Lying Media Bastards

September 29, 2003


Geinoh Yamashirogumi- Kaneda
Johnny Cash- Fulsom Prison Blues
Bad Religion- Turn on the Light
MC5- American Ruse
Styles of Beyond w/ 4-Zone- Pay Me
Radiohead- Talk Show Host (live)
Golden Shower- Video Computer System
Eric B & Rakim- Juice Know the Ledge
Rage Against the Machine- Mic Check
Interpol- PDA
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club- In Like the Rose
Johnny Cash- Boy Named Sue
Queens of the Stone Age- No One Knows
Hot Hot Heat- Oh, Goddamnit
Radiohead- Karma Police (live)
Refused- New Noise
Gza- Auto Bio
Johnny Cash- Hurt
System of a Down- War

Posted by Jake at 04:51 PM | Comments (0)

September 27, 2003

Stealth Suffering

Number of People Living in Poverty in U.S. Increases Again-

Poverty rose for a second straight year in 2002 as 1.7 million more people dropped below the poverty line, according to Census Bureau estimates released Friday that provided fresh evidence of the struggling economy's effect on Americans' pocketbooks.

The poverty rate was 12.1 percent last year, an increase from 11.7 percent in 2001 even though the last recession ended in November 2001. That meant nearly 34.6 million people were living in poverty.

Before the two years of increase, poverty had fallen for nearly a decade to 11.3 percent in 2000, its lowest level in more than 25 years.

Then there's this inexplicable line:

"The economy is moving in the right direction,'' Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Eh? More people have fallen below the (highly subjective, and almost certainly too low) poverty line for two consecutive years and we're headed in the "right direction"? Apparently in his off-hours, McClellan moonlights as Famine of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

And not surprisingly, the Bush administration tried to play some politics with the report:

For the first time in 15 years, the poverty report is being released on a Friday. That has prompted charges by Democrats that the White House hopes to see the bad news buried in little-seen Friday night and Saturday news coverage.

Bush & co. do this all the time. Any sort of negative report or negative news gets reported on Friday afternoons/evenings, hoping that the press then won't cover the story. Hell, it might not be a bad idea to start going out of your way to read the breaking news on Friday afternoons to find out what you might not hear otherwise.

Posted by Jake at 10:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

World's Funniest Headline

Bush, Putin Urge Countries Against Nukes

Hee hee hee hee!!

Let me get this straight. George W. Bush, president of a country with over 10,000 nuclear warheads, and Vladimir Putin, president of a country with over 9000 nuclear warheads, are telling other countries to-- hee hee hee, stop you're killing me.

Well, okay. In the article itself Bush and Putin are specifically talking about North Korea and Iran. But still...

Why are Bush and Putin so chummy? Because Bush's "war on terrorism" gave Putin the perfect excuse and support for brutalizing the people of Chechnya.

Wow, I sure know how to suck the humor out of a room...

Posted by Jake at 09:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Fair and Balanced and Really Really Petty

On CNN's screaming pundit show "Crossfire" this weekend, the topic of the national "Do Not Call" anti-telemarketing controversy came up. Conservative Tucker Carlson was defending the rights of telemarketers, and his opponents challenged him, if he was so open to receiving phone calls from strangers at all times, to give out his home phone number. Carlson agreed, and pretended to give out his home number. But it turns out that Carlson actually has a pretty good sense of humor; the number he gave out was not for his home, but for the Washington bureau of CNN's rival, the Fox News Channel.

Okay, so that wasn't exactly polite, but it was fairly mild as pranks go.

That's when Fox News responded in kind, cranking the prank volume up to eleven.

In an article with no byline or attribution, posted an article about Carlson's prank which included the line: Viewers who want to reach Carlson can, in fact, dial the television "personality" at his Virginia home at 703-519-6456. And it wasn't exactly a slip, or buried deep within the article. The article's title was, in fact, "Tucker Carlson: 703-519-6456".

Yes, when Carlson gave out the number of Fox's offices in DC, Fox responded by giving out Carlson's unlisted home number. What assholes.

Fox apparently realized that they'd gone too far, and changed the article to "Tucker Carlson: 202-898-7900", listing the phone number for CNN's DC bureau instead of Carlson's home number. The previous article link is a cached version via Google.

Is this how professional news organizations are supposed to act? I'm trying to decide if this is more juvenile, or mean-spirited, and I'm not sure.

Fox News, keeping the "MB" in LMB.

Posted by Jake at 03:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 26, 2003

The Basics

I'm finally reading Robert McChesney's Rich Media, Poor Democracy (it sat on a shelf for a while), and found this passage to be a pretty good summary of some of the most glaring problems with today's news media:

Professional journalism is severely compromised as a democratic agency in numerous ways. To avoid the controversy associated with determining what is a legitimate news story, professional journalism relies upon official sources as the basis for stories. This gives those in positions of power (and the public relations industry, which developed at the exact same time as professional journalism) considerable ability to influence what is covered in the news. Moreover, professional journalism tends to demand "news hooks"-some sort of news event- to justify publication. This means that long-term public issues, like racism or suburban sprawl, tend to fall by the wayside, and there is little emphasis on providing the historical and ideological context necessary to bring public issues to life for readers. Finally, professional journalism internalizes the notion that business is the proper steward of society, so that the stunning combination of ample flattering attention to the affairs of business in the news with a virtual blackout of labor coverage is taken as "natural." In combination, these trends have had the effect not only of wiring pro-status quo biases directly into the professional code of conduct but also of keeping journalists blissfully unaware of the compromises with authority they make as they go about their daily rounds. It is far from politically neutral or "objective."
Posted by Jake at 10:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 25, 2003

The Chick Is Alright

As you probably recall, a member of the band the Dixie Chicks came under heavy fire last year for making comments about being ashamed that George W. Bush was from their home state. It seemed that they halfway retracted their statements, but warmongers and conservatives nation-wide still bashed them like they were hippies at a Slayer concert. They got great public support from liberal anti-war folks, but they'd always seemed kinda wishy-washy to me.

But now I'm impressed. One of the Dixie Chicks has posted a letter to the Dixie Chick website that comes out swinging, political, sarcastic, self-deprecating and kinda angry. I'd say give it a read.

Posted by Jake at 02:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

MPAA Fucks With Kids' Heads

Coming soon, to your local schoolroom, thanks to the motion picture and recording industries:

Junior Achievement is projecting that the lesson, which will be taught both in school and after school, will be used in 36,000 classrooms nationwide and has the potential of reaching 900,000 students in grades five through nine, or about 10 percent of all students in those grade levels.

In the role-playing activity Starving Artist, for example, groups of students are encouraged to come up with an idea for a musical act, write lyrics and design a CD cover only to be told by a volunteer teacher their work can be downloaded free. According to the lesson, the volunteer would then "ask them how they felt when they realized that their work was stolen and that they would not get anything for their efforts."

Yes, the MPAA and RIAA have joined up with Junior Achievement-- the non-profit run by major corporations that somehow has permission to enter public schools to teach kids that free enterprise is keen-- to guilt children into not downloading movies and songs off of the internet.

Well, that's the bad news. The good news is that this program is just like DARE, and all the other manipulative "kids, don't use drugs" programs that storm the American schools. And looking around my high school, it's safe to say that that didn't work, maybe this program will be just as big of a waste of time.

Posted by Jake at 02:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

An Avid Golfer

Y'know, when I read that Bush interview one comment that the President made that stuck out to me was during the fluffy part of the interview, when Brit Hume was asking the hard-hitting questions about the White House putting green:

HUME: So you're more of a golfer than people know?

BUSH: Kind of, but I haven't played much since I've been president

This seemed odd, as I remembered that I personally had written about Bush mini-press conferences on a golf course on at least two separate occassions.

Well, our pals at Blah3 and BartCop have found us some evidence of presidential fibbing. I'll be he lies about his scores, too.

Posted by Jake at 09:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Edward Said Dies

Sad news. Prof. Edward Said has died. Said was a professor of English at Columbia University, but more importantly in my opinion, he was a knowledgable, clear-headed and prolific commentator on Middle East issues. Said's writings were some of my first insights into a region that school had only taught me was full of oil and terrorists. For that, I am thankful.

You can read some of his works via the (unofficial) Edward Said Archive.


Found a quote of Said's that I posted on this site months and months ago. Seems a good time to repost:

"Past and future bombing raids aside, the terrorism craze is dangerous because it consolidates the immense, unrestrained psuedopatriotic narcissism we are nourishing. Is there no limit to the folly that convinces large numbers of Americans that it is now unsafe to travel, and at the same time blinds them to all the pain and violence that so many people in Africa, Asia and Latin America must endure simply because we have decided that local oppressors ... can go on with their killing ... ? Is there no way to participate in politics beyond the repetition of prefabricated slogans? What happened to the precision, discrimination and critical humanism that we celebrate as the hallmarks of liberal education and the Western heritage?"

- Edward Said, 1986


Posted by Jake at 08:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 23, 2003


I had every intention of completely dismantling George W. Bush's recent UN speech here, but I've realized that I don't care. This was not the vitally important speech that we were led to believe it would be, so I'll only give it the time it deserves.

Near as I can figure, the White House realized that their negotiations with other nations were not going well, and that no 22-minute speech in existence that was going to change that. So, they they just rolled out a fairly bland speech that said "We were right to invade Iraq. You other countries should help us make Iraq safe and democratic. Oh yeah, and Afghanistan too. And to make myself seem a little bit less obnoxious, and as a minor guilt trip tactic, I'm also going to mention that all of our countries should work together to fight hunger and AIDS. And sexual slavery. America rules!"

One interesting bit that's not getting much notice is the brief section where Bush talked about efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMD. Bush discusses it as though it were about global security, when really it is an explicit part of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. The NSS says nothing about reducing the amount of existing WMD, or even about preventing countries that currently have WMD from making more. It only talks about "diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD" [emphases mine]. I am certainly in favor of preventing any more countries or organizations creating or obtaining nuclear weapons, but this is simply about maintaining the current nuclear status quo. The countries that have nukes can keep em, and even do things like try to create "reasonable," mini versions. The countries that don't have em can't ever have em, and have to remain forever at the mercy of the nuclear powers.

Posted by Jake at 06:32 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The Pitter Patter of Little Softballs

Alright, time to comment on last night's Fox News interview with President Bush.

First of all, I think that this interview was a ploy. Bush never gives interviews or press conferences or interviews, because he's a verbal gimp. So he gives an interview to a sympathetic news outlet, and insists that it not air for several days. Till the weekend. Till a weekend evening. Till a weekend evening that happens to be the night before he gives a controversial speech to the UN... I figure the goal was to have the interview air outside of the usual weekday, business hours news cycle, forcing the media to talk about both the address and the interview simultaneously. You gotta admit, Bush's crew is savvy.

But the interview itself is some of the worst "journalism" I have ever seen. The first third of the interview is a fluff piece, questions about the president's family, his exercise routine, the White House putting green, Bush's religious faith, a discussion about the furnishings of the Oval Office, etc. There is nothing wrong with a news piece which gets inside the figure, which shows their private life and what makes them tick, but when that figure never answers questions publicly and when the nation faces such immense problems, spending so much time on the figure's tastes and hobbies is downright irresponsible.

At this point, interviewer Brit Hume finally gets into political Q & A. Pretty simple stuff, and Hume doesn't push real hard when Bush dodges or gets vague. Some highlights, coupled with by derisive indignation.

BUSH: That's an interesting question, because you know I'm a man of peace.

"Only a man of peace would start wars with two different countries inside of two years."

BUSH: And obviously I would hope that we wouldn't have combat. I also live in a real world of being the president during a war on terror.

I have to mention this every now and again, but no one should ever use the phrase "war on terror." It's obviously meant as a shortened form of "war on terrorism", but the two have very different meanings. Terrorism is military or political strategy involving an attack on civilians. Terror is an emotion. A "war on terror" makes as much sense as a "war on envy" or a "war on mild surprise." And of course, "war" isn't really the proper term either; "war" is more of a metaphor than an accurate description. Unfortunately, policy makers have been confusing the metaphor with the reality for some time now.

BUSH: So I guess I would rather fight them there than here. I know I would rather fight them there than here, and I know would rather fight them there than in other remote parts of the world, where it may be more difficult to find them.

HUME: Such as?

BUSH: Well, such as Yemen

Yemen shits its pants, changes its name to "Germany."

HUME: There are people who suggest that, look, you wouldn't have to be dealing with these people ["terrorists" in Iraq] at all if you hadn't gone into Iraq. That these, in some sense, are newly recruited or newly minted terrorists. What's your view of that?

BUSH: That's probably the same type of person that says that therapy would work in convincing terrorists not to kill innocent life.

And which type of person is that?

Oh yeah, the type of person who looks like me, but is made of straw.

I've said before that the Bush foreign policy doctrine is "destroy our enemies." And if you don't know what to do next, when your enemy destruction has created more enemies, just re-read Step 1.

It's ludicrous. In the Bush mind, the terrorists are our enemies and must be captured or killed. And if these actions (like bombing Baghdad or U.S. soldiers bursting into Iraqi homes and pointing guns at wives and mothers) anger anyone enough that they might join the ranks ot terrorists, then they must've been predisposed towards terrorism, and were would-be enemies anyway.

Also, this follows the Bush refrain that the folks attacking US troops in Iraq are "terrorists." The party line is that these attacks are solely by Al Qaeda infiltrators or Saddam loyalists, and no one else. I've seen an awful lot of evidence that these attackers are disgruntled Iraqi citizens who simply want the Americans to go home.

HUME: What is your theory about what Saddam Hussein did with his weapons of mass destruction?

BUSH: I think he hid them, I think he dispersed them.

Jesus Christ, you've had well over a year to come up with a good cover story and this is the best you can do? "He hid them"? Well, I guess it's a step up from "Saddam's dog ate them."

HUME: What do you say to the notion -- you're beginning to hear it more and more now -- that actually he got rid of them but he didn't want his neighbors to know that, you see, because he wanted to be able to continue to intimidate them? What do you say to that?

BUSH: I think, like I said, be patient. The truth will be out. I told David Kay to go find the truth and to bring back reports based upon his own timetable that are solid reports about what he has found. We're analyzing miles and miles of documentation, we're interviewing all kinds of people in Iraq. Some of the famous cards in the deck of cards, and just average citizens who are bringing information.

We've been there for about four months. And David is spending a great deal of time learning the truth. And the truth -- we'll find out the truth.

Apparently dropping several thousand bombs on foreigners is quite a stress-reliever. Back in March, the White House was just couldn't be patient with the UN weapons inspectors out to find "the truth." A few shocks and awes later, "it's cool, baby, take your time finding those germ and nukes."

HUME: You go to the U.N. to make a speech, and your speech of a year ago became famous. It was the speech in which you challenged the U.N. to do something about Iraq. Now you go back, different setting.

What's your message this time?

BUSH: My message is, is that although some of you didn't agree with the actions we took, now let's work together to rebuild Iraq, rebuild Afghanistan, fight AIDS and hunger, deal with slavery, like sex slavery, and deal with proliferation.

Wait, what? When exactly did ending sex slavery leap to the top of American foreign policy priorities? I'm pretty sure that this is the first time any Bush administration official has uttered a single syllable about this.

BUSH: The German people are essentially pacifists because of their -- many still remember the experience of World War II. And they may not have seen Saddam Hussein as evil a person as a lot of other people have.

Yes. The Germans didn't want to invade Iraq not because the American argument for war didn't make sense, but because their evil Nazi past made it seem like Saddam Hussein wasn't such a bad guy. They're pacifists, and they're evil.

BUSH: The French made a calculated decision to try to lead a lot of nations against what we were trying to do. And that created a lot of angst here in America. I heard from a lot of people who said, "Look, we've got relatives who died on French soil to help with their security. Why would they not only resist what many Americans thought was necessary with Saddam Hussein, but lead a coalition?"

The French refusal to kill Iraqis is causing the familes of dead WWII vets angst. France should obviously be America's bitch for all eternity because we happened to free them from Nazi rule in WWII. Their disobedience is an insult. We should obviously follow through with the reasonable plan to unbury US veterans from France.

BUSH: My attitude about all that is our goals and ambitions are noble.

"The ends justify the means."

BUSH: We believe in peace.

"And we'll bomb whoever it takes to get it."

BUSH: We strongly believe in freedom.

"Just ask John Ashcroft."

BUSH: Where we see suffering we will help.

"Unless our country, or one of our allies, are causing it. In which case, we probably won't help."

BUSH: Jacques Chirac is a -- he's a strong-willed soul that -- he and I have had some pretty frank discussions before about issues. I will continue to remind him, though -- and he needs to hear this clearly from me, which he will -- that America is a good nation, genuinely good.

Okay, I've had enough. First of all, being good doesn't make you right. But more importantly, the U.S. is not a good nation. There are many good people who live here, but ANY examination of U.S. foreign policy shows a long history of brutal, self-serving action. As always, I suggest and demand that you read Killing Hope by William Blum if you want to know more about this sort of thing.

HUME: The refrain you keep hearing from others is a larger role for the U.N. You have consistently spoken of a vital role...

BUSH: A vital role, right.

HUME: ... a vital role for the U.N. Would you be willing to grant a larger role to the U.N. in the political developments there to make way for a resolution?

BUSH: Well, for example -- I'm not so sure we have to, for starters. But secondly, I do think it would be helpful to get the United Nations in to help write a constitution. I mean, they're good at that. Or, perhaps when an election starts, they'll oversee the election. That would be deemed a larger role.

A "larger" and "vital" role for the UN in Iraq means that they can help draw up a constitution and monitor elections. That's it. But in the meantime, the U.S.-selected Iraqi interim government is making sweeping decisions that will dominate the future of the nation. The UN doesn't get to help build the house, but they can help decorate the walls once the U.S. is satisfied.

HUME: What do you say to Americans who might have thought that war was won and that we were on our way to our objectives there, who now see this drip, drip of American casualties and deaths, daily attacks, sabotage, and so on, and might very well wonder if that was anticipated? What about that?

BUSH: Yes. Well, I think in my speech on the Abraham Lincoln, if they looked at the words, I said it's still a dangerous place. I declared the end of major military actions. By that I meant, you know, tight movement armored divisions and massive airstrikes, that we wouldn't need, you know, the USS Abraham Lincoln deployed there.

Yes. That happens all the time in war, presidents stage elaborate, celebratory events to announce the end of the movement of armored divisions. Yet another Bush "we didn't lie, we just mislead you" event.

HUME: What are you going to do about him?

BUSH: With Arafat?

HUME: Yes.

BUSH: Just convince the Palestinians if they want a Palestinian state, at least with American support, get an interlocutor that is truly committed to fighting terror.

Um, did Bush just subtlely threaten the Palestinian people to get rid ofArafat?

BUSH: In America, we believe in getting rid of people through a peaceful, orderly process.

As we can clearly see from our treatment of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Libya, death row inmates, etc.

HUME: On domestic issues, the economy, the complaint that's heard that this is a jobless recovery. And there is some validity to that. And there are a number of economists who have suggested that, in order for this economy, with the productivity that is now in it, to begin to create jobs in any number, you're going to need a lot faster growth rate than has been true in the past...

BUSH: First, there is a lag. There's an employment lag that generally accompanies a recovery. The economy gets going and after a while employment catches up. But this is an unusual marketplace in that, as you said, productivity is very high, which means growth has to be higher than productivity in order to add jobs. Or productivity has got to level off some and growth be robust.

I believe we're going to add jobs, because I believe this economy is strong.

So... productivity has to drop or growth has to increase for us to have more jobs. But we don't need to worry about either because the president isn't. Because he believes that we're going to get more jobs. Gotta love faith-based economics.

HUME: How soon do you expect that to start happening?

BUSH: Well, you know, I don't know. You ask these economists, they'll say, on the one hand here and the other hand here.

Jake bangs his head against table

BUSH: We've cut taxes, which has not only helped shallow a recession that we inherited, but has added momentum to growth. There are other things we can do. We need to make the tax cuts permanent.

We have some here in Washington saying, wait a minute, we don't need this tax relief plan. Well, any time there's uncertainty, it's hard for people to plan. And we need to make them permanent.

Good thinking. We'll make tax cuts for the rich permanent so that the American people can plan for the future-- plan to be poor.

BUSH: Now we have spent money, as you mentioned. My attitude is that when we put a youngster in harm's way, somebody who wears our nation's uniform in harm's way, he or she deserves the absolute best.

What a lying sack of shit. Every day I read reports about US soldiers being short on food, water, supplies, spare parts, etc. I've even read about soldiers' families having to pay for gun-cleaner because the soldiers are supplied with gun-cleaner that rusts their rifles. Possibly the best comprehensive article on this subject is here.

HUME: Is there a perception in the country, do you think, that we are a nation at war, or that we are a nation engaged in a long sort of twilight struggle with a evil or a problem that the world has been grappling with for a long time that we're only real kind of now getting on to, and regarded as a literal war is perhaps not as accurate as regarding it figuratively more like the war on poverty or the war on drugs, that sort of thing

"Twilight struggle with evil"? Who's writing Hume's questions?

BUSH: That's a great question. I believe it's a combination of both. First of all, a lot of Americans understand that we must never forget the lessons of September 11, 2001. And that is, there is an active enemy that has got the capacity to strike and kill.

This is amazing, and you see it again and again. In Bush's mind, this is the sole lesson of 9/11: that America has enemies that want to kill us. That's it.

BUSH: But there is a longer-term issue as well, and that is, how do you change attitudes? What is necessary to defeat that sentiment that causes people to be suiciders and just kill innocent people for the sake of religion or a fake religion? And my judgment on that is the best way to do it is to spread freedom.

I equate freedom and peace. And I believe America, given its position in the world, must use our power to promote freedom. And that's precisely what this administration is doing.

That's why the reconstruction of Iraq is essential for world peace. A free Iraq will be a significant dynamic in changing attitudes in the Middle East. A free Iraq will become a catalyst for a whole new thought process in a part of the world that has spawned terror.

And, so, yes, our Americans citizens, I think they're wise enough to realize there's still a threat, because it's only been two years since people flew our own airplanes into buildings killing thousands. And many Americans also understand what I know to be true: free societies are peaceful societies. And that's why I will continue to promote what I would call an active foreign policy.

I actually saw this segment on TV, and these thirty seconds already had me yelling. "What the fuck are you talking about?!" "Free societies are peaceful societies"?

HUME: How do you get your news?

BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything.

I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.

HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you've...

BUSH: Practice since day one.

HUME: Really?

BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...

HUME: I won't disagree with that, sir.

BUSH: I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

Bush does not read the news. He lets his staff filter his news. His staff is objective. Might explain a few things.

Fair, balanced, waste of time.

Posted by Jake at 04:25 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


Bush is about to address the UN. Let the trainwreck begin.


Well, it wasn't a trainwreck. I don't think it will do much to convince any world leader to do anything, but it wasn't a "hey, you funny-speakin' foreigners need to obey the commands of your betters" rant either.

Gotta do some driving, I'll try to write about both the speech and the Fox/Bush interview later today.

Posted by Jake at 07:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Initial Response

Dear Brit Hume,

Enclosed is a bottle of Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion®.

I figure your hands must be chafed after jerking off the president for a solid hour.


Jake Sexton.

Posted by Jake at 01:33 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 22, 2003

Liberal Media

Those traitorous media jackals tear into the president at today's exclusive interview.

The first question:

BRIT HUME: Tell me one thing. How often do you talk to your dad?

I'm gonna read the whole thing now. You best believe I'll have more to say on it later.

Posted by Jake at 08:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Panjabi MC & Jay-Z- Beware
Attrition- Cage
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club- Stop
The Von Bondies- Going Down
Paris- Ave Bushani / Field Nigga Boogie / Spilt Milk
MC5- American Ruse
Lightning Bolt- Thirteen Monsters
Styles of Beyond- Be Your Dog
Propagandhi- Apparently I'm a PC Fascist / Nailing Descartes to the Wall
Bad Religion- Modern Man
Ministry- Just One Fix (live)
Public Enemy- Caught, Can I Get a Witness
Interpol- PDA (live) / Hands Away (live)
mclusky- Collagen Rock / What We've Learned
Anthrax- London (live)
Smiths- What She Said (live)
The Vines- Get Free
Eric B & Rakim- Let the Rhythm Hit em

Posted by Jake at 04:50 PM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2003

Oil, Oil Everywhere...

Wow, here's a fun fact for ya.

Although the U.S. military is occupying a country with the world's second largest oil reserves, the constant sabotage of the oil infrastructure, is importing oil, gasoline, diesel and propane into Iraq to the tune of about $6 million a day.

Posted by Jake at 09:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Yet Another Non-Admission Admission

I'm just gonna outright steal this from Busy Busy Busy

Yes, check the caption.


The Transcript:

JOHN KING (CNN): Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement. Your critics say that this is some effort -- deliberate effort to blur the line and confuse people. How would you answer that?

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, after over a year of intentionally smearing the facts about Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and 9/11 into a reach creamy broth of public confusion, a reporter dares to ask him to his face about it. And he admits that there's no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

And then he lies again about Saddam being in cahoots with Al Qaeda. My understanding is that this al Zarqawi guy that Bush mentions is indeed an Al Qaeda operative, and he was in Baghdad in 2001, at a hospital, having an operation. By that logic, any of you who have ever been to a hospital are in cahoots with the government of the country in which that hospital operated. This article actually claims a much more direct link between al Zarqawi and the government of Qatar, but you don't see us bombing them.

Sigh. Two steps forward, two steps back.

I am so tired of this bullshit. Lies lies lies lies lies. We've got a recall election in California, why can't we have one in Washington? You KNOW that even Gary Coleman would make a better president than this sociopath.


Just for posterity, let's include this link of quotes of Bush & the gang trying to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.


Posted by Jake at 04:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Quote for the Ages

"Sometimes I overstate for emphasis."

-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
September 17, 2003

Jesus, the balls on this guy.

In other words, "I lie when I think it will be useful."

At this point, any real journalists should be calling him on this daily. Every time he answers a question at a press conference or interview, it should be followed up by "Mr. Rumsfeld, is that true, or are you overstating for emphasis?"

That quote comes from a longer article (link above) about members of the Bush administration quietly changing their stories about the rationale for the Iraq war, doing their best to not admit that they were wrong. Kinda interesting.

Posted by Jake at 07:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 16, 2003


In this corner, weighing in at 180 pounds of hair gel and condescending smirk, the Photogenic Fascist, Pre-Emptive Pugilist, crying "havok" all the way from Chicago, Illinois--

Donald "Skeletor" Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11

And in this corner, weighing in at $36 million a year, the Neo-CON, the Hellion from Halliburton, coming all the way from [LOCATION CLASSIFIED]--

Dick "The Puppetmaster" Cheney:

Cheney Reasserts Debunked Iraq-Al Qaeda Links

This going to be one exciting match, folks, a fight to the death between these two governmental titans. There can be only one winner in this bout.

Unless.... wait, who's that coming into to replace the referee? I think it's... why yes! It's Ari Fleischer!

Everything's going to be okay folks, everything's going to be okay.

Posted by Jake at 04:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Saw some of these sarcastic Bush campaign slogans for the 2004 election (via Mad Prophet), and I have one of my own:

Bush/Apocalypse '04

That'd make a nice bumper sticker, don't ya think?

Posted by Jake at 02:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 15, 2003

Well Duh

Christiane Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship

Well, yeah, we'd kinda noticed that. Thanks for playing.

But check out the response from Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."


I'm not sure if there's a single word of that that isn't fucked up.

Posted by Jake at 11:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Sorry folks, no LMB radio show today. Instead, I'll be producing another radio show for KPFK, the Axis of Justice Radio Network, which ain't half bad. It's the guitarist from Audioslave/Rage Against the Machine and the singer from System of a Down spinning political tunes, discussing them, and interviewing a guest activist or artist. The show will probably air this coming Friday night.

I have some say in each show's playlist, but not as much as I'd like. But still, the show is a good way to get kids thinking about music, politics and current events, and hopefully encourage them to start doing something to fix the world around them.

Posted by Jake at 09:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 11, 2003


Two years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and I haven't seen anything that sums things up as poignantly as this year-old comic strip.

Posted by Jake at 12:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 10, 2003


Well, you've probably already seen this, and it was only logical, but...

Study Finds WTC Fires Spewed Toxic Gases for Weeks

The burning ruins of the World Trade Center spewed toxic gases "like a chemical factory" for at least six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks despite government assurances the air was safe, according to a study released on Wednesday.

It only makes sense, right? Two enormous skyscrapers, two jet planes, and all their contents, were essentially aerosolized. Fire, smoke, jet fuel, burning jet fuel, concrete, plaster, plastic, steel, aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, glass, and that's just the stuff I can think of of the top of my head, tossed into the atmosphere for the people nearby to inhale. And somewhere in that cloud, there was surely something that was unhealthy to breathe.

And as you probably remember, the EPA conceded to pressure from the National Security Agency to lie and say that the air at Ground Zero was safe. Bastards.

Posted by Jake at 06:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


And now, a presentation by Very Very Happy Recent History of International Relations Analogy Theater:

"Hey, Dave, I think I smell gas coming from that house."

"Really? I don't."

"Yeah, definitely gas. We need to go in there."

"Dude, that's somebody's house. We can't just break in there. We should call the cops."

"Dave, you pussy! I'm going in! You can screw yourself."


[Smash! Crash! Shatter-tinkle-CRUNCH!]

"Hey, Roger, you okay in there? I'm still not smelling any gas."

"Screw you! It's in here! I'll find it!"


[Time passes. Flames shoot out of front window.]

"Um...Roger? Is that flame from the gas?"

"No. was me. Hey! Listen. You have to come in here and help me put this fire out."

"What? Why?"

"It's your duty. I know we had some disagreements in the past, but you must now acknowledge your responsibility for what has happened here, and you must now help in the long and dangerous process of putting out this fire that I started while doing something which you advised me not to do."

"Um...have you found gas in there yet?"

"I'll get back to you on that one."


Although personally, I it works better if you change "house" to "jewelry store", and after the line "Screw you! It's in here! I'll find it!", add "maybe it's back here, near this box of diamonds..."

Posted by Jake at 08:19 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

September 09, 2003

Rumsfeld to America: "Shut Up, Bitch!"

Rumsfeld Strikes Back at Critics of U.S. Effort on Terror

Y'see, if you criticize the war on/occupation of Iraq, it makes the terrorists think that America might pull out of Iraq early, which will make the terrorists redouble their efforts.

Yes, I suppose that might happen.

And, it is also possible, to borrow the words of Wayne Campbell, that monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Jesus, those are some balls on Rumsfeld, aren't they? He leads the nation into an unnecessary war, utterly miscalculates its effects, is letting American soldiers get killed off every day, has no plan to end the violence or rebuild the country-- but it's all our fault because we said that maybe this battle was a bad idea.

Someone break out the tar and feathers.

Posted by Jake at 12:48 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 08, 2003

RIAA (Doesn't) Confront the Obvious

Steve Gilliard just posted an entry on his website about the RIAA's (Recording Industry Association of America) latest plans to fight the evils of mp3s (no permalink on Steve's site, the article's called "Vietnam, Iraq, file sharing", dated September 9). His basic conclusion is that the RIAA's efforts are doomed to failure. I posted a long comment to the article, which I may as well copy here for y'all to read. I've probably said a lot of it before, but:

You are 100% correct. The prime services that record labels offer to their musicians are: loans to record the albums; manufacture of the product (the CDs); distribution of the product; and marketing. And for this, record labels usually take 80-90% of the profits.

With the invention of digital distribution, record labels are no longer needed for services 2 and 3. Musicians don't need millions of dollars to press thousands of CDs, they just need sound files on a hard drive and some bandwidth to send it. If more artists got turned on to this, they could start keeping that 80-90% for themselves, and be able to make a living selling far fewer records and being far less popular. In other words, there could probably be a much larger number of successful career musicians. Which is, in my opinion, a good thing.

And finally, perhaps the "album" is a dead concept. Digital music proponent Chuck D has said that artists should sell individual songs in a "buy 3 get 4 free" package. He says that that's what many albums are anyway, 3 good singles accompanied by a lot of no-good songs to fill out the rest of the album. Perhaps artists need to focus more on making songs that people would want to buy indvidually, or small packages of songs that have a higher good-to-bad ratio than your average album.

Bottom line is that the record label has sort of lost its quasi-monopolistic power, control of the "means of production." And they refuse to acknowledge it, vainly fighting the future through lawsuits and temporary technological stop-gaps. They'll have to face up to reality at some point.

Posted by Jake at 11:00 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


The Evolution Control Committee- Rocked by Rape
Panjabi MC- Jogi
International Noise Conspiracy- Ready Steady Go!
Ani Difranco- Superhero
Anti-Flag- This Machine Kills Fascists (live)
David Bowie- Golden Years
Push Button Objects w/ Mr. Lif & Del Tha Funkee Homosapien- 360 Degrees
The Pixies- Hey (live)
Fear- I Don't Care About You (live)
Cocteau Twins- Seekers Who Are Lovers (live)
Hot Hot Heat- Naked in the City Again
International Noise Conspiracy- Smash It Up
Anti-Flag- Die for your government
Rolling Stones- Sympathy for the Devil (Neptunes remix)
The Donnas- Do You Wanna Hit It
The Coup- Fat Cats, Bigga Fish/Pimps
Radiohead- Talk Show Host (live)
Smiths (live block)- Sweet & Tender Hooligan / What She Said / Cemetery Gates / This Charming Man

Posted by Jake at 04:47 PM | Comments (0)

Up to Snuff

Wow. Reporters actually doing their jobs. Who'd've thought I'd live to see the day?

On a special edition of Larry King Live last night, the guests were reporters. And these reporters actually analyzed Bush's recent speech, pointed out errors, misleading statements, provided context, and explained what this might mean in the real world. Lots of good stuff in there.

Would've been nice to have this kind of journalism before the U.S. decided to invade and occupy another country.

Posted by Jake at 09:06 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 07, 2003

Shorter Bush Address to the Nation

(With apologies to Elton Beard et. al)

"America is good, and our enemies are bad. Everything is going good in Iraq, as we fight our bad enemies. And our soldiers are good, and we hope our UN allies will be good. And we will make Iraq good too. Which will cost, incidentally, $87 billion."


Oh well, Billmon's version is better:

"Iraq is now the central front in the global war against absolute evil, but it's not so important that we have to roll back any of my tax cuts, send more U.S. troops to Iraq or do anything else that might make swing voters slightly less likely to vote for me next year. Thank you and God Bless America."


Posted by Jake at 10:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The Sexing-Up Inquiry

Although most Americans have not paid it too much attention, the British government has faced a tremendous crisis with regards to the Iraq war, mostly in public claims that they had lied about, or at least exaggerated, the threat posed by Iraq to the world. When one of the sources of Britain's intelligence, Dr. David Kelly, committed suicide after alleging that the British intelligence dossier had indeed been "sexed up," an formal investigation was launched, led by the highly respected Lord James Hutton.

Phase One of the investigation is over, and the Guardian summarizes the findings.

It looks like Tony Blair may have dodged a bullet. One of the claims within the report was that Iraq could have WMD ready to deploy within 45 minutes. That claim is made within the foreward of the dossier, by Tony Blair himself. That claim is now thought to be complete bullshit, and the Blair government is accused of putting that line into the report knowing full well that it was bullshit. During the Hutton inquiry, Blair actually said "You already have this extraordinarily serious allegation which, if it were true, would mean we had behaved in the most disgraceful way and I would have to resign as prime minister." Meaning that if the inquiry came to that conclusion, Blair might be forced to resign by his own words.

But there's the bullet dodge. At present, no one can prove that the Blair government "knew" that the 45 minute claim was false. I think that they can even get away with it if they "knew" that the claim came from a dubious source and used it anyway. Did Blair make that bold vow above knowing that there was no such evidence? I couldn't say.

But still, Blair's approval rating is through the floor (37% approval, 54% disapproval, by the latest poll I could find), and I don't see how he could survive another election.

Read the whole Hutton Inquiry report here

Posted by Jake at 08:28 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

September 06, 2003


Had some technical problems lately, and lost some email messages. If you've written me in the last 24 hours and I haven't responded, you might want to resend.


Posted by Jake at 09:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

It's superficial progress, they call it liberation.
With opiates of silicon, Big Brother schemes to rule the nation.
We're one nation under God, we stand above the rest;
With mighty high technology, we're never second best.
Our specialty is infiltration!
Prepare yourself for subjugation,
Victory through domination.

- Bad Religion, "Part II (The Numbers Game)"

Posted by Jake at 12:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 04, 2003

Bush on the Economy

Just caught the "NBC exclusive interview" with President Bush, and it really is astounding to hear the man speak.

Q: How come the economic stimulus is not translating into job creation?

I actually think it will translate into job creation. Look, my attitude is that so long as somebody wants to work and can't find a job, that means we got a problem. Rather than quantifying the numbers, all I want to do is create the conditions necessary so that all eligible people can find work. And I'm optimistic that that'll happen. I'm much more optimistic today than I was a year ago.

Okay. When asked why Bush's economic plans aren't creating jobs, Bush tells us that he thinks they will. When? Why? How? Nope, we don't get any of that. This answer is worse than useless to the public, and doesn't even answer the question.

Q: Is it entirely Congress' fault that the deficits are so big?

It's nobody's fault, in the sense that half the deficit was caused by a recession. When you have a recession, there's less revenues coming in the treasury, you know that. And about half of the projected deficits were caused by the recession. A quarter of the deficit was caused by the fact that I requested, and Congress spent, enough money to win the war on terror. And my attitude is that if we're gonna put people in harm's way, we need to spend the money necessary for them to succeed.

"It's nobody's fault"? That's a funny answer for a conservative. I thought they were the party of "personal responsibility."

And although I know it's probably just Bush's poor verbal skills, but he announces here that he and Congress have appropriated enough money to "win the war on terror." You heard it here first, the latest U.S. budget will fully fund the elimination of international terrorism. Or not...

Q: Will it really cost $50-80 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq?

I have not yet decided on a number. The way I do business, or the way I run the administration, is I say to those who are responsible for the actions in the field, what does it take to get the job done? How money will it require? We're at war. We're at war against some pretty tough characters who hate America. And therefore we need to put the money up in order to win this war. I wanna make sure that America is more secure. I will not forget the lessons of September the eleventh, 2001. And the lesson of September the eleventh is that an enemy does exist, and this great country will never cower in the face of terrorists. And that we have an obligation in this administration to do everything in our power to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Well historically speaking, the way Bush does business is to run the company into the ground, and then wait for his daddy's friends to bail it out (but maybe that's just me being bitter and cynical and accurate).

We are indeed in a war in Iraq (kinda). And in Afghanistan (kinda). But as always the "war on terror(ism)" is bullshit. Terrorism is a tactic, and declaring war on it is like declaring war on gunfire. Even if we interpret it to mean what we know Bush wants it to mean--fundamentalist Islamic organizations that plot acts of violence against American targets--declaring war on them doesn't make sense either. I've said all along that the the anti-terror effort should be waged as a campaign against a particular form of organized crime, not like a battle against the Redcoats in the Revolutionary War.

Let's also note that Bush manages to complete evade the question, not mentioning how much money he thinks it will cost to succeed in Iraq.

So in the eyes of George W. Bush, the lessons of 9/11 are:

- we have enemies
- America will never "cower in the face of terrorists"
- the Bush administration has an obligation to stop thousands of Americans from being killed by terrorists (again)

I would think that 1 and 3 would be obvious, and I'm not even sure what the hell 2 means.

Who the hell listens to this simian?

Posted by Jake at 07:07 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Haw Haw

Court Blocks New FCC Ownership Rules

Senate Committee Blocks FCC Media Plan

But one "d'oh!"

"The Bush administration must be ecstatic about this," one broadcast industry official said. "This could take the issue off the table during the election year."

Posted by Jake at 02:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 03, 2003


A friend of mine works at the NPR radio station in Philadelphia, and they had a Nigerian correspondent visit them on sort of a student exchange thing. He has since returned to Nigeria, and has filed a report about his American experiences. One paragraph contained this priceless observation:

I attended a press conference of the Pennsylvania governor and a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. The two politicians gave me a good picture of how U.S. politicians conduct themselves at a media briefing. The governor particularly impressed me by displaying exemplary humility. My American journalism colleagues had a field day throwing an artillery barrage of questions. But throughout the entire briefing, the governor had only three aides with him and no mobile police with large guns.
Posted by Jake at 12:07 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 02, 2003

A Whole 'Nother Level

Josh Marshall of the Talking Points Memo website has an excellent article in this month's Washington Monthly, The Post-Modern President. I highly recommend reading it.

Where I simply expose and curse about political liars, Marshall has taken things to a higher level. He talks generally about presidential lying, and outlines the lying styles of recent past presidents. He then points out some of the many lies of the Bush administration, but explains how it's part of a larger lying style:

Bush and his administration, however, specialize in a particular form of deception: The confidently expressed, but currently undisprovable assertion. In his State of the Union address last January, the president claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and a robust nuclear weapons program, and that therefore we needed to invade Iraq. Even at the time, many military and intelligence experts said that the president's assertions probably weren't true and were based on at best fragmentary evidence. But there was no way to know for sure unless we did what Bush wanted. When the president said on numerous occasions that his tax cuts--which were essentially long-term rate reductions for the wealthy--would spur growth without causing structural deficits, most experts, again, cried foul, pointing out that both past experience and accepted economic theory said otherwise. But in point of fact nobody could say for sure that maybe this time the cuts might not work.

[emphasis mine]

Marshall then explains how the Bush administration's unpopular political goal, a radical erosion of governmental power, necessitates a massive campaign of lies towards the American people. Since the American people don't want it, they've got to lie every which way to get us to accept policies which move us down that path.

Marshall then goes on to theorize that the Bush administration's members have a sort of collective paranoia, in which they don't always necessarily ignore all dissenting facts and opinions for their political goals, but because they believe that dissenting facts and opinions are being given to them by individuals with their own contrary agendas. In other words, when they receive a CIA memo that says that invading Iraq is a bad idea, they tend to believe that it is a biased, unreliable piece of information given to them by an agency that wants to maintain the status quo to maintain their own power.

Like I said, it's a good article, which provides two or three overarching frameworks for understanding the Bush administration. Food for thought. If I am a footsoldier in the war against lies, Marshall's piece makes him John Rambo.

Posted by Jake at 09:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 01, 2003


J-Live- Satisfied?
Weezer- Velouria
Los Villains- Killing Fields
The Exploited- Class War
Rage Against the Machine- Down Rodeo
Latin Playboys- Manifold de Amour
International Noise Conspiracy- Smash It Up
Mr. Lif & Edan- Get Wise '91
The Beastie Boys- Gratitude
The Pixies- Hey (live)
Nas- Get Down
Nortec Collective- Polaris
Fishbone- Housework
International Noise Conspiracy- Capitalism Stole My Virginity
The Libertines- Boys in the Band
Rage Against the Machine- The Ghost of Tom Joad
Mr. Lif- Home of the Brave
The White Stripes- Hello Operator (live)
Against Me- Those Anarcho Punks Are Mysterious

Posted by Jake at 04:43 PM | Comments (0)

Lying Media Bastards is both a radio show and website. The show airs Mondays 2-4pm PST on, and couples excellent music with angry news commentary. And the website, well, you're looking at it.

Both projects focus on our media-marinated world, political lies, corporate tyranny, and the folks fighting the good fight against these monsters.

All brought to you by Jake Sexton, The Most Beloved Man in America ®.


Media News

September 27, 2003

Fair and Balanced and Really Really Petty

On CNN's screaming pundit show "Crossfire" this weekend, the topic of the national "Do Not Call" anti-telemarketing controversy came up. Conservative Tucker Carlson was defending the rights of telemarketers, and his opponents challenged him, if he was so open to receiving phone calls from strangers at all times, to give out his home phone number. Carlson agreed, and pretended to give out his home number. But it turns out that Carlson actually has a pretty good sense of humor; the number he gave out was not for his home, but for the Washington bureau of CNN's rival, the Fox News Channel.

Okay, so that wasn't exactly polite, but it was fairly mild as pranks go.

That's when Fox News responded in kind, cranking the prank volume up to eleven.

In an article with no byline or attribution, posted an article about Carlson's prank which included the line: Viewers who want to reach Carlson can, in fact, dial the television "personality" at his Virginia home at 703-519-6456. And it wasn't exactly a slip, or buried deep within the article. The article's title was, in fact, "Tucker Carlson: 703-519-6456".

Yes, when Carlson gave out the number of Fox's offices in DC, Fox responded by giving out Carlson's unlisted home number. What assholes.

Fox apparently realized that they'd gone too far, and changed the article to "Tucker Carlson: 202-898-7900", listing the phone number for CNN's DC bureau instead of Carlson's home number. The previous article link is a cached version via Google.

Is this how professional news organizations are supposed to act? I'm trying to decide if this is more juvenile, or mean-spirited, and I'm not sure.

Fox News, keeping the "MB" in LMB.

Posted by Jake at 03:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
More Media News


It's superficial progress, they call it liberation.
With opiates of silicon, Big Brother schemes to rule the nation.
We're one nation under God, we stand above the rest;
With mighty high technology, we're never second best.
Our specialty is infiltration!
Prepare yourself for subjugation,
Victory through domination.

- Bad Religion, "Part II (The Numbers Game)"

More Quotes

Media News


Obligatory Blog Links



Columnists Of Note



Sonic Resistance


Dead Trees


Heavy Rotation



Squiggles of Insight



Design and Layout by Mark McLaughlin and Quang Tang
LMB Logo by Quang Tang

Alt "One Hell of a Leader" logo largely stolen from Obey Giant.
All other material by Jake Sexton (unless otherwise cited)

hosted by nice dream