In June of 2010 at the end of one of my have read (seen, listened to, and will miss) Friday segments I wrote…

“Larry King has never been a draw for me, but if Piers Morgan replaces him I will miss Larry just on principle. What would CNN be thinking. Granted Larry is old, boring, his guests borderline repugnant, but it’s far worse to replace him with a man whose questionable ethics history can’t possibly be compensated by judging a few fake talent contests.”

END OF THE PIERS SHOW

CNN’s Morgan Under Pressure Amid Hacking Scandal

“He’s a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But, he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen. Remember that, do not listen.”

Am I referring to Assange, or the governments that oppose him?

Good question.

Must there must be purpose in transparency?

Only a crazy person would attempt such a thing. An egomaniac. But this type of activity is often left to the overly ostentatious, is it not?

I want the transparency. I need to know the horrors and crimes committed in my name, and if when my government bargains with pimps murderers and rapists for wealth or diplomacy I want to know.

Though there is much geopolitical gossip we can live without, we should no longer be allowed to cover our eyes while our ears are plastered to our cell phones. Still, there has to be some accountability at the other end. If all lives are equal, treasured, if humanity is to be saved and all of humanity matter, then for the horrors subsequent to, and directly caused by WikiLeaks, there must also be accountability.

This WikiLeaks needs some finesse, n’est-ce pas. It is irresponsible to let lose incomplete information upon a (sometimes), moronic public and an increasingly desperate media, because truth can only be determined with any certainty when the whole picture is clear. It’s why we investigate, dissolve compounds, survey, verify, parse and separate.

Wiki Leak Rating

5 OUT OF 10 stars, needs work. xxxxx xxxxx

I haven’t watched Olberman in a some time — though if he said something witty enough someone was bound to post it somewhere, and I’d catch it. His sexist pigginess turned me off, taking too many unprovoked pot shots at female pop stars, or starlets (usually for no reason), putting his inner, and sometimes pathological, misogyny on display. Over time I found him increasingly annoying.

That having been said, it’s time to stop the pretense. We know our politicians (government?), are owned by the corporations, and the corporation own the media. We hate it. If we were smart we’d continue to try and legislate to protect ourselves against it, but either way we know it. We also know those cable talk shows aren’t news. They need to stop pretending we don’t know.

It’s silly to suspend, or fire, a partisan pundit for doing something we’d expect a partisan pundit to do — especially when they were knowingly hired as a devotee of a any given political ideology. Not journalists, these people don’t report anything, they give biased oral essay on the political and social goings on of the day. You think we couldn’t guess that Olbermann would give to some democrat somewhere — Hannity, for that matter, to some Republican somewhere. Surely any public outrage must be feigned. Give him his job, let his contract run out, or restrict him to the point he quits, but this is not the way to do it. Do it right. Who knows, he may come back into vogue in a couple of years. Keep the few real journalists you have under strict obligation, but pundits….give me a break.

——-

We’re falling back tonight. In certain parts of the country there is an extra hour to party on. Yet, other than the thrill of getting an extra hour to sleep, I don’t see any reason to play with time. Nevertheless, I’m going to enjoy that extra hour tonight. How about you?

peace