Log in

Seriously CNN? You work for Hillary now?

CNN Top Headline: "Poised, Passionate and in Command"
Subheadline: "Clinton Triumphs in Debate as Rivals Compete to Lose."

Compete to lose?

I listened to the debate and I actually thought Hillary and Sanders did a fine job. They both were able to elucidate their main points, and the debate was primarily civil.

All of the post-debate polls (which were self-selected, online polls) had Sanders as the runaway winner. Those polls aren't scientific, but they do illustrate that Sanders did very well--at least as well as Clinton.

Today, I peruse the headlines and I am shocked at what I see. The mainstream, corporate media has decided that they are the Public Relations wing of Hillary Clinton's campaign. To summarize the entire debate with the headline, "Poised, Passionate and in Command" about Hillary isn't journalism. It's egregious kow towing to one candidate.

And the subhead, "Clinton Triumphs in Debate as Rivals Compete to Lose." I mean...seriously. CNN has all ready called the race, I guess--because everyone up there--including Sanders, is just competing to lose. This is crazy.

And this...THIS is why I can't support Hillary. She is so entrenched with corporate interests who are salivating like wolves on their haunches for a Clinton victory.

Time Warner owns CNN, and they are one of Hillary Clinton's top ten donors. And now they write headlines leverage her as if she walked on water--and denigrate her competitors as fools who are "competing to lose."

Who really knows who won the debate--it's very subjective. Sanders and Clinton both did very well. However, the prize for horrendously corrupting the political process with big, corporate money goes to Hillary Clinton.



Quote of the day from the inimitable Viv Stanshall:
"In the blue wardrobe of heaven are many unused clothes, too tight-fitting yet too beautiful to throw away. And in that wardrobe we hang our likenesses, yellow diaries yellowed with yesterday, thumb smeared with tomorrow. But the now, the present, like the hollow screech of ancient flamingos in search of shrimps, is still vibrantly shocking pink."

Good Question:

If you’re going to ignore the section of Leviticus that bans tattoos, pork, shellfish, round haircuts, polyester and football, how can you possibly turn around and quote Leviticus 18:22 (“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”) as irrefutable law?

Eleven Things The Bible™ Bans But You Do Anyway

Koan for today:

A student once said to the Buddha "I want happiness. How can I achieve this?"

The Buddha replied "First you must rid yourself of "I" for that is ego which will keep you from the path. Next you must rid yourself of "want" for that is desire which will also keep you from the path. When you rid yourself of these burdens all that is left is happiness"

With this the student gained enlightenment.

*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?

Wow, it's been over a year since I've posted to LJ.
FB has taken over the usual crap I post. Perhaps I should start posting more thoughtful stuff here and leaving the fluff to Mr. Zuckerburg?


This one's for whimmydiddle

How to defrag your computer:

Random Crankiness

Best turn of phrase I've heard in years!

"You cannot begin to comprehend the depths of the fuck of which I do not give!"

I need that on a T-shirt or bumper sticker or something......

Can Someone help me out here?

I'm trying to find the part of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America - this thing here:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press...

I'm trying to find the part where it says "except in the case where 'a foreign-owned corporate entity needs help keeping their image clean or needs protection from liability' or 'the press is not doing a very good job and people are offended' or 'profits are in danger and capitalism should be defended at all cost' or 'we're trying to protect you folks from getting hurt taking close-up pictures of dying birds' or 'allowing that freedom will interfere with our government's and a foreign-owned corporation's excellent, completely non-criticizable efforts to protect our natural resources' or '65 feet is the universal non-arbitrary limitation on the Freedom of the Press.'"

I can't seem to find it. The text seems fairly absolute. Surely I'm missing it?

Why Am I Not Surprised?

A Few Words Regarding Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan:
Man, Seante Republicans are some skeevy motherfuckers. They attack Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, for lacking experience as a judge. Beyond the fact that John Roberts had only two years of judging under his belt when he became the Grand Poobah Justice of All, there's one reason and one reason only that Kagan hasn't walked across the robed threshold, and that's because Republicans, who, as previously noted, are some skeevy motherfuckers, blocked her nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court back in 1999, with Senate Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch not even allowing a hearing. Why? Because the Republicans could. And because she and others were nominated by Bill Clinton.

Read More