AS IF THE FIRST OF THE MONTH BEING ON A FRIDAY WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOUR CORRESPONDENT, it just so happened that he had to get some shopping out of the way, not to mention getting his rent with the local council paid ... his city bus pass for the new month purchased ... and his iced tea maker being cleaned out, it having been awhile since that was given a decent cleaning.

In that last instance, I prefer prepared coffeemaker cleaners over vinegar, which can get to be rather smelly. And in any case, it's one cycle with the solution, followed by two cycles of water to rinse out. (This time around, it's Dip-it Automatic Coffeemaker Cleaner.)

And you wouldn't believe all the hardwater and lime deposits that came forth following the initial cleaning cycle!!

*************

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO STILL SEE THE SO-CALLED "RON PAUL REVOLUTION" AS THE LAST AND ONLY HOPE that America has for "liberty, peace and prosperity" in Indecision 2008, the good people @ The Nation have some thoughts about Ron Paul's socioeconomic programme, or want thereof, as should be worth thinking about:

The little man who wasn't there at the Republican TV debates is Ron Paul, the short-of-stature libertarian physician and Congressman. The debate moderators, who are threatening to become the ruin of electoral politics in the United States, almost never turn to ask Paul a question--that is, when he is allowed in the hall to participate.

On the occasions when they do toss a question Paul's way, they seem not to listen when he answers. And when he's finished, they turn away as if he hadn't said anything. Granted, libertarianism is a little outré and can sound as if it is close to anarchism. But there are times when Congressman Paul says things that are worth listening to.

He is the only candidate who brings up what is happening to our money, which is another way of saying that he is worried about why the cost of buying groceries is going through the roof. While the other presidential contenders are silent on the topic, Paul reminds us that "government officials consistently claimed that inflation is in check at barely 2 percent, but middle-class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition--is shrinking much faster than 2 percent each year."

Paul is the contender who seems to understand that the Federal Reserve Board is not the Vatican and that its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not the pope. It's a fixed practice by our politicians to treat whoever is the chairman of the Fed as though he were endowed with infallible powers.

On Wall Street, the sharper ones know better. They understand that lowering interest rates every time the stock market swoons will eventually, or even a lot sooner, bring a world of pain down on us. As it is, thanks to the Fed, interest rates are lower than the rate of inflation. This anomalous condition is called "negative interest," and for savers it means that their money is disappearing even as it rests safely tucked away in certificates of deposit.

For people who understand that their money is evaporating in front of their eyes there is a mighty incentive to rush out to the mall while that money is still worth something. For the moment a stampede to the stores by inflation-spooked people may please the economic pooh-bahs because current theory has it that people will buy lots of stuff, which in turn will create lots of jobs. But after they've spent their retirement money, then what?

Then people can spend their economic stimulus money. Left undiscussed is how the government is going to get the money it plans to hand out to anybody who has a pulse. Maybe Uncle Sam can borrow it from the Chinese or the Arabs--although both groups are losing enthusiasm for making loans to be paid back in ever-shrinking dollars.

Neither the Europeans nor the Brits with their higher interest rate euros and pounds will have much interest in investing in lower-rate dollars. There don't seem to be many people left we can con into bailing us out of a mistake we repeatedly make.

The Federal Reserve Board can print the money, which is exactly what Ron Paul is afraid of. The more it prints, the less it's worth. The US suffered through years of high inflation in the 1970s and, from the standpoint of personal income, has never completely recovered.

If he could, Ron Paul would abolish three-quarters of the government, which works out to meaning that about three-quarters of what Ron Paul says falls into the "impractical dreamer" category. That leaves one-quarter--but that fraction of his agenda is, no pun intended, on the money.

=============

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED WASTEFUL AND FRIVOLOUS SPENDING in the name of socioeconomic stimulation (preferably among the Lower Classes, and in such cases preferably by way of Wally World) inspireth these remarks from columnist Jerome Christianson @ the local gazetta, wondering if the idea is really worth it in the end:

Welcome to government by T-shirt slogan: “When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.”

With an economic crisis looming, the best our leaders can tell us is, “Hit the stores and hope for the best.”

Talk about Alice in Wonderland economics — first we spend ourselves to the brink of disaster, and now we have the great minds of Washington insisting that with a little help from the Fed we’re going to spend ourselves out of it. Does this make sense?

Let us review: Let’s start with a president deciding to put the Iraq war on the national Visa card; add to that all the folks cheerfully signing on to buy houses they can’t afford with loans they can’t repay, all the while putting $1.10 on the credit cards for every dollar in take-home pay. Meanwhile, if anything in your shopping cart isn’t stamped “Made in China,” it was made in Korea, Indonesia or Vietnam. Gas is up, food is up, heat is up, and our spirits are down.

So how do we cure what ails us? Why Uncle Sugar’s going to send most of us—the ones with jobs and first-world incomes—a nice little check; something to make us feel a little better, at least until Election Day.

Well, all I can say is I sure hope my kids remain childless. I’d feel guilty about borrowing that money from my grandkids. They’re the ones who’ll be paying it back—as if we care.

I tell you, we sure can be a sorry, snively bunch.

Faced with a Depression far deeper and far grimmer than anything most of us have experienced, President Franklin Roosevelt told our grandparents and great-grandparents they had “nothing to fear but fear itself.” Our current president just tells us about all the things he wants us to be afraid of. And, to our shame, we take him seriously.

Other generations were called upon to dig deep and sacrifice for the common good. We’ve been called upon to dig deep and sacrifice for the Gucci at Macy’s.

Think about it. When our country faced down the real Hitler after the real Pearl Harbor—that was after 11 years of the Great Depression, mind you—where did the money come from to build the tanks, the bombs and the B-29s? Uncle Sam hit up the American people, and they bought the war bonds and saving stamps, paid the taxes, put up with rationed gas, rationed sugar and no new cars for the duration. More recently, when Americans asked their president what we could do after Sept. 11, Dubya sent us to the mall.

It says more than we should like it to that we, the American people, are generally identified simply as consumers. When I think about it, more than anything, it brings to mind a nest full of naked, baby birds — beaks gaped open, waiting eagerly for whatever it is that will be stuffed down their throats next.

Not always. We once were a nation of producers—the “Arsenal of Democracy” we boasted, and with every justification. There was a time when people bought and owned what they did in order that they could better do what they did—raise a crop, make shoes, cast steel, build a cathedral. And they did it with pride.

Maybe it’s that pride that made those generations different from ours.

Faced with truly hard times the president and the Congress bought us Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, our own City Hall and, if you look at the curb in the older parts of town you can still find stamped into the concrete “WPA 1936.” This president and this Congress look to buy us a PlayStation or Wii with the money landing in a bank in Shanghai.

And our country is in need of the money politicians are suddenly eager to have us spend—just as it was three quarters of a century ago.

Indeed, the bridges they built then are falling; the water mains they laid then are leaking; the national character they built is crumbling. In the ’30s, the president and the Congress looked for ways to put money into their constituents’ hands—constituents who needed work, needed heat, needed food for the family table. This president promises to veto increased funding for heating assistance, for food stamps, for the unemployed and the Congress will go along rather than risk their promise of big screen TVs to the reasonably affluent.

And no, if the check arrives in my mailbox, I won’t stamp it “Return to Sender.” I’ll just write it off as another example of wasteful government spending, stick it in the bank and go on with my business. I gave it to them once with the intent that they make good use of it—build a road, feed a soldier, buy a textbook—and they let me down. They’re letting us all down.

Better yet: Might I suggest turning over any rebate cheques you get (if @ all) to the Bureau of the Public Debt, using the same as Voluntary Gifts to Reduce the National Debt Held by the Public.

Unless someone out there can show cause why maintaining the National Debt @ such high levels as now ($9 trillion and climbing) is necessary for the sake of National Identity. (You can leave them in the Comments section.) 

And PLEASE, spare us the "political reasons" patsies and platitudes!

HOW A FATALLY-FLAWED NO-BRAINER OF AN "ISSUE" COULD PROVE IMPORTANT IN INDECISION 2008: A recent editorial by Dave Zweifel in The Capital Times (Madison, WI) as is worth sharing:

We're learning once again why government needs to protect capitalism from itself.

Back in the 1930s Franklin D. Roosevelt came to the rescue of the so-called "free market" with a series of new programs and regulations to restore trust in the nation's financial and corporate institutions, whose excesses had thrown the country into the Great Depression and ruined the financial well-being of millions of Americans.

Roosevelt and many of the reformers of his day recognized that the interests of business don't exist in a vacuum, that the fortunes or misfortunes of businesses can have a profound impact on even the most innocent of citizens.

Laissez faire advocates like the late Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman protested, saying that nothing should "interfere" with the "free market" and that unfettered competition would right the marketplace. History has proven them wrong.

Time and time again, corporate America has shown that greed, unless checked by government oversight, will unjustly ensnare the unwary.

We saw it with the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s, we witnessed it with the Enrons and Worldcoms of just a few years ago, and we're seeing it again with the subprime mortgage meltdown.

It would be one thing if the recklessness affected only the companies themselves. But that's far from the case.

Even responsible mortgage holders who have never missed a payment on their loans suddenly find themselves with mortgages that exceed the values of their property because the subprime fallout keeps growing like a cancer.

Now comes the news that countless local governments that depend on the property tax to fund everything from police and fire protection to the public schools are facing devastating shortfalls in revenues because assessment values are plummeting--it's either that or raise tax rates.

In other words, the irresponsibility of the financial marketers is likely to cause significant cutbacks in the quality of public service clear down to the number of teachers for our children.

That shouldn't be allowed to happen and it's why the public--through its governmental institutions--needs to be protected with meaningful oversight and regulation.

History has shown us that greed quickly raises its ugly head when the capitalist community is allowed to use its own devices.

The public--and the well-being of the country--needs to be constantly protected. The lessons are quite clear.

Which, no doubt, the Zealots and True Believers of free-market capitalism with American characteristics being one with the soverignty and soverign identity of the United States, and the defence thereof, will quickly dispute as being nothing short of "subtly-disguised Communism," and suggesting, as per usual, that market-based self-regulation based on industry-specific Codes of Good Practice will "save America from herself" and "lead to a New Golden Age of Industry, Self-Reliance, Personal Responsibility, Thrift based on Cash Economy and a Wholesome and Simple Home Life" as the Lower Classes especially would "wholeheartedly" accept.

Otherwise known as "producerism," the which is explained for you in this online slide show.

=============

Soooo, @ the expense of being seen by the Zealots and True Believers, and their fellow-travellers, as nothing more than "creating non-issues out of whole cloth***that nobody is really interested in" in an election year," perhaps it was time to start asking this element a few questions which may be loaded--for a purpose--but which have to be asked nonetheless:

• Can you show any examples from the "developed" world of countries where official policy expects free-market socioeconomic models to predominate? Are they expected to follow self-regulatory models, for the most part?
• Are such self-regulatory models actually translating into lower consumer prices, greater consumer choice, and creation of real jobs and payrolls (even considering Value-Added Tax in some countries)?
• As far as the United States is concered, can you name any examples of industry-specific Codes of Good Practice which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has "safe harboured" (i.e., determined to be more than adequate regulatory oversight without further Government intervention)?
• In such industries as are covered under these self-regulatory codes, is there actually realistic competition being encouraged, translating into reasonable consumer prices and jobs creation--or are there coded "traps" which secretly encourage cartel behaviour and its excesses?
• How do we know such Self-Regulatory Codes as you would love to see in place will actually encourage healthy competition, wider consumer choices and options, and create jobs, let alone "encourage morality"?
• How do we know self-regulatory codes will actually compel manufacturers and retailers to, "out of the collective goodness of their hearts," lower prices and increase consumer selection overnight, as if magically?
• How do we know you're not secretly asking for reinstatement of "Fair Trading" laws as prevailed until the mid-1960's in the name of "protecting the free market" by way of a "level playing field" excusing such excesses of cartel behaviour as:
  • price-fixing?
  • Reseller Price Maintenance Agreements?
  • "tied-house" agreements prohibiting sale of identical products manufactured by competitors?
  • restricting or otherwise prohibiting brand advertising?
  • controlling manufacture and distribution?
  • deceptive marketing practices such as repackaging essentially the same product under different "brand names," each with supposedly distinct and pecuilar characteristics?
• Would your ideal of self-regulatory models place too burdensome an onus upon consumers encountering defective merchandise or other problems to the point of their bringing complaint?
• How sure can we be that self-regulatory business models will actually improve the quality of life for especially the Lower Classes "heretofore enslaved to State welfare and its subtle tendencies towards Socialism"?
• How would self-regulatory business models actually encourage "a wholesome and simple home life"?
• What sort of checks and balances would you actually have in place as part of these self-regulatory codes to ensure the confidence and trust of manufacturers, retailers and end consumers?
• Are you now, or have you ever been, an alcoholic, drug addict, sex fiend or pervert, chronic and habitual gambler or spendthrift, sufferer from loathsome mental or social diseases, and/or served time in prisons or psychiatric hospitals?
• Have you no sense of Decency, Sir, @ long last?
• Have you left no sense of Decency?

You know where to leave the answers.    

AS TWO RECENT REPORTS FROM THE FOX ATTACKS PROJECT @ Brave New Films have exposed to that proven disinfectant of air and sunshine, Fox Noise has this nasty little repute for having female newsreaders wear sexually-provocative or otherwise titillating clothing on camera, and then for no other purpose than sexual gratification on the part of its audience @ the Park & Flush Trailer Park.

Such, methinks, on deliberate orders of Keith Rupert "himself," and then solely for "keeping the audience in their proper place" short of outright Page Three behaviour. And yet the same forces of the Pseudoreligiopolitical Right seeing Fox Noise as the only credible news channel worth the trust and confidence of "right-thinking Americans" otherwise not expected to know much, who otherwise take issue with all manner of "indecency" to the point of unleashing hysteria causing no end of added work burden for the Federal Communications Commission, have yet to take issue in this respect.

Need I remind these same Elmer Gantry types that "silence equals acceptance;" hence, by your keeping silent on this particular issue of sexual titillation, you are giving lip service to Fox Noise for allowing such as you would otherwise look upon as "indecency."

(I hope to address this further in a forthcoming Open Letter.)

=============

IN CASE YOU NEED PRECEDENT FOR HOW THE APPEARENCE OF SEXUALLY-PROVOCATIVE DRESS can get one in Dutch, consider the following recent adjudication against European cut-price airline Ryanair by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority:

Ad
Press ads in the Herald, Daily Mail and Scottish Daily Mail were headed "HOTTEST BACK TO SCHOOL FARES."  Underneath the heading was a picture of a teenage girl or woman standing in a classroom and wearing a version of a school uniform consisting of a short tartan skirt, a cropped short sleeved shirt and tie and long white socks.  Body copy stated one way fares to Derry, Belfast, Budapest, Grenoble and Stockholm (Skavsta) were £10 including taxes and charges.  A footnote stated "Book until midnight 23.08.07.  Subject to availability, terms & conditions.  Flights direct from Glasgow (Prestwick)."

Issue
The ASA received complaints from 13 readers.  They believed it was offensive to show what appeared to be a schoolgirl posing and dressing provocatively and that the ad implied there were sexual connotations to the image.

Response
Ryanair said the ad ran in three national daily newspapers with a combined circulation of 3.5 million.  They said that, in that context, they considered 13 complaints was an insignificant number, which they believed clearly demonstrated the overwhelming majority of UK residents did not find the ad offensive.

Ryanair disagreed that the ad suggested sexual connotations.  They believed it was obvious that the image was of a woman fully clothed and that the short skirt and bare midriff were representative of the type of clothing that was fashionable among young women in the UK.  They believed the ad was likely to be found offensive only by the minority of people who were likely to find any such representation objectionable.  They believed the ad was considerably less suggestive than much of what appeared regularly in ads or other promotions in UK media.

The Herald said they had received a complaint from one reader about the ad and that they were not prepared to run it again.

The Daily Mail and Scottish Daily Mail said they had not received complaints direct from their readers but nevertheless would not run the ad again.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered the model's clothing, which included long white socks and a tie, together with the setting of the ad in a classroom strongly suggested she was a schoolgirl.  We considered that her appearance and pose, in conjunction with the heading "HOTTEST," appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behaviour and was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Decency).

Action
We welcomed The Herald and the Daily and Scottish Mails's assurances that they would not run the ad again.  We told Ryanair to withdraw the ad and to ensure that future ads complied with the CAP Code.

Fox Noise, for its part, will likely play the patsy that their audience (for the most part poor, undereducated and easily-led) has no regard for decency in the first place; hence, they "deserve" such carefully-scripted doses of titillation and sexual provocation.

Not Only That: Fox Noise doesn't take too kindly towards the poor as an article of faith, as witness these rather uncalled-for comments from Bill O'Reilly:

Satisfied, readers?

*************

CONSISTENT WITH THIS BLOG'S BELIEF THAT "IT'S A SMALL WORLD, AFTER ALL," and that we "morally-superior" Americans could learn a few things from the broader world @ large, Your Correspondent feels it best to note where the Australian motor club NRMA is calling upon the New South Wales state government to move more of the freight traffic currently hauled by over-the-road trucks to rail transport.

The rationale therefor?

A series of recent accidents involving OTR trucks on the F3 freeway in Sydney's northern suburbs as led to major traffic disruptions near the Hawkesbury River bridge, not to mention traffic diversions onto Old Pacific Highway.

What would stand in the way of us Americans from thinking likewise?

AS THE WEATHER FORECASTS ARE SHAPING UP HEADING INTO THE WEEKEND, including Groundhog Day on Saturday, it appears unlikely that either Punxsutawney Phil or Sun Prairie Jimmy will see their shadows, meaning, according to the auld legend, that spring will be forthcoming within measurable distance.

But then again, there is hardly any scientific validity for this old folklore chestnut.

*************

"WOULD I LIE TO YOU?!" spake Joe Isuzu in the TV adverts for Isuzu Motors in the late 1980's/early 1990's, in time becoming a catchphrase among such seeking to challenge the credibility of incredible arguments.

Now it seems rather ironic, what with Isuzu Motors announcing that it would be winding up its North American operations by the end of the year, citing declining sales and a weak dollar only getting weaker thanks to His Fraudulency's warped and misguided socioeconomic ideology perpetuating flawed "trickle-down" models.

As they'd say in Bloemfontein, "Sal ek louen jou?!"

*************

SO MUCH FOR THE IRAQI FRONT OF THE UR-RAHOWA AGAINST TERRORISM TRANSLATING INTO HEALTHY PROGRESS for a post-Ba'athist Iraq:

Comparisons are being made with the telephonic network in parts of Baghdad by certain customers of Telstra, Australia's telecoms company, after reports of repair crews using plastic bags and friction tape to perform line repairs in country areas.

Telstra, for its part, blames "critical shortages" of line repair staff.

*************

MEMO TO ANTI-ABORTION ZEALOTS AND TRUE BELIEVERS:

Correct me if I'm wrong (especially all you Snopesters out there), but I read somewhere that 77% of the anti-abortion movement's leaders are actually men.

And what's more, none of them are likely to get preggers.

Which brings up another interesting enquiry:

How many of these men in leadership positions among anti-abortionists can be considered outright chauvinists and/or misogynists?

How many such actually have police records for the likes of:

• indecent sexual assault?
• lewd and lascivious conduct?
• spousal and/or child abuse, neglect or non-support?
• sodomy?
• bestiality?
• rape?
• incest?
• Mann Act violations (as in transporting women interstate for "immoral purposes")?
• drunk and disorderly?
• public indecency?
• crimes relating to prostitution, including, but not necessarily limited to:
  • soliciting or otherwise patronising prostitutes?
  • patronising, or otherwise being found in, houses of ill-repute?
  • pimping?
  • procurement (including use of coercion or force)?
• crimes relating to child pornography, including, but not necessarily limited to:
  • producing, distributing or procuring child pornography?
  • possession of child pornography?
  • soliciting, recruiting or procuring children to appear in child pornography?
  • child sex tourism?

What's more, how many of these same men in question can be considered as:

• alcoholics?
• drug addicts (especially of narcotic or otherwise habit-forming such)?
• mentally and/or emotionally disturbed (especially if they were subjected to sexual abuse, incest or domestic violence in childhood, and have yet to come to terms with same)?
• "sex fiends or maniacs"?
• sufferers of certain loathsome diseases, especially the social such?
• undischarged bankrupts?
• veterans of military service with less than honourable, dishonourable or Section 8 discharges?
• "troublemakers" on privately-circulated "watch lists" of persons not to be given employment under any circumstance?
• "chronic and habitual welfare cases"?
• boasters or such otherwise to be considered as less than credible (e.g., as police informants)?
• such known to associate with "weird and/or unwholesome elements" or among the Dregs of Society?

*************

COULD IT BE THAT THE SO-CALLED "RON PAUL REVOLUTION" IS ABOUT TO RUN OUT OF STEAM, never mind his campaign's fundraising prowess among the Great Unwashed?

Especially when you stop and consider where, in all primaries and caucuses heading into Super Tuesday, the Libertarian-turned-Republican Presidential maverick and "his message of freedom, peace and prosperity" hasn't quite resonated with GOP voters, usually to the point of Ron Paul finishing with the wooden spoon, or close to it, in the final numbers.

Hence, enough to watch the post-Super Tuesday fallout to see if Ron Paul's campaign announces its winding up for want of interest ... and a larger question looming about what to do with the millions in campaign donations raised to date from the masses.

Not to mention the still-lingering question of Ron Paul's name being associated with a series of newsletters from the mid-1980's on as contain all manner of racist, white-supremacist, jingoist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, xenophobic and (in sum) producerist messages and screeds (for which Mr. Paul denies any association--but, to Your Correspondent, who exactly is Ron Paul fooling? Himself, the publishers of the newsletters in question, his unwitting dupes and suckers, or--who?)

=============

AND WITH THE "OFFICIAL" GOP PRESIDENTIAL WANNABE FIELD'S JOHN McCAIN IN THE LEAD DELEGATE-WISE heading into Super Tuesday's primaries and caucuses (Minnesota being among the states caucusing on the evening), perhaps it was time to dust off the fact of McCain's connexions to Charles Keating of the now-defunct Lincoln Savings and Loan Association in Irvine, California (and Associated Institutions), and their likelihood of raising questions about McCain's trustworthiness, confidence--and credibility.

Not to mention the Willie Horton of an albatross as still hangs over Mike Huckabee's aspirations, as well as his connexions to weird and unwholesome pseudoreligious elements, his invoking false credentials (pseudo)religious, usw.  

FIRST, AN EXPLANATION FOR THE UNINITIATED: The allusion in the Subject line is to a common device which the late comedian Red Skelton oft used in his radio (and, later, TV) programme to present different humourous treatments on a particular topic within the context of the same episode.

In other words, telling the same story through the likes of one or more of Skelton's several comedic characters:

• Willie Lumplump, "King of the Mynah Birds" (as in a rather obnoxious drunkard prone to disrupting meetings or other congregations of particular people);
• Clem Kadiddlehopper (a slightly-ignorant rustic from the country finding himself in the city and, hence, unaccustomed to city ways as opposed to the slightly risqué such of the country as he's accustomed to);
• Freddie the Freeloader (a down-and-out bum scamming his way into a night's lodgings @ the local rescue mission or a hot meal);
• San Fernando Red (Southern California's answer to the starched-shirt Southern machine politicos with a fondness for personal gain @ the expense of the public well-being);
• Cauliflower McPugg (a down-and-out prizefighter knowing of no other life save The Sweet Science, and all too often cast as cannon-fodder against grossly-outranked opponents); and
• Junior, The Mean Widdle Kid (a lisping unholy terror who could easily be a precursor of Bart Simpson or Stewie Griffin, even to the point of annoying his grandmother and aunt to the point of arousing their wrath).

Admittedly, the concept behind the Skelton Scrapbook of Satire (as in discussing one topic from several different satiric perspectives) is a bit new and alien to me, so bear with moi while I use the same as foundation for the topic of so-called "Internet Addiction."

=============

THE "TWELVE THUNDERBOLTS" MAY NOT BE STRONG ENOUGH: Your Correspondent understands where the so-called "People's Republic of China," itself seeing the Information Stuporbahn as a Threat to the Established Order of Society, has started using rather tasteless treatments almost out of The Snake Pit or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest against teenagers and young adults suspected of being "in danger of Internet Addiction" based on narking to agents of the local Block Committee.

No doubt sure to attract the interest of certain hyperconservative Zealots and True Believers here in the "morally superior" United States having paranoia about "Internet Addiction" among especially Vulnerable Youth "potentially leading to serious moral and political error" which, if left unchecked, could lead to Serious Mental Disorders (as if suggesting that a rigid and unswerving adherence to "goodthought"--Newspeak for orthodoxy--based on conservative models tending to xenophobic nativism, racism and isolationist self-sufficency was "healthy."

(Yeah, right--if "healthy" is meant to understood "acting stupid by design" while otherwise knowing what's going on.)

Especially considering where the People's Republic's approach to the pseudodisorder involves use of electroshock, fear, loathing, Pavlovian condition--in effect, everything short of waterboarding and the Twelve Thunderbolts by way of the Shaolin Temple.

In China's case, of course, "showing an unhealthy interest in politics" cam be seen as sufficent grounds for psychiatric treatment or otherwise commitment to an insane asylum. Which seems to be what Michael "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" Savage, DSM-IV notwithstanding, would like applied in service to the Greater Conservative Agenda and its Articles of Faith.

=============

WHY RELIGION AND PSEUDOSCIENCE MAKE GREAT BEDFELLOWS, AND THEN SOME: To some on the Pseudoreligiopolitical Lunatic Fringe, their view of "Internet Addiction" will probably be one of Serious Demonic Possession (insert "Tubular Bells" theme from The Exorcist series @ this point) requiring "a thorough and comprehensive programme of exorcism" for the sake of "saving Impressionable Youth from themselves."

Only as the Elmer Gantry Religiopolitical Institute of Theology's Science Faculty (or what passes for it) sees it, said exorcism being performed before an audience of poor, undereducated and easily-influenced "white trash" in the milieu of, say, the annual camp meeting in some Deep South religiopolitical backwater where deliberate ignorance prevails and is looked upon as "cultural heritage," much on the same par as other specimens thereof as hyperjuvenile sexual precocity, NASCAR and a "healthy" respect for guns and the old ultraviolence.

The exorcist, for his part, is probably the kind to keep a hip flask of Jack Daniel's on hand "for courage" in case the exorcism doesn't quite turn out as planned--as well as before the exorcism. That, and also a rather obnoxiously stentorian tone of voice invoking Elohim's assistance in casting out the demons from the poor victim of "Internet Addiction" somehow Demonically Possessed as can get to be whining, almost maudlin @ times.

Especially when the demons expected to speak Greek (as if implying that the helpless victim somehow "went homosexual" by way of the Information Stuporbahn) instead speak Afrikaans or Vlaams (even to the point of singing lusty renditions of, as approriate, "Die Stem von Suid-Afrika" or "Die Vlaamse Leeuw") ... the projectile vomit is similar to beer, tequila shots and whisky sours blended together in a charteuse-coloured, yet still repugnant-looking, mess ... and the exorcist himself winds up looking like The Human Torch, with the added element of a sulphuric odour to the flames, when the projectile fireballs fail to materialise from the exorcised, still belting forth in fluent Afrikaans.

And, to top it all off, the auditorium whence the exorcism is being performed spontaneously catches fire in a real horrorshow display of Divine Judgement the likes of which weren't seen since Balaam's Donkey. (Fox Noise, for its part, will likely report that arson or other "incedenarism" on the part of "liberal troublemakers" was involved--as per usual, based on fabricated evidence.)

=============

WHEN HANGING OUT @ THE MALL IS NOT THE BEST ALTERNATIVE TO "PREVENTING INTERNET ADDICTION" IN CHILDREN: A rather bizarre historical sidelight involving the Glen Cinema Tragedy (Paisley, Scotland; 31 December 1929), when 71 children were trampled to death following an erroneous report of fire in the projection room, was where many of the casualties were asked to leave their homes by their parents just so they could get their Hogmanay preparations done with as little distraction as possible.

So it should come as no surprise that there are likely to be certain specimens of parents who would see getting the kids out of their hair, never mind the ruse du jour the parents may want memorised in case the police especially start asking questions as to why they're @ the local mall without parental accompaiment, as a cheap and cheerful way of preventing "Internet Addiction" during especially school vacation periods and weekends. No doubt sure to give parents plenty of Tools and Answers to turn to in asking their kids to please leave the house after breakfast and not come back until the supper hour.

The former including bus passes, pre-loaded debit cards to spend @ the local mall and some petty cash "for emergencies." And for the latter, carefully-scripted bromides and platitudes aimed @ seeking to avoid attracting Unnecessary Police Attention (or, for that matter, that of mall security officers who might needlessly set off a CODE ADAM scenario, with much panic ensuing) in case they start "asking questions" that, in time, could go straight to the Child Welfare office and "attract unnecessary questions" that, to the parents, could lead to their being declared Unfit Parents and the kids placed under foster care.

Preferred stories likely to include those in the league of "sitting up for a sick friend" as has long attracted suspicions of les liasons dangeruses actually ensuing, including but not limited to:

• "My parents told me to get lost."
• "My parents told me to stay out of the house for awhile," without obvious explanation or, alternately, some made-up such unlikely to relate to facts.
• "Mom and Dad said we just can't lie around the house all day."
• "Mom and Dad have some important company to meet, and they can't afford to have us running around or just making trouble."
• "Mom and Dad could have a nervous breakdown/wind up hitting the bottle if we stayed in the house all day with nothing better to do." (Only it turns out that the parental units actually wind up themselves having nervous breakdowns when confronted by the police returning the kids home, with the whole sordid tale, scripted platitudes and all, coming forth.)

Which, all in all, could cover for something even more dangerously sordid, so requiring all manner of carefully-scripted trick and deception as above: The parents using their computer to perouse for child pornography on "hotline" servers in The Darknet. In turn, raising the possibility of the kids returning home, as instructed after brekkie and a day @ the mall, only encountering a Major Police Raid on their residence with the parents arrested for Perousal and Access of Child Pornography and seizure of the computers in question.

Once the "real" story comes forward, the parents announce that they would have the kids disinherited for "disregard of the Holy Commandment to 'Honour Thy Father and Mother'" (as in accepting their direct orders and requests unswervingly and without question or reservation), let alone asking the courts to declare said kids as Emotionally Unstable with respect to their police statements and any ensuing court testimony.

What happens next, especially among the parental units, would best be left to your imagination.

=============

As I said before, this is but my first attempt in the vein of The Skelton Scrapbook of Satire vis-a-vis one topic; hence, bear with me.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated, and, depending on what develops, I may try further such in this vein in future. 

IN VIEW OF ANOTHER ROUND OF SHARPLY COLD WINTER WEATHER (THE WIND CHILLS IN PARTICULAR) UP HERE in the Minnwissippi region as is home to Your Correspondent, he may be found once again in his flat trying to stay sane, and then some, with this his weblog.

For which your support would be greatly appreciated, both fiscally (as in the online shopping and Virtual Tip Jar) and morally (as in any one of the four categories in the Blogger's Choice Awards which this blog has been nominated).

Not to mention the recommendation of this blog to your friends across the Information Stuporbahn.

This blog's been up for just over a month now, and with over 300 hits ascribed to it (per SiteMeter.com) since launch, such can be considered a good start. More, however, can be done ... and you, the visitor, can make it possible.

But don't tell me to "get a REAL job," please; I'm too emotionally unstable to be considered fit for more conventional lines of work, understand. Even if you have the idea that my employment would be enough to "learn when to keep your [N4BSK]ing mouth shut."

*************

THERE IS NO JOY TODAY @ 1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS IN NEW YORK, boys and girls: Fox Noise's preferred and desired choice as successor to His Fraudulency in the role of "Prophet, Seer and Revelator," by name of Rudy Giuliani, a/k/a "America's Mayor" (which, by itself, was getting rather hackneyed thanks to overuse on Faux's part), has decided to give up on any chance of seeking the GOP nomination in the Twin Cities for Indecision 2008.

And so the paranoia can be said to start--a paranoia which, like that which Edgar Allen Poe documented in his short story "The Fall of the House of Usher" (if you still remember that short story), may only be its own undoing. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America explaineth:

My guess is that Fox News guru Roger Ailes has been reaching for the Tums more often than usual early in the New Year, and there are lots of reasons for the hovering angst.

Let's take an extended multiple choice quiz. Right now, which of the following topics is likely causing the discomfort inside Ailes' Fox News empire?

A) CNN's resurgence as the go-to cable destination for election coverage.
B) The incredible shrinking candidacy of Fox News' favored son, Rudy Giuliani.
C) The still-standing candidacy of Fox News nemesis and well-funded, anti-war GOP candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
D) The Democratic candidates' blanket refusal to debate on Fox News during the primary season.
E) Host Bill O'Reilly being so desperate for an interview from a Democratic contender that he had to schlep all the way to New Hampshire, where he shoved an aide to Sen. Barack Obama and then had to be calmed down by Secret Service agents.
F) Former Fox News architect and Ailes confidante Dan Cooper posting chapters from his a wildly unflattering tell-all book about his old boss. ("The best thing that ever happened to Roger Ailes was 9/11.")
G) The fledgling Fox Business Network, whose anemic ratings are in danger of being surpassed by some large city public access channels.
H) Host John Gibson's recent heartless attacks on actor Heath Ledger, just hours after the young actor was found dead.
I) Fox News reporter Major Garrett botching his "exclusive" that Paul Begala and James Carville were going to join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, and then refusing to correct the record.

I'd say it's A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. (I doubt Gibson's grave-dancing or Garrett's whopper caused Ailes a moment's concern.)

Bottom line is that Fox News is in for a very rough 2008. And the umbrella reason for that is quite simple: Eight years ago the all-news cable channel went all-in on the presidency of George Bush and became a broadcast partner with the White House. Proof of that was on display Sunday night, January 27, during Fox News' prime-time, "Fighting to the Finish," an "historic documentary" on the final year of Bush's presidency. Filmed in HD and featuring "unprecedented access," according to the Fox News press release, the show was pure propaganda. (I must have missed Fox News' "Fighting to the Finish" special back in 2000, chronicling the conclusion of President Bill Clinton's second term and his "extraordinarily consequential tenure.")

The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded.

Meaning, when the GOP catches a cold, everybody at Fox News gets sick. As blogger Logan Murphy put it at Crooks and Liars, "Watching FOXNews getting their comeuppance has been fun to watch. They made their bed, now they're having to lie in it and it's not too comfortable."

The most obvious signs of Fox News' downturn have been the cable ratings for the big primary and caucus votes this year, as well as the high-profile debates. With this election season generating unprecedented voter and viewer interest, Fox News' rating bumps to date have remained underwhelming, to say the least.

For instance, on the night of the big New Hampshire primary, CNN, which habitually trails behind Fox News in the prime-time race, attracted nearly 250,000 more viewers than its top competitor, marking a changing-of-the-guard of sorts.

The turnaround was striking when you consider that in 2004, even with no Republicans running against Bush, Fox News was still able to draw 200,000 more viewers than CNN on the night of the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Yet in 2008, with a very competitive GOP field, CNN was the ratings winner from New Hampshire.

And just look at the ratings for January 19, which featured returns from the Nevada caucus coming in during the late afternoon, and then fresh returns from the South Carolina Republican primary being posted during prime time that night. In the past, Fox News would have absolutely owned that night of coverage, as conservative news junkies flocked to their home team--Fox News--to see the results. But no more. CNN grabbed nearly just as many prime-time viewers for the Republican South Carolina returns as did Fox News.

The problem for Fox News is that it's the Democratic race that's creating most of the excitement, yet Fox News has been forced to mostly watch the race from the sidelines. That's because last winter, after Fox News tried to smear Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for purportedly attending a radical Muslim school as a child, liberal bloggers launched an initiative to get Democratic candidates to boycott a debate co-sponsored by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party. (The boycott, powered by Foxattacks.com, was later extended to any and all Fox News debates.)

The point of the online crusade was not to simply embarrass Fox News or rattle Nevada Democrats for being out of touch with the grassroots masses that distrusted and despised Fox News. The point, instead, was to begin chipping away, in a serious, consistent method, at Fox News' reputation. To spell out that Fox News was nothing more than a Republican mouthpiece and that Democrats need not engage with the News Corp. giant.

The lack of Democratic debates for Fox News has meant a huge setback for the news organization from a ratings perspective. Just look at the grand slam CNN hit last week when, on January 21, it broadcast the much-talked-about Democratic debate from South Carolina. The CNN event not only creamed Fox News in the ratings, nearly tripling its audience that night, but the debate set a new cable news mark for the most viewers ever to watch a primary debate.

In fact, of the 10 most-watched debates this election season, Fox has aired just two, compared to CNN's five. Of the 10 most-watched debates, six have featured Democrats; four Republicans.

CNN is virtually guaranteed another monster ratings win this week with a pair of high-profile debates staged in California--the Republicans on Wednesday night and Democrats on Thursday.

No wonder CNN's so giddy these days. Here's the spin CNN president Jonathan Klein put out following its New Hampshire ratings win: "There's a freshness and exuberance to our coverage that the others just aren't matching. ... Fox almost seems downright despondent in their coverage."

So I'm not the only one who feels like Fox News coverage, especially of the Republican field, often feels like a televised wake. Or maybe that's just been Fox News' collective, subconscious mourning of the Giuliani campaign.

After all, Sean Hannity serves as Fox News' official ambassador to the Giuliani campaign; a campaign that Ailes and Fox News were hoping to ride back into the White House. Yet despite showering Giuliani with all kinds of laudatory coverage, both Hannity and Ailes have been powerless, as they've watched Giuliani's rudderless campaign go nowhere for months.

Even an all-out Fox News marketing blitz to label Giuliani "America's Mayor" never got traction. In fact, it ranked right up there with the launch of New Coke, in terms of branding success. (Watch this clip to see the Fox News absurdity up-close.)

In the meantime, the rise of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and especially Mike Huckabee, with his populist streak, has caused all sorts of consternation at Fox News. Even the conservative Weekly Standard took noticed [sic]. The magazine recently wrote that "A lot of conservatives have problems with both Huckabee and McCain. Last night on Fox, for example, Sean Hannity could barely conceal his distaste for both pols."

And don't even mention Ron Paul's name to the folks at Fox News, who have stepped outside their role as journalists to try to kneecap the anti-war GOP candidate. The most blatant slap came right before the New Hampshire primary, when Fox News refused to include Paul in a televised GOP debate, despite the fact that just days earlier Paul grabbed 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucus, nearly doubling the tally Giuliani posted.

Paul's Republican supporters became so incensed by the snub that they literally chased Sean Hannity through the New Hampshire night chanting "Fox News sucks!" and captured the scene in a homemade clip that really has to be seen to be believed. (To recap New Hampshire for Fox News: Hannity was pursued by a Republican mob, O'Reilly got into a shoving match with an Obama aide, and CNN grabbed more viewers. Now that's a week to remember!)

Oh, and we can't forget the wildly hyped launch of the Fox Business Network, which, News Corp. execs bragged, would dethrone longtime cable business news champ CNBC. Of course, that might happen one day. But the early ratings for Fox Business Network have been unbelievably weak.

After two months on the air, Fox Business Network, available in 30 million homes, was attracting, on average, just 6,300 viewers on any given weekday, according to Nielsen Media Research. That was good for a nearly invisible .05 rating. (By comparison, CNBC during that period was attracting 265,000 viewers.)

Making matters worse for Ailes was the fact that on January 22, as fears mounted about a possible global financial crisis, CNBC posted its best ratings in seven years, attracting 401,000 viewers that day.

The hurdle for Fox Business Network has always been simple: Why would investors and day traders in search of reliable business information turn from CNBC over to the Fox brand, which is so well-known for passing along one-sided information? News Corp. always assumed Fox News would help launch the business channel. But Fox News is taken seriously by so few people, it may be hurting the business launch.

After all, Fox News continues to embarrass itself with a type of journalism that nobody else in the industry would dare call professional. And for proof of that look no further than Major Garrett, who is supposed to be one of the channel's nonpartisan, serious journalists. He landed a recent scoop about how former advisers to Bill Clinton, Paul Begala and James Carville, were getting set to join Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Carville immediately shot the story down, telling Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent that very same day, "Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this. I'm not getting back into domestic political consulting."

Begala did Carville one better and directly emailed Garrett to deny the story--a story Garrett never bothered trying to check with Begala or Carville before it was broadcast. Garrett's response to Begala's blanket denial? Garrett told the Democratic operative that he would take his denial "under advisement." [Emphasis added.]

Garrett then went back on the air and repeated the same story, and added the fact that Begala had been on a conference call the day before with Clinton advisers, which was also false. And no, despite his earlier email exchange with Begala, Garrett never bothered to try to confirm the conference call story with him before reporting it on Fox News.

On his Fox News blog, Garrett did acknowledge the Begala email and claimed he'd be updating the fast-moving story soon--which, he told readers, would likely be confirmed the next day when the Clinton campaign made the Begala/Carville announcement. But the next day when the story imploded, Garrett simply ignored the embarrassing gaffe.

Recounting the whole Kafka-esque charade at the Huffington Post, Begala wrote, "I've never had a more surrealistic day. If this is what one of Fox's best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up to?"

They're watching CNN capture the campaign ratings crown.

UPDATE: Fresh Nielsen numbers show Fox News' ratings woes continued over the weekend. During Saturday night's 8-10 p.m. ET coverage of the Democrats' South Carolina primary results, Fox News not only got trounced by CNN among viewers 25-54, but lost to MSNBC as well.

After all, I've never trusted Fox Noise as a credible source for news and information, let alone prolefeed tending on occasion to curiosa. 

SO MUCH FOR IRAQ ESSENTIALLY REMAINING AN AMERICAN PROTECTORATE FOR THE NEXT CENTURY: Kristina Borjesson recently produced an interesting item for BuzzFlash as questions the authenticity and sincerity of the continued stream of "bin-Laden Tapes" coming on an almost regular basis from the presumptive al-Qaeda leader since the Unfortunate Events of 9/11, all designed with no other purpose than to "keep people scared" for the sake of True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command as conservative articles of faith hold dear for National Unity and Cohesion.

As there are numerous interesting points so addressed throughout, I feel it best to share with you the same in its entirety, with emphasis added:

Late in December 2007, The Associated Press reporter Salah Nasrawi wrote a story about a Bin Laden audiotape that had just been released. Headlined "Bin Laden Threatens Israel, Warns Iraqis," Nasrawi's piece details Osama's dire threats to expand al Qaeda's jihad in Israel and to "liberate Palestine, the whole of Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the sea," threatening "blood for blood, destruction for destruction."

Then, 11 paragraphs down, Nasrawi writes: "The authenticity of the tape could not be independently confirmed. But the voice resembled that of bin Laden. The tape was posted on an Islamic militant Web site where al-Qaida's media arm, Al-Sahab, issues the group's messages."

If the tape can't be vetted, it shouldn't be used. That's Journalism 101. At the very least, the fact that it can't be authenticated should be mentioned in the story's title and continuously mentioned throughout the story as the quotes are being used. Worse, all the mainstream TV outlets picked up on Nasrawi's story and liberally quoted "bin Laden" without bothering to use the word "purported" or another adjective indicating they had no proof it was Bin Laden on the tape. Collectively, what these journalists are doing is worse than outright lying to the public. They are literally helping dangerous people with deadly hidden agendas create a virtual reality by unquestioningly conveying their messages.

Nasrawi didn't just bury the authentication problem in his story. He also referred to earlier, equally questionable "bin Laden" communiqués. "The tape was the fifth message released by bin Laden this year, a flurry of activity after he went more than a year without issuing any tapes. The messages began with a Sept. 8 video that showed bin Laden for the first time in nearly three years. The other messages this year have been audiotapes."

Reporting on unauthenticated bin Laden tapes as if they were real is, shamefully, getting to be an old practice. In November 2002, a "bin Laden" audiotape surfaced and a senior State Department official explained to CNN that the voice on the tape was indeed Bin Laden's, but that "we don't know yet whether anybody put it together, spliced or computer-generated it."

Just how could "anybody" computer-generate bin Laden's voice and create an entire bogus statement?

On February 1, 1999, William Arkin, writing for washingtonpost.com, described a voice-morphing technology that government scientists at Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico had developed.

"By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's [Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations] voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile," Arkin wrote. "To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating, "I am being treated well by my captors."

Arkin also indicated that morphing was not limited to audio, and could be used for some very interesting and disturbing purposes: "Digital morphing--voice, video, and photo--has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives."

Arkin's article inspired me to dig a little more into the bin Laden tapes.

I decided to compare this video of Osama that al Jazeera released on December 27, 2001 with other Bin Laden videos. The December 27 video is not dated, but it provides an up-close, in-focus look at the guy we all recognize as Osama from many previous photos. Now (dear reader, you're going to have to do a little work here), compare that to a tape that the U.S. government released on December 13, 2001 [see CNN footage in "Loose Change" documentary at 1:14:25 into the program]. The tape, ostensibly shot on November 9, 2001, is of very poor quality--dark and out of focus with fuzzy audio. One can't positively ID the man who is supposed to be Osama in this tape. And curiously, this alleged bin Laden is seen writing with his right hand. According to the FBI, bin Laden is left-handed.

In the November 9 tape, the purported bin Laden says things such as, "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower," and "Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for." He also says that, "Mohammed Atta was in charge of the group."

When the U.S. State Department released the tape, one BBC reporter prudently used quotation marks in this headline, "Tape 'proves bin Laden's Guilt'," before quoting President Bush and then-British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw saying that the tape was proof of Osama's guilt. "But the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Frank Gardner," adds the BBC reporter, "says that at street level in the Arab world, many believe the tape is a fake, a PR gimmick dreamed up by the US administration. And the defence minister of the ousted Taleban [sic] regime in Afghanistan told the BBC that he was doubtful about its authenticity, saying it was unlikely that Bin Laden would have been naïve enough to say such things on a recording."

It is hard to imagine a mainstream American TV reporter calling a former Taliban defense minister for a comment on anything. Yet running to President Bush for the truth hasn't always worked out for certain high-profile journalists either.

Unlike the BBC, CNN expressed no doubts about the December 27 tape's authenticity: "Osama bin Laden recounts with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States as he talks with associates on a videotape released Thursday by the Bush administration." And further down, this: "The Bush administration hopes the tape will convince skeptics, particularly in the Muslim and Arab worlds, of Bin Laden's complicity in the attacks."

A few months earlier--six days after 9/11 to be exact--CNN reported that Bin Laden had sent a statement to Al Jazeera denying that he had been involved: "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it... I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons." [September 17, 2001].

The FBI says it has no hard evidence that Bin Laden participated in 9/11. That's what the FBI's Rex Tomb told Muckraker Report's Ed Haas. The FBI doesn't want Osama for 9/11. They want him in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed more than two hundred people.

Turning back to those tapes one last time, there are other troublesome videos, including two mentioned in an October 29, 2007 MSNBC story, "Was Bin Laden's Last Video Faked?". The story has to do with two videos, one released on September 7, 2007 and another released about three years earlier on October 29, 2004. Oddly, the man in both (fuzzy, of course) tapes looks exactly the same--sitting in front of the same background and wearing the same clothes--except that in the later one, the purported Osama's beard appears younger with a beard that seems to have been dyed black. Experts are asked for their opinions and they can't say for sure what exactly is up with the tapes. Then the requisite "senior US intelligence officer" is asked the requisite question about the October 2007 tape's authenticity and the officer gives the requisite response, saying he "believes" the tape is new, but he can't discuss why. Another "even more senior intelligence officer" says he doesn't think the black beard in the new tape is fake, but again, he won't say why. I think it's time reporters stop giving passes to sources such as these. If they can't back up their statements, don't quote them. The secrecy and lack of transparency everywhere in government have reached absurd levels and journalists should fight both hard at every turn. In this case, find other, better sources that are willing to talk. They exist.

MSNBC does get points for raising the question. But excellent journalism would involve pursuing the matter until definitive answers on the provenance and authenticity of the tapes were found.

These details boil down to two things. One, all the unauthenticated audiotapes and fuzzy videos look and sound suspicious. Two, there hasn't been any clear, up-close, "look at me, I'm alive" videos of Bin Laden for years. The journalism community would do well to wonder why--and then move forward aggressively from there. The American public needs to know what's going on here.

And while they're at it, America's journalists should take a good hard look at Mr. Gadahn and his recent tape encouraging al Qaeda sympathizers to greet President Bush in the Middle East with "bombs and booby-trapped vehicles." Mr. Gadahn's real name is Adam Pearlman and he's a young Jewish man from California. Frankly, I'm not buying Pearlman's shtick or his videotapes.

Pearlman is straight out of central casting with the usual sketchy background for characters who aren't what they purport to be. He should be investigated very, very closely, as should the provenance of his tapes.

For one, don't expect Fox Noise to anything about these Amazing Revelations, obviously enough: They're already in cahoots with the GOP to the point of their being considered as outright "singers" in the propaganda department ("Whose bread I eat, his song I sing," as it were), yet fail to acknowledge as much to viewers; can you say "conflict of interest," boys and girls?