never hire a neocon pundit

so, since my last post, benazir bhutto, an amazing woman who was brilliant (graduate of oxford and then harvard who was once leader of oxford’s debate team), used to be attractive 20 years ago (named one of people magazine’s 50 most beautiful people in the late 80s), who was friends with many americans like arianna huffington of the huffington post, who was leader of the pakistan people’s party (ppp), who was prime minister of pakistan twice, who was a liberal secular feminist despite being muslim (she even kept her last name after being married and her kids got her last name instead of her husband’s), the only woman who ever was in charge of a muslim nation, well she was assassinated by terrorists. whether the terrorists were from al qaeda, or whether they were from pakistan’s intelligence agency the i.s.i., or the pakistani military, or from the taliban, or from a rival political party... who knows? but apparently al qaeda has a long history of assassinations, starting with anwar sadat, the egyptian president assassinated in 1981 by an egyptian terrorist group that later became a main part of al qaeda (al qaeda formed later). the group that assassinated sadat was led by ayman al-zawahiri, the egyptian terrorist leader who is now #2 in command in al qaeda after the saudi/yemeni terrorist leader osama bin laden. and terrorists were trying to kill benazir bhutto for years... they had already killed 2 of her brothers and a military dictatorship that once ruled pakistan had executed her father. so now, her husband (a very corrupt and discredited figure) and her 19-year-old son (a student at oxford) are taking over her party. violence has erupted around pakistan, lots of people have been killed, and it is all a big mess, because that country is the only islamic nation to have nuclear weapons, and is also harboring al qaeda leaders such as osama bin laden and ayman al-zawahiri, and is a major recipient of united states military aid, having gotten $10,000,000,000 of aid from the united states since september 11, 2001. pretending to support the united states in the war on terror while helping out the terrorists really pays off! i suggest we threaten cut off all aid to pakistan, and send all that aid to india instead. also, if the pakistani government has never been able to control its western tribal provinces in all its decades of existence, perhaps the united states military could cross the border from afghanistan and take control of those provinces so we can finally get osama bin laden and his cronies who are holed up there. that is, if anyone still cares about getting osama bin laden and the al qaeda leadership. apparently nobody cares about that anymore, though, and we would rather coddle a military dictator who is giving al qaeda safe haven than actually fight the terrorists. of course, i am not advocating war, but rather, putting a bit of pressure on mr. musharraf, and encouraging him to “purge” the military and i.s.i. of any elements which may be supporting al qaeda or the taliban or other islamic fundamentalist/terrorist groups. after all, a year ago, the united states found out where ayman al-zawahiri was hiding in pakistan, and we asked pakistan for permission to bomb him. pakistan gave us permission, but not before terrorist-supporting double agents within the i.s.i. (pakistani intelligence agency) told ayman al-zawahiri everything so that he could escape to safety before the united states bombed him. if pervez musharraf wants to continue to receive aid and not become our enemy, we should require him to purge all terrorist supporters from his intelligence agency and military.

now, recently, karl rove was hired by newsweek as a paid propagandist for that “news” magazine, and now the “news”paper the new york times, infamous for judith miller and jayson blair, has hired william kristol, the leader of the neocon propagandists, editor-in-chief of the weekly standard, the neocon propaganda magazine that is published weekly, and a commentator on fox news, the neocon propaganda channel. the new york times already has several right-wing commentators, such as william safire and david brooks, and some useless wishy-washy commentators such as thomas friedman and maureen dowd. they only really have one decent left-wing commentator, namely paul krugman, oh and i guess bob herbert is also o.k. anyway, the new york times does have some good investigative news stories on a fairly regular basis, but their editorial columnists are all across the political spectrum, and only a few are actually reliable liberals, and those are equally balanced by the reliable conservatives. the washington post has a bit more of a right-wing bent to its columnists and pundits. and as for conservative newspapers, such as the washington times or the wall street journal or the new york post, all of their commentators are conservative republicans, with not one liberal or moderate to be found. similarly, cnn and msnbc are both relatively neutral politically, whereas fox news channel is completely right-wing and neoconservative. now what about political magazines? well, the weekly standard is rupert murdoch’s flagship neoconservative publication, the national review is a mouthpiece of the republican party and conservatives, and there is one called the new republic which is center-left but pro-war and has had several controversies with writers who made up stories full of lies. the new republic is complete crap, in other words. so what publications are actually liberal? well, there is the nation magazine, mother jones, and the progressive (another magazine). still, we are faced with a situation where right-wing talking heads like bill o’reilly are simultaneously given television “news” shows, radio talk shows, and widely syndicated newspaper columns. their left-wing counterparts do not have any tv news shows except for keith olbermann (who is not on radio or published in newspapers), liberals have failed to get a large audience in radio with networks such as air america radio that went bankrupt, and most of the top syndicated columnists are conservative republicans. in other words, there is no liberal media, unless you are talking about the nation magazine, mother jones, and the progressive magazine, or talking about air america radio or a few other liberal radio talk show hosts who manage to survive among a sea of conservative radio talk show hosts that vastly outnumber them, or if you are talking about liberal websites and blogs on the internet. but even on the internet, liberals and conservatives are fairly evenly matched. now why is the media so conservative, even spilling over into publications like the new york times that are supposed to be liberal according to everyone like ann coulter and bill o’reilly and william kristol (the new new york times columnist) himself? well, the media is owned by large corporations, and large corporations support the republican party because the republican party always tries to help them out with deregulation and lower taxes. since democrats in general and left-wing/progressive/liberal people in particular stand on the side of the poor and the middle class against the rich people who own everything, they are not very popular among the rich people who own everything, except for people like george soros who have decided to, in effect, be traitors to their own class. people like george soros who have a lot of money but want to support politicians who are in favor of helping out the poor at the expense of the rich, they are considered traitors to the wealthy ruling class, and are outnumbered by people such as richard mellon scaife, rupert murdoch, the walton family, and many others. atheism is apparently much more common among billionaires than the average folk, with people such as bill gates and ted turner as prominent examples of billionaire atheists. there are a few very wealthy people who are ultra-religious, however, such as tom monaghan, the founder of domino’s pizza. and while the wealthy atheists keep their disbelief to themselves, wealthy religious people like tom monaghan try to spread their belief far and wide. in any event, hardly any billionaires support liberalism like george soros does. the reason he has become such a target and so vilified is that the wealthy ruling class considers him a traitor to the wealthy ruling class, and will stop at nothing to do character assassination against him to make an example of him and prevent any other billionaires or multimillionaires from financing liberalism. in the meantime, wealthy people who finance conservatism only get attacked in liberal publications like the nation magazine or on air america radio or in liberal blogs, and none of this is ever heard in the so-called “mainstream” media. there are a large number of big conservative “think-tanks” in the washington, d.c. area, such as the heritage foundation, the american enterprise institute, and of course the infamous project for a new american century. there are also “centrist” ones that largely favor conservatism over liberalism, such as the brookings institution, the council on foreign relations, rand corporation, and the center for strategic and international studies. there are about as many liberal think-tanks like the center for american progress as there are libertarian think-tanks like the cato institute. and of course libertarians are very conservative on economic issues and very liberal on social issues, so on the economic issues that matter to the ultra-wealthy, libertarians are even more reliable allies than conservative republicans. now i have already mentioned the people at fox news and keith olbermann of msnbc. besides them, the only major opinion shows on cable news are the ones of lou dobbs and chris matthews. lou dobbs is a former republican, now independent, who promotes deporting all illegal immigrants, greatly increased border security, and an end to free-trade agreements like nafta that he believes ship jobs overseas. although at times he seems quite xenophobic, he is actually married to a legal immigrant from mexico and has several half-hispanic children. lou dobbs seems to have the greatest ire towards china, and his message is full of populist appeals about closing our borders and ending free trade, and he loves to condemn both democrats and republicans, and condemns congress regardless of which party is in charge. the ironic part is that the policies lou dobbs advocates are the exact opposite of what most economists advocate, and yet lou dobbs was for years cnn’s “money” guy who would talk about the economy and the stock market and all that sort of shit, and most of that time he seemed to be an advocate for the wealthy ruling elite, and his recent conversion to populism is quite odd. chris matthews of msnbc is quite a bizarre character because he talks loudly and quite fast and always seems to have very strong opinions, but he can never seem to keep the same opinion for longer than 5 seconds. he was originally an aide to a democratic speaker of the house, but he seems to praise and condemn democrats and republicans equally. he originally supported the war in iraq but then turned against it when the majority of public opinion did too. and chris matthews really likes george w. bush for some reason, although that is an on-again, off-again sort of relationship that they have. he likes to have self-promoting controversy-generating pompous blowhards like ann coulter on his show, regardless of how thoroughly discredited they are. chris matthews usually just mirrors whatever other people are saying and never has an original thought of his own. so who are the only other major opinion-makers on television? well, aside from the christian broadcasting network and pat robertson (an ultra-right-wing republican), you have jon stewart and stephen colbert on comedy central. jon stewart and stephen colbert are generally seen as liberal by most people (including me), although jon stewart claims to be fairly neutral (so that means his writing staff are the liberals), and stephen colbert pretends to be a conservative republican (which proves he is a liberal democrat, although in interviews stephen colbert has said he never really thought much about politics until a few years ago, when he started developing political awareness).

ok, so anyway, what is my point? ahh yes... my point is, if a publication like newsweek or the new york times that is thought of as part of the so-called “liberal media” hires a neoconservative pundit like karl rove or william kristol, someone who has been thoroughly discredited and has a very bad reputation, who is as hated among liberals as george w. bush or rupert murdoch, well they had better expect that many liberals will cancel their subscriptions and they will lose readership. but in the long run, the cancelled subscriptions will probably have little impact, and the publications may actually gain readers, such as dittoheads who watch fox news and listen to rush limbaugh on the radio. the real impact is that this will help solidify the republican party’s control of the media even more, and help the republicans gradually conquer the few remaining bastions of independent thought. and that if we do end up with a democratic president and keep our democratic congress, the media will be full of voices criticizing our democratic leaders for being too liberal. but what is even worse about hiring someone like william kristol is, he is rabidly pro-war and is neoconservative, part of the project for a new american century; we can expect him to help promote future disastrous wars that drain our federal budget and kill our soldiers and destroy foreign countries while making us even more hated around the world. and karl rove is a propagandist and master of dirty tricks whose main skill is dividing the country and making it more partisan and bitter; we can expect him to tear down the democrats and help turn public opinion against them even if they do nothing wrong to justify losing popularity. if conservative republicans have their own media outlets like fox news, almost all of talk radio, the wall street journal, the washington times, the new york post, the weekly standard, the national review, and half of the political blogosphere, why on earth should we be giving their talking heads even more control of the media, especially given the extreme lack of any liberal voices to counter them? if we do give voice to conservative pundits, we should at least give it to people who have not thoroughly discredited themselves and become infamous, people like william kristol and karl rove. william kristol and karl rove are almost as bad as ann coulter, and luckily we have been spared having ann coulter have her own tv show or radio show, and ann coulter’s newspaper column is much less widely syndicated now than it was before. why can’t william kristol and karl rove be rejected from relevance and thrown into the dustbin of history, ignored as they should be, and replaced with new conservative pundits who have not thoroughly discredited and disgraced themselves already? and why is rush limbaugh still on the radio despite being a drug addict, a bigot, a complete hypocrite, and a political hack who claims to be an “entertainer”? howard stern is an entertainer. rush limbaugh is more like a cult leader, like pat robertson. why don’t we elevate people from the nation magazine, air america radio, the liberal blogosphere, or the liberal ivory towers of academia into being the hosts of tv news shows or syndicated columnists with columns at major newspapers or having widely listened-to radio talk shows? politicians and prominent political commentators in the united states are much more conservative in the united states than in any other wealthy industrialized country, on all issues, whether social issues, economic issues, or foreign policy issues. their disastrous policies are ruining our country, and if we want to change course and fix things, we will need not only politicians who are progressive but progressive voices in the “mainstream” media as well. and not just mild or timid voices, but bold voices like noam chomsky. the media also needs to stop obsessing over the controversies in the personal lives of attractive young women who happen to be celebrities, such as britney spears, lindsey lohan, and paris hilton, or the not-quite-as-young-and-now-deceased anna nicole smith. if young ladies like them happen to have some embarrassing problems in their lives, the media should not cover it, and instead cover the stories of young people who are positive role models, you know, people like me, for instance. i mean, ok, i am not perfect, but still, i am a better role model than them... anyway, neoconservatism has been so thoroughly discredited. if they want a conservative, media outlets should hire a traditional conservative, like pat buchanan, or a libertarian, like ron paul. but not a neoconservative. nothing could be more disastrous than letting neoconservatives mislead our nation into another war that escalates into world war iii, into global thermonuclear war, where the only survivors are people who stay holed up in underground bunkers for years to avoid the nuclear radiation. if we listen to neoconservatives again, this could threaten the very survival of our species, since their doctrines of endless war have only one possible end result: world war iii and a nuclear holocaust, not a holocaust that kills 6 million jews, but one that kills 6 billion people of all races, religions, nations, genders, sexual orientations, political views, etc., killing them all indiscriminately. suppose another nation really does have weapons of mass destruction as the neoconservatives claimed iraq did. in that case, war against such a nation would be mutual assured destruction, or m.a.d. why can’t we rise above this m.a.d.ness? if iraq really did have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, a lot more of our soldiers would have been killed in the invasion, and perhaps saddam hussein might have unleashed his weapons of mass destruction on the united states of america itself. we are certainly lucky that iraq turned out not to have any weapons of mass destruction, because otherwise, our invasion would have been hundreds of times more disastrous for our nation. hopefully we will not make the same mistake again. but we have painted ourselves into a corner with our policies towards pakistan. and our stand-off with iran remains a dangerous situation that would best be resolved through peace, not war. if we cannot win in pakistan, the war on terror has reached a dead end, and the terrorists have won, and we have lost. our support for pervez musharraf has been short-sighted and counterproductive, and proven our lack of commitment to the ideals of freedom and democracy, and our lack of resolve in fighting the terrorists and getting osama bin laden. we have no good options for dealing with pakistan, so perhaps the best option at this point would be to simply follow ron paul’s foreign policy, which would end the war on terror by getting us out of the middle east so the countries of the middle east leave us alone and we leave them alone. that is better than propping up an unpopular military dictator who is providing safe haven for al qaeda’s top leadership while being viewed as an american puppet by his own people. perhaps democracy will save pakistan from the disastrous rule of pervez musharraf. but it could just as easily lead to islamic fundamentalists being elected and having a democratically elected government that openly supports terrorism, just like the hamas government in the gaza strip. so perhaps we have little choice but to continue supporting pervez musharraf in order to prevent nuclear war, to keep pakistan’s nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands, and because of the minutely small probability that this might actually help us get the leaders of al qaeda. but i think it might be a better idea to simply end our alliance with pakistan and stop giving aid to that nation, since then, at least, the pakistani people would not view their government as american puppets. if we left pakistan alone and minded our own business, this might actually increase the chances that the leaders of al qaeda are brought to justice, since the public of that nation might not be so anti-american if we stopped propping up their dictator, and the loss of popular support for terrorism and islamic fundamentalism would increase the chances of the people of that nation taking on al qaeda themselves. who knows what to do?