editorial: Jingoism Isn’t Journalism! Why I Don’t Trust CNN & Corporate Media To Cover Iran

admin @ June 23, 2009 # No Comment Yet

As a critic of media, in particular of cable/satellite “news,” I’m troubled by American corporate-media, in particular CNN’s near non-stop coverage of the turmoil in Iran. Not because the story isn’t important. It’s critically important and warrants the personal coverage it’s getting from the Iranian people as they bypass corporate channels to tell their stories on facebook, youtube, flickr and twitter.

>Continue >>

Opinion/News: “President Obama: Meet Citizen Bob Who Answered Your Call!”

admin @ January 27, 2009 # No Comment Yet

Bugliosi’s case against George W. Bush differs from the war-crimes case under discussion by Constitutional scholars in that the war-crimes case centers on torture and illegal wiretapping and Bugliosi’s case deals with traditional murder in which Bush, like any other murder defendant, would stand trial in an American court and if convicted could face the death penalty or life in prison. It is Bugliosi’s belief that no citizen is above the law and that the American criminal court is suitable to try Bush once he’s out of office.

Undoubtedly, if there’s any American prosecutor able to craft a murder case against George Bush, it’s former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who first gained fame for trying the notorious Charles Manson Tate-LaBianca murder case in 1970 and ‘71. In that case Bugliosi won first degree murder convictions for all defendants, including Manson who wasn’t present at any of the crimes. Bugliosi was so consummate in his prosecution that Manson was charged with first degree murder for crimes he hadn’t physically committed. Bugliosi’s passionate genius, mastery of the law, and fearlessness in the face of Manson family threats, enabled him to prevail in the prosecution, much like his genius and fearlessness would compel him to prevail in this case he has crafted against George Bush.

>Continue >>

editorial: Abolition Now!

admin @ December 20, 2008 # 2 Comments

I’d never noticed that slavery hadn’t been abolished. I’m 68, born and raised right here in the U.S. of A., and until a few weeks ago I thought that slavery had been abolished. Except, of course, as punishment for a crime, but what’s wrong with that? I’m a law-abiding citizen, and criminals do need to be punished, right? But with slavery? Shouldn’t hard labor (involuntary servitude) or even the death penalty be sufficient?

Then I tried to imagine the death penalty being abolished except as punishment for a crime.

Doesn’t make sense does it?

>Continue >>