and particularly in the United States. China hasn’t used its considerable influence to stop the genocide in Darfur, instead supplying the Sudanese regime and the Janjaweed goons with weapons and is supporting the military dictators in Burma and North Korea. And as far as the treatment of its own people? Remember the Tienanmen Square, the Cultural Revolution and take a look at this video.

What a disappointment this must all be for the China Daily, the English-language organ of the Chinese Communist Party, which last month bragged that the 2008 torch relay: “will traverse the longest distance, cover the greatest area and include the largest number of people”. I suppose that what they had in mind was the largest since the Nazis invented the whole idea of a traveling torch in 1936.

There is little, if any doubt that at least since 1949 China has been a repressive, genocidal regime. That fact doesn’t even merit further discussion. What can and should be discussed is the Han Chinese occupation of Tibet and other ethnically and culturally different areas, China’s claim to a considerable swath of Indian territory and the Spratly Islands. Despite the fact that almost all of the Chinese in China and abroad seem to be rabidly nationalistic and stand behind their Communist homeland’s rulers, insisting that Tibet is in fact a part of China, nothing could be further from the truth, but this of course would merit a separate, much more extensive article.

There is no doubt that China is not the only offender in this regard. Russia, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union still occupies a large part of the Caucasus, which doesn’t belong to them, as well as, huge regions of Siberia and the Kuril Islands. And the International Olympic Committee gave the 2014 Winter Olympics to Russia. Why? Israel continues to occupy the West Bank. There are many other examples, including ones here, in the Americas – lands taken away from their native inhabitants centuries ago and the former British, French, Dutch, Belgian and Italian colonial empires. Let’s not forget Australia, New Zealand, Greenland, U.S. meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere and so forth.

In order to secure the Games, the Chinese government made pledges to improve human rights as part of their case to be awarded the Games, including an explicit commitment to uphold press freedom. So far, there’s little, or no sign that these pledges have been fulfilled.

Several world leaders have already announced that they will not attend, or at least that they will be absent during the opening ceremonies. When will George W. Bush realize that this is the least he could do? A number of champion athletes have also announced that they will boycott the opening extravaganza. That’s commendable, but these absences only relate to the 91,000 spectators at the Beijing National Stadium and of course the participants. How about the billions of potential television viewers throughout the world? Wouldn’t a conspicuous worldwide boycott of the TELEVISED opening ceremonies send an even stronger message? Just a thought…

Technorati Tags: china, olympics, tibet

The Republican presidential nominee vented his ire on his Democratic opponents, saying that their plans to withdraw from Iraq were “reckless”.

John McCain said that: “To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.”

As far as I can see the truly calamitous consequences were caused by the U. S. invasion of Iraq, not by a potential withdrawal. With all of Saddam’s evil, gassing and torture chambers, the Iraqi people were by far better off five years ago, than they are now. That should be pretty obvious to anyone, who isn’t brain dead.

As far as “our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East” is concerned, is McCain’s concern mainly about oil and about keeping our oil companies firmly in control of some of the largest reserves of crude anywhere? Would not be surprising if that was indeed the case. Although we might never fully find out all the details, this could be part of the plans made by Vice President Cheney’s infamous energy task force back in 2001.

During his speech in Kansas City McCain also said that: “We must once again reject, as we did in early 2007, the calls for a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces just at the moment when they are succeeding.” How does this man (and the Bush administration for that matter) define success? By the almost total destruction of Iraq, or by the deaths of close to a million people? Or maybe by the nearly complete political disarray? This is not what normal people would define as a success.

The Democratic candidates did not let these accusations lie. “John McCain was wrong about the war from the beginning, he’s wrong to call for more resources in Iraq while the American people are struggling, and he’s wrong to support a 100-year occupation of a country that needs to take responsibility for its own future,” Obama said in a written statement.

Hillary Clinton stated that: “We simply cannot give the Iraqi government an endless blank check. It is time to end this war as quickly, as responsibly, and as safely as possible. That has been my mission in the Senate and it will be my mission starting on day one as president.”

Barack Obama strongly opposed the war before he became a senator, and has faulted Hillary Clinton for voting in 2002 to authorize the invasion.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton was shaking off the latest blow to her campaign, after her top strategist Mark Penn was forced to quit over a controversy sparked by his lobbying work on a trade deal between the United States and Colombia, which Clinton opposes.

Technorati Tags: clinton, iraq, mccain, obama, war