To whom it may concern:

Please allow me to use this opportunity to ask you some questions about the responsibility (or lack thereof) you may have when it comes to harnessing the power and potential of the broadcast medium for "winning of hearts and minds," never mind any patsies and bromides you may want to resort to claiming that your shows should be looked upon in the context of "entertainment" rather than news and information--with particular regards to this being an election year, where your resort to fear, vitriol, pandering to the basest of emotions and paranoia, among other vices, is more likely to be pronounced.

May I proceed:

• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the likelihood that some of your most avid listeners could be among the most vulnerable to suggestion, and the influences thereof?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware that the vulnerability I just referenced may be attributable to mental and/or psychoemotional disorders aggravated by the likes of alcoholism, drug addiction or dependency, abuse and/or mistreatment in childhood, dysfunctional parents or even the effects of veneral disease?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware that the vast majority of these vulnerable elements among your listening audience can be said to come from the lower socioeconomic classes, known to be all the more likely to associate with the Dregs of Society, among other elements weird and/or unwholesome?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the proverb that "actions have consequences"? And how such would apply within the context of remarks made on your programme, especially such with tendencies towards hatemongering, bigotry, prejudice, discrimmination, etc.--and especially so the likelihood of your using "patriotism" and "national honour," among other patsies, to excuse such remarks?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the clear and present danger for your remarks, depending on the tone, nuance, subtleties and shades of meaning thereof, being motivation enough for certain vulnerable and/or easily-influenced listeners to carry out acts, deeds and exploits which are likely to cause physical, mental and/or psychological harm or injury--perhaps even death--against members of specific and identifiable National Minorities as are targets of your hatemongering, let alone your packaging such as "harmless entertainment"?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the likelihood that the perpetrator(s) of such sinister acts, deeds and exploits could invoke the influence of your programmes, and the messages carred on same, as motivation therefor if and when questioned by police, never mind the possibility of their pleading insanity to avoid more serious consequences (even considering the likelihood for Hate Crimes enhancements)?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the likelihood that you may be asked to testify as a witness in any court proceedings as a consequence of such acts, deeds and exploits influenced by your programme's comments, even if you deliver such via video link? And that you will be testifying under oath, (un)consciously (un)aware of the consequences for Perjury?
• What sort of liability would you have for the ensuing consequences caused by the acts, deeds and exploits of some emotionally unstable listener who takes your remarks to be a call to violence, let alone a valid legal defence?
• Have you no shame?
• Have you no sense of Decency, Sir, @ long last?
• Have you left no sense of Decency?

I ask you these questions out of a clear and sincere concern for the likelihood that your remarks could too easily be taken so literally that physical and/or psychoemotional harm, fear and even death could ensue under the wrong set of circumstances, and in the hands and mind of some emotionally-unstable or overzealous listener crossing the line as a result. Not to mention ask what sort of liability you would have if you were @ least indirectly implicated.

Perhaps it was time you realised that "actions have consequences," and the wrong sort of actions could mean all the more serious consequences on your end. In such instances, what sort of remorse would you have, if any?

What steps would you try to take to avoid the likelihood of scandal, all the while unaware that scandal may already have caught up with you to the point of damage being done to your name and career?

Or have you no sense of remorse by deliberate and spineless choice?

In any case, the stakes are too great to recognise the consequences as will likely be laid upon your good name and repute.

Awaiting some logical-sounding and rational answers, I am

 Disobediently yours,
ILUDIUM PHOSDEX
(die egte artikel--aanvaar geen plaasvervangers)

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

MEMO TO BLOG READERS: You are strongly encouraged and advised to share this Open Letter to not just your friends, but also to those hosting conservative talkback radio programmes--and your local radio stations as carry them, usually on a syndicated basis.

But do so responsibly; in other words, avoid "spamming" and keep your remarks polite, yet professional.

It's the voices of conservative talkback radio especially as need to "get the message"--before something serious happens. As in reminding them of the consequences of their abusing such a powerful medium, let alone its power and intrusion, for dangerous and sinister ends.

Otherwise--?

But don't come crying to me.  

NO DOUBT THE BIG STORY HERE IN THE "MORALLY SUPERIOR" UNITED STATES THIS MORNING is the early-morning bombing attack upon a military recruitment centre in New York's Times Square district, causing property damage but no injuries thanks to its occuring @ an early hour when few would likely be in "the Crossroads of the World."

How do we know, readers, that the "real" bomber wasn't really some agent provocateur recruited by Fox Noise to cook up some sort of a "news story" to distract attention from The Real Issues such as the ur-RAHOWA's failings and the unstable electoral picture--and a mentally-unstable (and easily-led) agent provocateur @ that who can quickly be sent off to Canada (with substantial "hush money" on the side) while the "hue and cry" gets all the intense?

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

SPEAKING OF THE EVER-WORSENING UR-RAHOWA'S IRAQI THEATER OF OPERATIONS, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's state visit to Iraq is winding up with a well-calculated potshot @ our "morally superior" troops, blaming same for "bringing terrorism" into the Middle East.

In other words, suggesting that His Fraudulency's Great Within sees out troops as nothing but agents provocateur to provoke sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims through the agency of supporting militias.

Anyone care to discuss this likelihood?

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

IT'S NO WONDER THE UR-RAHOWA'S IRAQI FRONT WAS REALLY ABOUT MAINTAINING AMERICAN DEPENDENCY UPON IMPORTED OIL, notwithstanding repeated requests from His Fraudulency about energy self-sufficency being one with National Cohesion and Identity:

It's emerged that Iraqi criminal gangs are recruiting vulnerable and easily-influenced young men to assist in stealing crude oil ex-wellhead and selling it on the black market.

No wonder His Fraudulency's energy policies are based as they are on doublethink....

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

A BRITISH HUMANITARIAN AID GROUP IS TAKING ISRAEL TO TASK FOR MAKING THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN PALESTINIAN GAZA ALL THE WORSE following the implementation of an outright blockade amounting to sealing off Palestinian Gaza from the world @ large, in turn worsening poverty and human misery.

To which Israel blames the Palestinians for bringing on their own unfortunate situation, forcing Israel's hand with numerous rocket attacks from Palestinian Gaza into Israel with ensuing casualties and injuries.

Ye who see "the enemy of my enemy [as] a friend of mine" (illogical as it seems) in supporting the Palestinian Arab cause over that of a Jewish State in Israel must probably be wondering how to show "solidarity with our oppressed brethren in Palestinian Gaza" without getting the idea that they're unwittingly giving aid and comfort to terrorists, thus risking FBI enquiries.

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

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN BOXING MATCHES IN NEW YORK STATE HAD TO BE ADVERTISED AS "THEATRICAL AMUSEMENTS" under the laws then prevailing.

In any case, Your Correspondent took note previously of a loophole in Minnesota anti-smoking laws which allowed bars to use "theatrical performances" as a way to allow smoking on premises.

Now, it looks as if the loophole is about to be closed.

From TwinCities.com (the online edition of the Pioneer Press from St. Paul, know):

Facing increasing criticism for a series of smoking "performances" that have allowed bar patrons to light up across the state, the Minnesota Department of Health took steps Wednesday to draw the curtain on a practice that many see as a loophole in the statewide smoking ban.

The ban, which took effect Oct. 1, 2007, contains an exception for theatrical productions intended to allow actors to smoke as part of a role. But the law does not define a theatrical production, and bar owners have justified allowing smoking by printing up playbills and arguing their patrons are really actors.

Since the first performance in a Lake Mille Lacs bar a month ago, the Health Department has taken no action, saying it was seeking legal advice on whether theater nights violate the law.

On Wednesday, the state decided they do.

"These bars are attempting to circumvent the Freedom to Breathe Act," said Dr. Sanne Magnan, state health commissioner. "We expect all establishments to comply with the law."

Before the announcement, the American Cancer Society called on Gov. Tim Pawlenty's administration to take tougher action in enforcing the ban. The group has been instrumental in passing smoking bans across the country.

Some communities did not wait for the state to act. On Tuesday, the Vadnais Heights City Council passed a unanimous resolution requiring a permit to host theatrical productions. Though the language is not aimed specifically at smoking, the practical effect is to ban the performances.

"The decision's been made. There's not going to be any smoking. The theater stunt to go around the law was obviously against the spirit of the law. There wasn't much discussion. The law's the law," said Vadnais Heights City Council Member Joe Murphy, who added that regular theatrical productions still would be granted a license.

That surprised Dan Mundt, owner of the Vadnais Heights bar Old Clover Inn, who hadn't heard of the city's action early Wednesday but later was paid a visit by local officials to notify him. The new law was not part of the council's regular agenda.

"I don't know how they can actually do that," Mundt said. "... I think it is very poor."

He said he lost customers after the smoking ban took effect. Mundt said the performances, which run seven days a week, have brought revenue back to the bar he has owned for nearly two decades.

"I like it because it brings some money back into my pocket," Mundt said.

Mark Benjamin, a criminal defense lawyer who hatched the idea, argues that the ban has disproportionately harmed smaller, blue-collar bars and local VFWs. He was surprised at the Vadnais Heights decision, too, and suggested it could violate open government laws.

"You would think the local government would want to talk to the bar owner or people like me ... before they make such a rash decision," he said.

Wearing a medieval costume, Benjamin staged his first smoking performance Feb. 9 at Barnacle's Resort, a winter redoubt for ice fishermen and snowmobilers on the shores of Lake Mille Lacs. That was soon followed by bars throughout the state.

At first, the Health Department seemed cautious. It said it was seeking legal advice but that smoking ban violations are misdemeanors that are up to local city or county attorneys to enforce. As the number of performances grew, however, so did the frustration of smoking ban proponents. This week, the American Cancer Society called on someone—be it state agencies or the Legislature—to stop them.

Clay County Attorney Brian Melton, who has debated Benjamin on talk radio, agreed with the state's decision. He said the ban is clear.

"Just because they say they're actors doesn't mean they're actors," Melton said. "If they don't like the law, the proper way to change it is not to go out and break it, but to go through the Legislature."

How effective Wednesday's announcement is remains to be seen. Health Department spokesman John Steiger said the ban will still be enforced by complaints, which can lead to fines of up to $10,000.

Steiger said the Health Department would not release the legal opinion on which it decided the smoking performances violated the ban.

In any case, using "theatrical performances" as a way to allow smoking among bars in traditional culturally-deprived environments was nothing but a farce and joke appealing mostly to the Peter Griffin element. Anyway:

Enter the ICHC online Poker Cats Contest!

Enter the ICHC online Poker Cats Contest!

The Chinese Daily News has been slapped with a $5.2 million fine by a federal court in Los Angeles for operating a journalistic sweatshop.

Reporters testified in the case that they were forced to work six days a week at 12-hour shifts that could extend to 17 hours at times with no breaks for meals. Supervisors altered time cards to make it appear that no overtime was worked. Reporters were also given quotas of stories to come up with, according to the lawsuit.

More than 200 reporters, ad salespeople, delivery drivers, secretaries, and production workers ultimately joined the class-action lawsuit that was first filed in 2004. The group contended they were owed overtime pay dating back to 2000. All the employees work or worked out of the Chinese Daily News offices in Monterey Park, Calif., near Los Angeles. The nationally circulated newspaper also has a major office in New York City.

In a ruling issued late last Thursday by U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall in Los Angeles, the Chinese Daily News was ordered to pay the employees more than $3.5 million in damages and penalties, plus $1.5 million in interest. The ruling was first reported in The Los Angeles Times by Mariel Garza, and in The New York Times by Rebecca Cathcart.

A lawyer for the Chinese Daily News, Randall Renick, told the Los Angeles Times the paper intended to appeal, and was confident the verdict would be reversed.

The newspaper fired workers who dared to complain about the workload or overtime situation, the lawsuit contended. Lynne Wang former reporter who told the New York Times she was fired in 2005, said workers felt unable to complain because of the non-stop work, a culture of intimidation, and their ignorance of U.S. labor law.

"We are all new immigrants to this country, so we didn't know the law," Wang, a journalist who came to the United States from Taiwan, told the Times.

The Times account summarized her description of work at the paper in this way:

"Reporters were required to produce five stories a day, Ms. Wang said, which meant they had to race between news conferences and interviews for hours without a break. Production workers and packers did the same indoors, spending hours before presses and stackers. Quotas for advertising salespeople were unreasonably high, she said, and drivers were forced to navigate rush-hour traffic with long lists of delivery addresses strewn across the sprawling city."

Under such conditions as those, you have to wonder if there was incentive for reporters fabricating stories outright just to meet quota.

Not to mention imagining if similar conditions could be expected to prevail among conservative-leaning editorial travesties offering nothing but crude and deliberate prolefeed....

glitter-graphics.com

• that the "antient and pecuilar soverignty and soverign identity" of nations is conditioned upon acceptance of racist, white-supremacist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic and producerist articles of faith, and the policies excusing same;
• that any tendencies towards diversity, tolerance and multiculturalism are works of the Devil, and, hence, "will only lead to error;"
• that White Christians have the sole and exclusive monopoly "as of right" to "power and control;"
• the defence of Traditional Christian Values is that of free-market capitalism, and vice versa;
• the maintenance and defence of free-market capitalism in its "pure" form requires the maintenance and acceptance of racist, white-supremacist, xenophobic and producerist policies and their articles of faith; and
• racism and xenophobia are all the more essential and necessary to maintain the purity and stability of free-market capitalism as the Great White Father (so to speak) of especially the Lower Classes.

You know where the answers can be left--so long as they're clean, inoffensive and rational.

IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED IN CERTAIN QUARTERS THAT THE MORE BLATANTLY OBNOXIOUS THE HOMOPHOBIA GETS, you can expect the messengers thereof to be, perhaps, latent homosexuals themselves.

(As in being, perhaps, homosexual ... yet unwilling to come to terms with the possibility thereof, perhaps out of fear that any revelations thereof might cause scandal or otherwise undermine public confidence or trust in the messenger.)

Such a likelihood has been suggested in the case of Rev. Fred "Westboro Baptist Church" Phelps, himself rather notorious for his "educational" protests @ the funerals of Americans killed in ur-RAHOWA action (the which Westboro sees as Divine Judgement Upon America for Tolerating Homosexuals and Homosexuality, in turn Conspiring to Undermine Our Antient and Pecuilar Soverignty and Soverign Identity).

Maybe it was time to raise the likelihood thereof in the case of GOP Presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee, considering recent foot-in-mouth pronouncements suggesting that homosexuality leads, in due time, to bestiality (cf. innumerable jokes over the generations suggesting that the main reason Baptists fear the latest fads is "because it might lead to dancing").

IMHO, Your Correspondent is unaware of any carefully-researched, peer-reviewed studies suggesting an interconnexion between homosexuality and bestiality, howbeit remote. (If, reader, you are aware of any such studies coming from credible channels, please let me know.)

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

IN ANY CASE, BESTIALITY SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH ZOOPHILIA, which are oft mistaken for each other--as in:

• Bestiality being the actual act of actus coitu with one of another species, usually mammalian; and
• Zoophila being erotic arousal or stimulation brought on by pictures or video of animals engaged in mating activity or behaviour.

Not to mention homosexuality itself likely to be confused with:

• transvestism (dressing up in clothing and/or otherwise displaying behaviours and mannerisms "not belonging to his or her sex");
• transsexualism (engaging in heterosexual and homosexual relationships on a regular basis); and
• hermaphroditism (a rare genetic mutation which results in persons thus afflicted having male and female characteristics in the same person, no doubt inspiring plenty of weird fantasies in the prepubescent not unlike the Carl and Hoodsey subplot of As Told by Ginger, if you still remember that series).

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

AS IF THE DEFENCE OF HOMOPHOBIA BEING THAT OF FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM wasn't illogical-sounding enough (as in one being conditioned by the other, and that the two are mutually interrelated), perhaps it was time to ask:

• How many of the world's developed countries having socioeconomic models and policies based on free-market capitalism have formal policies and/or mandates tending to outright fear and loathing of, not to mention contempt for, homosexuality and homosexual behaviour?
• Is there a valid justification for such officially-sponsored homophobia being necessary to maintain "socioeconomic order and stability"?
• Would such policies include referring real or suspected homosexuals to psychiatric hospitals for "reparation therapy" or other discredited pseudomedical techniques to "cure" homosexuality and "condition" such along Pavlovian models towards "healthy" heterosexuality?
• Do same policies amount to, in effect, blacklisting homosexuals from any right to earning a livelihood, receiving social welfare benefits, or exercise of civil rights? What prevents the regime(s) in question from openly acknowledging as much?
• Is such a mindset, in effect, nothing short of a sentence of shunning to the point of emigration being seen all too often as the last and only option such homosexuals have (yet unable to come up with funds to effect such under more normal channels, thus prompting applications for seeking refugee status based on "fear of persecution" claims)?
• Was "Divine Revelation" used to justify such policies of outright contempt for the epicene?

Answers as are logical, factually-based and can be verified can be left in the comments section. Remember, though, to avoid using the Seven Dirty Words and variants thereof in same, under pain of their deletion.

WITH JOHN McCAIN HAVING WON THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF DELEGATES TO SECURE THE FORMAL NOMINATION @ the GOP's convention in the Twin Cities later this summer, his closest (if you could call it so) rival, Mike Huckabee, has decided to throw in the towel on any hopes for sure victory.

After all, his religiopolitical pronouncements made Huckabee his own worst joke--not to mention showing that America does not need to see the Presidential role become one of a superdivine "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" as could be a dangerous cover for corruption or scandal which "those meddling blogs" could quickly latch on to.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

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

ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, HILLARY RODHAM-CLINTON gave Barack Obama's campaign a hard time, winning the Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas primaries (Vermont went to Obama)--and only made the Democratic delegate picture even more confusing because the net results showed, in effect, a close horse race.

Not to mention suggestions that a Clinton-Obama ticket could appease Democratic voters all the more and settle the likelihood of a "smoke-filled room" scenario come the Democrats' convention in Denver.

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

RETURNING TO JOHN McCAIN FOR THE NONCE, His Fraudulency is expected to give his Unqualified Endorsement and Approval of McCain's Presidential campaign as that which will "stay the course" towards Complete and Final Victory in the ur-RAHOWA Against International Terrorism.

As if that weren't enough ... you could just imagine the GOP's super-secret PsyOps section studying a BBC report which suggests that the Kenyan Government was directly and yet (un)consciously involved in provoking rioting and civil disorder following the disputed Presidential elections late last year. Studying it for new and innovative ways by which Indecision 2008 could be "disrupted" to buy time and alibis for the McCain campaign through mentally-unstable agents provocateur playing the role of "terrorists" carrying out Notorious and Infamous Acts of Violence which His Fraudulency could then use to impose a State of National Emergency, thereby suspending the elections indefinitely (or until "the proper signs" have been "confirmed") ... and the real "terrorist" is sent into hiding in Canada (Ste. Anne-de-Beaupré's shrine, perhaps?) just as the "hue and cry" goes into full-on "blood lust" mode, with conditional remittances in the bargain.

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

GAZPROM, THE RUSSIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, COULD EASILY BE UP THERE WITH NAZI GERMANY'S INFAMOUS IG FARBEN CARTEL because of its notorious and potentially dangerous interconnexions with the State and its unhealthy involvement in irrelevant businesses (notably the media in Putinist Russia) to the point of being on a par with RAMJAC.

Especially because of its "bully boy" tactics when it comes to supplying the natural gas requirements of Europe (including former Soviet republics such as Ukraine, which was under threat of a total gas-supply cutoff unless "past due accounts" were timely settled; fortunately, though, the issue has been resolved without serious disruption to business).

(As if that weren't good enough, OPEC has announced that it would "stay the course" with current oil-production quotas, essentially giving the middle-finger salute to His Fraudulency's minions seeing low gas prices as one with National Identity and Cohesion while concurrently preaching of energy self-sufficency based on "Wise Use" models as are really excusing waste and inefficency.)

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

THE CRUDEST OF "PATRIOTS" AND "TRUE AMERICANS" ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE DROOLING IN OVERZEALOUS ENVY (AND THEN SOME) on the news that the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors (one of their more blatant Enemies of the People) may have been indirectly and (un)consciously involved in such acts, deeds and exploits contributing to the ongoing "sub-prime/Alt-A" mortgage meltdown and its knock-on effects of constrained consumer credit.

Which they'll just love to use in "evidence" to challenge the Federal Reserve's Constitutionality and legality towards "the complete and final reinstatement of sound monetary policy" based on a gold-backed dollar and cash economy as would "encourage morality."

But expect the courts to throw a wrench into any such proceedings--as in dismissing the same as "frivolous" and/or "vexatious," followed more than likely by Rule 13 sanctions (i.e., requiring court permission to file any legal action and posting a guarantee bond of $500).

Not to mention the possibility of the plaintiffs' credibility and sanity coming into question.