NOT KEEPING IT REAL

This guy's up for attempted rape while the IMF continues with its crimes

I've said it before and I'll say it til my heart blows out: The American media sucks big time.

Unless you go to independent sources, the information we are served up is nearly all crap. Let's look at what we've got going right now. Two stories that won't go away: A bin Laden, postmortem soap opera; and the boss of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) up on attempted rape charges.

Without reading the endless procession of updates on these two non-stories -- which would be a stellar waste of time -- I think I have a quite accurate take on what's pertinent here.

1/ bin Laden. We're wallowing at the level of who did what, when, where and why. Who is/was opposed to it. Who knew what, when. Whether there were mistresses involved. Exploding vests. Hideout porn. And, yes, why our invasion-fueling president is a god because he (?!) "got" bin Laden. All of this swill tells me two things. Firstly, the waters are being muddied so we don't learn anything too important. Secondly, the waters are being muddied so we don't ask any questions about anything too important. Like: Why does nearly everything our governmnent do rely on muscle, subterfuge, lies and civilian casualties? I personally don't believe it's because the people in D.C are dumb. I believe it's because that's the way a bully gets what he wants and establishes a pecking order. Allies, U.N., scholars and humanitarians be damned. And if you think for one second that -- Wikileaks aside -- you're ever going to find out how all that bin Laden stuff went down, you're out of your mind. But as long as the government can keep us obsessively sniffing for it, we'll be pretty much out of their hair.

2/ The IMF dude -- Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Being held without bail for sexual assault/attempted rape. A serious issue. Yes. But front page material day after day... with all that we're faced with in this world? No way! The REAL story is why the IMF isn't on trial for raping the Third World for decades. And I say that with the utmost seriousness. But again, if the government/media/whomever can personalize an issue, we'll start to lose sight of the issue itself and instead demonize some individual who is, really, either not that important, or pretty easily dealt with. If Strauss-Kahn committed attempted rape, it is a very serious matter. It just isn't any more important in a GLOBAL WAY than what any other rapist does. And trust me, the IMF will manage to continue its plundering whether this geezer is in the big chair or not.

The message never changes: We have to keep our eye on the big picture because the mass/corporate media will never do that for us.

And that's one story that's as real as it gets.

Take care,
Adrian
PS: Thank you and welcome to those folks who've signed up for "House on Fire" in recent weeks. I really appreciate it and hope I am of service to you in some small way with this blog.

IF YOU FOUND THIS BLOG POST INTERESTING you might like to take a look at THE MASS MURDERERS OF WASHINGTON D.C.

ROYAL WEDDING NONSENSE

What's wrong with this picture? (The correct answer is: "Everything")

The plight of millions has been trumped again. This time by a pair of filthy-rich kids getting married.

A Royal Wedding. Media hoopla. Incredible cost to the public purse.

Are we so spiritually impoverished that we somehow need to be "a part" of this? I really don't believe so.

We don't need royal families. Personally, I'm quite convinced we don't need presidents since they do virtually nothing good and plenty that is bad. Many thousands of people die around the globe every day due to poverty related problems and the media feeds us stories about the stratospheric cost of a wedding dress. This is insanity.

Rich people wasting money is not news that we need. I say, abolish all royal families. Throw out all figureheads. Don't worship plastic prophets. These people are not our friends. They don't have our best interests at heart.

I believe most people no longer buy into all this garbage. But if you turned on your TV or looked at a news story on the Internet or in a newspaper this past week, you'd be led to think otherwise. This is the Idiot Culture at work and it's a drug we can't afford, don't need, must kick.

If you need to celebrate something, celebrate your life, your potential, your kids. Celebrate YOUR royal family. Celebrate the opportunity to make this a better world.

Let's focus on what's real and important and not let the mass media spoon-feed us distractions as the climate goes to hell and children starve.

We are better than that.

Take care,
Adrian
FOOTNOTE: In reading the comments threads about the royal wedding on various news sites, it seems the main theme of the "pro" comments is "Boo to the cynics. Thank goodness for a positive news story." This is so very sad. The fact is there are many positive things that the media could report that would be more meaningful to the masses. This isn't a choice between positive and negative. It's a choice between meaningful and absurd, and absurd won again.

IF YOU FOUND THIS BLOG POST INTERESTING you might like to look at THE IDIOT CULTURE.

JUAN WILLIAMS, MEDIA MORONS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Juan Williams: Shouldn't have had the job in the first place.

National Public Radio (NPR) has fired political "analyst" Juan Williams. Let the storm in the wrong tea cup begin.

Among other things, Williams works for NPR and the FOX network.

Already there is much huffing and puffing about so-called "liberals" being too touchy and "conservatives" being too insensitive. And if you see someone on a plane in "full Muslim garb," as Williams put it on that disgusting freak-fest called The O'Reilly Factor on FOX, well, of course you're going to be nervous!

The mass media love to miss the point, keep us all arguing and getting upset, and maintain the status quo, rather than getting any real information and demanding true democracy. Here's my take.


PEOPLE WITH COMMON SENSE NEED NOT APPLY

Williams did not scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- or "Bomb!" on a crowded airplane -- and so he has a First Amendment right to say pretty much as he pleases. HOWEVER, it is way past time that we insisted on having journalists who really are ANALYSTS and don't spout simplistic crap and get well paid for it.

And that's a long line of so-called journalists we're talking about.

Mr. Williams argument that, hey, lot's of people think the same thing when they see a Muslim on a plane is a schoolyard-level argument.

To begin with, he's making an ASSERTION, not providing evidence -- unless he can prove he's psychic. But let's run with his assertion for now.

Even if some folks do feel some concern about seeing a Muslim in full "garb" on a plane because they've been brainwashed by a mass media machine that doesn't educate us as it blusters along in a bid to win advertisers, at least they have the sense not to say it out loud. Something in them recognizes that it is an irrational fear.

They know that "Muslim" rarely means "terrorist." That people have freedom of religion in this country. And, to make even the crudest of arguments, they know that terrorists usually just wear plain clothes when doing what they do.

As several other commentators have now pointed out, Williams' Muslim assertion has direct parallels with our stereotyping of blacks in this country. You simply cannot cite particular incidents to generalize about an entire race, creed, religion, etc. -- and we have to start insisting on that. Ask a college student: They teach the limitations of generalization in Logic 101 and statistics classes.

If other nations were to do that, guess what, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHTS MINDS WOULD WANT TO BE AROUND AMERICANS! I mean, our government/corporations have invaded more nations than Britney Spears. But you and I didn't give the order. See what I mean?


IT'S UP TO US

Really, we need to look at ourselves. Our government, our media, our education system. And we as individual citizens need to speak out. The French put us to shame in this regard: which is why our government/corporations want us to hate them.

We get too much of our "education" from biased media talking heads who don't bother to explain what Islam is and the diversity within it -- among many other things they don't explain in their rush to be conservative, keep things as they are, and to win advertisers.

If you want to throw fuel on the extremist fire, just keep insulting religions.

Why don't we get the best minds in the country interviewed on FOX (and not cut them off every 30 seconds) and elsewhere? And yes, I'm talking about people like Noam Chomsky who I have mentioned in this blog before.

At day's end, the real issue is not whether Juan Williams had a right to say what he did. The real issue is whether we want simpletons and people with cynical agendas holding positions where their views are heard by millions of people.

I vote "no" on that one.

Take care,
Adrian Zupp

FOOTNOTE: I didn't want to make this post about NPR but I will say that I am not a complete fan. They have corporate connections that have biased their reporting at times and they are less "open" than many people think. Noam Chomsky talks about that fact in this YouTube clip.

IF YOU FOUND THIS BLOG POST INTERESTING I invite you to take a look at THE FIRST AMENDMENT BELONGS TO YOU.

TV -- PT. 2: WHY TV MATTERS

In his classic book "1984", George Orwell wrote: He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

There is, today, a larger truth that Orwell could not have guessed at in the pre-TV days in which he was writing: Those who control the electronic media, control everything.


OWNERS AND LIARS

And that's why I'm blogging about TV. That's where, sadly, most people get their information from: commercial (and even public) stations with owners/advertisers/donors/CEOs determining their agendas.

Information of any real import, that comes from your TV (or newspaper or radio or commercial Internet site), is very rarely pure and objective. There are too many important people with a lot of money at stake who have an interest in what we-the-people do and don't know.

And these people own the media. Or they are in the same class of power elites. And the last thing they need is the truth about corporate welfare or Afghan babies being blown to pieces or how they (i.e. the elites) craft the news stirring up the masses and upsetting the gravy train.

When you think about it, you don't have to be an atom-splitter to see that this all makes perfect sense.


OPTIONS? WHAT OPTIONS?

And ask yourself this: Why, with so many news "options" (CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox, New York Times, Washington Post etc. etc. etc.), do all these outlets run pretty much the same stories in pretty much the same way?

There are a few answers:

1/ The mass media is owned by a relatively small number of corporations.

2/ Many news services feed off the same sources.

3/ All of these outlets make their big money by selling advertising space (profit motive = self-censorship).

4/ And above all, the status quo, the way things ARE, is what makes the elites the elites. So they aren't going to change anything about what kind of stuff they report or how they report it. Apart from the odd story here and there to give them the look of legitimacy or "balance."

So, really, you don't have much in the way of options -- or alternative points of view -- at all.


CHECK OUT CHOMSKY    

The expert in this field is Noam Chomsky. Take a look at his books on the media. And a classic resource is the documentary about Chomsky and his life of analyzing the media "Manufacturing Consent". (You can watch it online here.

Your TV delivers propaganda. Through news, commercials, and subtle messages and stereotypes in virtually every show you watch. And when it isn't doing that, it is dumbing us down and encouraging us to "veg out" and just not think. Again, that's what the folks in control want: If we think, we might start trying to change things.

Technically speaking, the airwaves belong to us -- public property! -- but they have been stolen by corporations. That's a fact. We should send the bastards a bill.

The Internet is an alternative means of mass communication that has great potential: but the corporations are trying to narrow our access there too. I will be writing on that another time.


WHAT CAN WE DO?

The "big idea" behind "House On Fire" is that if we are to make the world a truly better place for everyone, we need to change the structure of society: how things are owned and run, and by whom. We need to change the institutions, including the mass media. Yes, it's a very big notion, but not impossible. First, we all need to get better educated and better motivated.

-- Watch less TV. You'll feel better for it.

-- Make your voice heard about the censorship of the news and the garbage that you are being served up. (Write to the stations, newspaper editors, politicians.)

-- Don't let your kids get indoctrinated by Ronald McDonald or Coca Cola or the idea that "sex sells," or that cute-n-innocent Katie Courac or, for that matter, Rupert bloody Murdoch. Limit their TV time and monitor what they watch and TEACH THEM what you learn about TV.

-- Look for genuine, objective, non-profit sources of news like the excellent DemocracyNow.org (recorded daily in New York City).

-- Comment on Internet message boards.

-- Surf the Net for sites and organizations such as FAIR that are critical of the mass media .

CONCLUSION

Think of it this way: You wouldn't let a stranger -- someone with a sketchy background and questionable motives -- into your house. Well, every time you turn on your TV, that's exactly what you're doing.

And the TV execs know how to get you to smile while they make themselves at home.

If that's not adding insult to injury I don't know what is.

Take care and kill your TV,
Adrian Zupp

IF YOU LIKED THIS POST you might like to read TV -- PT.1: GETTING A GRIP ON REALITY or THE IDIOT CULTURE.

FDR's SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS

Of all the cliches, the one I'm tiredest of hearing is: "You're lucky to have a job!"

I understand what people are getting at and I know their heart is in the right place. But their thinking is not.

To me, telling someone they are lucky enough to be able to earn a living ranks up there with telling them they're lucky they can walk down the street unmolested. Aren't these things simple human rights?

Let's face it: When you sell your labor to someone, that someone is profiting from it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy it. They aren't doing you a favor, they're doing themselves a favor.

Don't we all have the right to eat and have a roof over our heads? Isn't society structured in such a way that, in general, you're supposed to go out and get these things for yourself? If that is true, obtaining the means to make it happen should be an avenue available to everyone.

What's more, there is NO REASON why that opportunity should not exist for all who want to avail themselves of it. If there are production and service needs, and there are (we're currently sucking at: schools, hospitals, universal health care, roads, untainted food, alternative energy, inner city recreation facilities, diverse and meaningful mass media, etc), then employment should be going up. The problem is not that there's no work, the problem is that we have an economy that is based on things other than the basic needs of the citizenry.

Things like greed.

The figures on wealth distribution vary a little but no serious analyst argues that it's anything but top heavy. My source here is Prof. G. William Domhoff from the sociology department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Here's what he says:

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%."

Furthermore, we are so brainwashed into being a titanic consumer society that our economy has become heavily weighted on providing things people want (and have been trained to want) rather than the things we all really need. Like top drawer education for all, no questions asked.

Phony capitalism (we DO NOT have real capitalism) is smoke and mirrors. Advertising and PR and propaganda. You need this pill, that outfit, the car that can go from zero to 60 in the blink of an eye. (I always wonder about those car ads: Why do we need super powerful cars capable of immense speeds when we have speed limits and, well, lots of people dying on the roads. I'm not sure if that's a legal issue, a moral one, or both. Probably both.)

My point remains: Work is a basic human right. A real economy based on need and altruism requires lots of labor. And every individual should be considered equally important in their desire to provide for themselves and their loved ones. It SHOULD NOT be a given that CEOs and other deadbeats who know how to swim with the sharks get most of the goodies and then, when any of us furrows our brow, tell us that we're lucky to have a job.

And so it was with some satisfaction that I saw in Michael Moore's excellent documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story" that President Franklin D. Roosevelt [pictured above] actually came up with a Second Bill of Rights that expressed exactly what I'm talking about here. This is FDR's list (and no, it has never been officially brought into law, let alone christened as an actual Second Bill of Rights):


"FDR’s Second Bill of Rights/Economic Bill of Rights

Excerpt from President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
* The right of every family to a decent home;
* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
* And finally, the right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world."

If you'd like to see a YouTube clip of FDR actually reading this, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4

It's time we reasserted our rights as citizens and workers. You don't have to live life on your knees. Your rights and your value are as important as the richest of the rich -- many of whom, in their infinite "superiority," have recently been setting fire to our taxes on Wall Street.

Just remember this: You have rights, but it's up to you to assert them. After that, luck has not one damn thing to do with it.

Take care,
Adrian Zupp

IF YOU FOUND THIS BLOG POST INTERESTING you might like to take a look at CHILD HUNGER -- THE SCOURGE OF THE PLANET.

BIG WORLD VS. SMALL WORLD -- PART 1

Life has been busy but now I have a little time I want to blog about a key concept that will give context to pretty much everything I write in HOUSE ON FIRE. I call it “Big World Vs. Small World.”

As the name implies, this dichotomy describes two different ways of looking at the world. It also tends to describe two groups of people – although I am acutely aware that categorizing people is a practice fraught with problems.

“Big World” is the world at large. And the big issues that affect us all. The institutions, the laws, the rulers and the ruled, the global economy, the threats to the planet’s future and so on. Basically, how the world works (or, doesn’t work). “Small World” is our personal lives: Family, our job, things going on in our community, leisure pursuits, and other facets of our life that we deal with regularly. Basically, how we function from day to day.

You might also call this dichotomy “Macro Vs. Micro.”

I will go out on a pretty thick limb and say that the vast majority of people on the planet are primarily occupied with Small World affairs but at the same time are unavoidably affected by the Big World. There’s no escaping that.

Here is where I see the problem: It is so easy for us to become weighed down, preoccupied or obsessed with Small World matters -- junior’s grades, earning enough money to get by, golf handicaps, football scores, new car purchases, charity work. Some of this is very important stuff; some not so important. The fact is, we do each have our Small World and have to function in it.

But this often comes at the expense of paying close attention to, and interacting effectively with, the Big World.

Why is this important?

Well, very simply, virtually everything that goes on in the Big World will impact you and the ones you love at some time and to some extent. The Big World impacts our Small Worlds because the Big World is the rather polluted, unfortunately corrupt life support machine in which our Small Worlds live. The two are inseparable.

For example, if one were to say: “I can’t think about all those big issues. It’s too depressing! I’d rather just concentrate on my own children and take care of them,” this would qualify as unsound logic. Nobody, not us or our children, live in a bubble. Our kids, our lives, cannot be shielded from the Big World because they are part of the Big World.

To deny this is the equivalent of the old “duck and cover” method of surviving a nuclear blast (pictured). That school desk you’re trying to hide under just isn’t going to do the trick. Sooner or later the shockwaves are going to hit you.

The only way you have a chance at ensuring a good life for your kids – now more than ever – is to address the problems of the world at large. Those “Big World Issues.” Environmental degradation, the control and manipulation exercised by corporations, the appallingly unfair distribution of wealth, the lack of real democracy, the privatized-propagandistic model of the mass media, the prevalence of nuclear energy plants and weaponry, the exploitation of individuals and nations in all its forms, etc.

Otherwise, guess what: There won’t be a world to live in. Big, small or otherwise.

This is getting too long. More on this subject next time.

Take care, and onward!
Adrian Zupp

IF YOU FOUND THIS BLOG POST INTERESTING you might like to take a look at BIG WORLD VS. SMALL WORLD -- PART 2.