The Role Of The Media: The Bhutto Assassination

Unless one has been in a cave the last 24 hours, we have all heard of the sad and tragic news of former Prime Minister Bhutto's demise. In light of this event, I will say it is not unexpected. Since her return to Pakistan, there has been an uneasiness and a certain level of trepidation that she was going to be killed, at some point. I felt it, many of you may have felt it, and I am sure she felt it.

During the coming days, there will be every accusation and theory as to who the responsible party is. Some of those have already surfaced. Musharraf, al Qaeda, the Taliban, will all be mentioned by the expert pundits, who will be paraded out on the news networks in the coming days (as many already have). And if you listen hard enough, search the internet long enough, you may even find someone on the fringe accuse the CIA and/or the Mossad.

The truth is, we don't know who was behind it. Almost all of those I have mentioned had a vested interest in seeing her assassinated. Their objective was two-fold: Eliminate her and create a state of chaos that will result in long-term instability in Pakistan. On these counts, both goals appear to have been met.

An even sadder truth remains, in that, we may never know the real truth. This situation is extremely complex ans murky, at best. And to think that any investigation or claim of responsibility will immediately be credible, demonstrates a naive thinking process and in some cases delusional thinking.

In the meantime, the thought of Bhutto returning to power has been set forth as an idealistic mantra and panacea that (at best) can be categorized as the same. The media has painted this picture of hope and vision, all the while it has been draped in error and miscalculation.

The build-up to her return and the possibilities it created was entirely fueled by the same media that tells us all that our soldiers are on killing rampages, targeting innocent civilians in Iraq. These are the same people who lend credibility to the thinking that the War On Terror is a bumper sticker phrase and to reporters that sit in their hotel rooms paying locals for slanted and biased accounts of events, they are too scared to cover in person.

The truth is, this woman was painted to be a saviour of sorts to her country, while ignoring how ineffective and corrupt she was while she was in power. There were elements that hated her then (and drove her out). Today, we can see there are still many that hated what she stood for, and would benefit from her death.

With all of this known, it astounds me how the media could paint her return as some bright shining moment, in the quest for the return of democracy in Pakistan. Yet, they did. I guess they wanted a story, and they got it.

So, as the expostulations and pontifications from the experts flow out of the interviews and the roundtable discussions, remember that this is not as easy to sort out, as they want us to believe. All will get their faces on TV, voices on radio, and names in the newspapers. But, Bhutto gets a funeral and the people of Pakistan get uncertainty and chaos.


Note - Here are some other views starting to emerge:

1. An excellent essay in the NT Post today about the facade of Bhutto.

2. Which goes along well, with some of what Mustang is saying in his latest post.

3. AC of Fore Left has some thoughts, some of which may differ from mine. But still, they are worth considering.

4. Interesting food for thought here at Q and O.

Some PYY Thoughts On The Oprah Scandal

If you've been in solitary seclusion fasting and praying for world peace, you may have missed this one. But for those that haven't been in a monastery somewhere, I'll leave the redundancy out, as it has been covered ad nauseum in the media.

Here are a few quick thoughts for your consideration:

1. I am not a fan of Oprah.

2. I think her heart was in the right place here, she was sincere in wanting to help these kids.

3. I think she is doing the best she can to rectify the situation, despite the fact that the damage cannot be undone.

4. Repairing the damage is an unusually hard task to undertake, especially when she has no real role models that take responsibility and accept accountability when screwing up. Very few people accept they've made a mistake and usually project blame on anyone else they can. Everyone except themselves.

5. If the media keeps bashing her for this, it may be a long time before anyone tries to do something like this, to help those that need help.

And people wonder why more wealthy people don't get involved in third world charities.

Putting Mind Over "Matters"

Last week, a firestorm arose as a result of a distorted picture being painted, about some remarks made by Bill O'Reilly. The NYT fronted it and got the story out into the mainstream.

Their source? None other than Media Matters (MM), a political cult funded by George Soros.

Bill has weathered it well, so far. And he should, he said nothing offensive. I am sure he has the tape and will produce it to anyone that wants it, but I am sure they have already heard it. I would be quite surprised if they hadn't. How else would they have been able to find the part that was supposedly so offensive?

I normally listen to Neal Boortz on my lunch hour, but on this day I went late and I just happened to be listening to him. I tell you, this whole thing is being blown up by MM in order to generate more tensions (as if actual tensions aren't enough). With Jena 6 dying down a bit, they can kill two birds with one stone. They can incite the Sharpton and Jackson organizations into more bogus "outrage" and smear O'Reilly, in one article.

No folks, I heard an entirely different conversation than just the snippets, they want us all to hear. In fact, my version pretty much matches Juan Williams' version of the conversation, because he heard the entire conversation also. You have to hear the entire conversation and it would be plain to anyone with any sense.

Now, I know Bill O'Reilly isn't liked by all. Just the mention of his name will bring horrible consternations and condemnations, by many. He's the kind of guy that you either love or you hate. I would say that an overwhelming majority of people in the US, know who he is, and their opinions are usually based on two things: 1) Agree or disagree with his political and personal principles. 2) Love or hate his personality.

Personally, I think he gets it right much of the time But sometimes, he gets it wrong. I also think he can be a stubborn and arrogant man, at times. But sometimes, he can be a pretty understanding and compassionate guy. One thing you have not seen a lot of here at PYY is very many posts linking to or about, Mr. O'Reilly. A sycophant, I am not. He is what he is.

But no matter what you may think about him, I know what I heard. And let me say, they've really skewed this for their own character assassination agenda. Why? They don't like his politics. They don't like his swagger. And mostly, they just do not like him.

And from the looks of things, neither does the NYT.

We must all understand something here. MM has put this kind of stuff out before. Just browse their website, they go after the conservative hosts almost exclusively and with a vengeance. And quite frankly, most people expect this from a George Soros enterprise.

But, should the NYT with their record of incompetence make a habit of running with a story that comes from a group, which aligns itself with MoveOn.Org and the likes? If so, then I think it already cheapens what is practically already shot down the tubes.

So I guess the bottomline here is simple. Media Matters really doesn't matter much, when you know the whos and whys of their doings. And if the MSM starts taking misinformation being fed to them by Leftist Cults (on a regular basis) and if they refuse to do their homework, they will see a real drop in credibility.

So, if I were to arrive at some kind of moral to this story, it would be:

It's all about putting mind over matter. I don't mind, and MM doesn't matter.

O.J. Simpson Armed Robbery Case Progresses

Friday, when all of this was getting the initial coverage, it wasn't looking like charges would be filed. I can't put my finger on it, but I would have thought the deck would have been stacked against the guy that made the complaint, because there was one of him and several of the others. But yesterday, O.J. Simpson was arrested and charged with participating in an armed robbery. The real shocker in this? No bail was set.

Evidently, the court does not trust Simpson to show up for proceedings. And why should they? Too many people have seen the chase in the white Bronco ad nauseum, too many know that with the possible penalties involved, he cannot be trusted to appear. To their credit, Las Vegas criminal justice officials do not want a repeat of the three-ring circus that was known as the O.J trial, back in the 90s. So they appear to be taking steps early to prevent that from happening.

So what the hell was O.J. thinking, when he allegedly pulled this stunt?

I am sure there will be no shortage of material for Greta's show, for awhile. This means every speculator and prognosticator that has any minuscule insight or theory of some kind, will somehow be asked what they think. And you can bet that they will tell us.

But to understand this as clearly as possible, first, it must be understood that he has not been found guilty of anything in this case. He has only been charged. However, there must be some compelling evidence. Why else would Las Vegas law enforcement officials be willing to put themselves under the microscope, the way L.A's officials were during the murder trial?

After avoiding prison in that case, to me it would seem that he would lay low for the rest of his life and be content that things came out his way. I would think that he would not want any more negative attention coming his way. While the specifics of this case are being speculated, there are some general things that can be said about O.J.'s personality.

In the world of psychology, there are 10 mental illness conditions, known as personality disorders (PDs). These 10 are far more difficult to treat than the thought and mood disorders, because they involve years of development. Much of the behaviors that are exhibited are learned responses to anxiety. The person that copes with anxiety in a healthy adaptive way has learned to to so, through years of experiences. The one that doesn't cope with anxiety well, also learned the maladaptive responses, through years of experiences.

To properly diagnose a PD, the individual must display three or more behaviors. Of the ten PDs recognized by the American Psychological Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the one that fits O.J.'s reported maladaptive coping mechanisms is that of the anti-social.

Diagnosed anti-socials are overwhelmingly men, but that is not to say that women aren't diagnosed. Usually, women with similar histories to anti-social men develop what's known as a borderline personality disorder. But O.J. is a man, and from all descriptions of his behavior found in the media these days, it appears he meets the criteria for the anti-social classification.

In summation, I think that with O.J.'s acquittal in the murder trial, he has felt more empowered to do as he pleases, without fear of accountability. It is well-known that he has dodged many of his financial obligations and now it appears that he is desperate for cash. And in all of this, it appears he has lied rather convincingly, saying that no one was roughed up during the incident in which he is now being charged. But now, we have audio tape that provides what appears to be Simpson's voice and it doesn't sound like a social call.

So, it's apparent that while he gets his day in court to answer the charges, this may not be a repeat of the fiasco we all witnessed in the murder case. While it is high-profile and certainly is being played out in the media, from all appearances, it would seem that the criminal justice system is taking a different path in the early stages of this case. They gave little indication that they would arrest him and yet, when the decision was made, it was done swiftly and surely. They didn't tip their hand, as the LAPD seemed to do.

O.J. Simpson Implicated In Theft

Slow news days seem to garner attention for stories of lesser importance, not the least of these is the report that O.J. Simpson may very well be charged in a theft, in Las Vegas. But the story seems to indicate that Simpson thinks the items belonged to him. This particular report says there was no violence involved.

Another report says that a gun was used. All of this creates a confusing myriad of complaints, from both sides.

I think he was hard at work looking for the killers of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. He thought they were in the hotel room so, he and his hired posse went in.

Wouldn't you know that when he did, he just happened to see his jersey and suit? It's quite possible that he then informed the man in the room that he'd been looking for them and thanked him for finding them.

At least that is what my sources are telling me.


UPDATE: Simpson claims he was conducting a sting operation.

I guess he temporarily reassigned himself off of the Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown case, onto this one. But from the reports I have been hearing he was back on the golf course today, looking for the killers. More as it becomes available.

Forbes Top 100 Powerful Women

From the for what it's worth department, comes this list compiled by one of the leading business magazines, Forbes. Despite the dwindling circulation numbers that have hit all in the print media, Forbes plugs along and still carries a lot of influence in the corporate capitalist world. Being named to a list like this one is a marketing tool all unto itself.

But be that as it may, I am more than certain some will discredit this list for a variety of reasons, not the least that it is a tool of the evil corporate world that seeks to exploit the masses for its own selfish and greedy reasons. Some will say that it is biased, but oh well. Name some publication that isn't a little biased. And some may even lay claim that it isn't a scientific measurement, to which I would say they're correct. But this cannot be measured, so what's the use in trying.

No, it is the opinions of Forbes and solely their opinion, for whatever it it is worth. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the list we are talking about in this post, not the validity (ot lack thereof).

Some things that stand out to the editorial staff of PYY are obvious. All one has to do it read the list and it becomes plain that the argument can be made for most of the women, as well against some of them. So, here goes nothing.

Breakdown of the continents are as follows:

(Note-I have counted these several times, my eyes are crossing from fatigue and if they are not correct, let me know. If I verify that I am wrong, I will correct it. I have counted them several times and I am just not going to count them again.)

North America ~ 50

Europe ~ 23

Asia ~ 21

Africa ~ 2

Australia/New Zealand ~ 2

South America ~ 1

Caribbean ~ 1

All of North America's women are from the U.S., none are from Mexico or Canada. Mexico doesn't surprise me as much as Canada, not making the list. Conspicuously missing from Europe are Belgium, Norway, and Switzerland. Another noticeable point: Russia lies in both Asia and Europe and is still a powerful nation, despite the fall of the Soviet Union . But they didn't make it.

China has made a good showing, as has the U.K. A couple of real surprises have lit brightly and have come in the form of Chile and Jamaica having representation, above some of the countries that didn't make it.

From this list, one can begin to think that power lies in the hands of the most capitalist of nations. And I would concur with that thought without much reservation, for the most part. But more than anything, the one point that I would like to make in all of this is, the power lies more so in the countries that honor and respect their women the most. A handful of predominantly Muslim nations (which are less generous in the world of women's rights) were by far, the biggest surprise. Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, and the UAE made a showing. Yet, it comes as little surprise that Saudi Arabia (which has massive wealth throughout its borders) failed to place one woman on the list. Iran didn't either.

Maybe this is because in these two nations, women are treated like second class citizens. I know there are many educated women in Iran and that they hold some esteemed places of prominence, within the workplaces of Iranian society. But overall, women still take a back seat to men in most areas of everyday life. They are forced to submit to men's rules or else. The recent campaign of re-Islamisizing the women's dress code is one area that stands out, as evidence of this poor attitude. Saudi Arabia has the worse reputation of them all. There, women are nothing more than property of men and do not even have the right to vote.

Besides the national and economic demographics, there are some other surprises.

I was very shocked to see Hillary Clinton at 25th, with Condi Rice at 4th. I am not sure I agree with it, either, I would place Hillary a bit higher than 25th and Condo somewhat lower than 4th. (If Hillary is elected in 2008, I would say that she would more than likely jump to 1st place, instantly.)

So, there is my opinion about the opinion, albeit it is not comprehensive . Make of it what you wish, say what you will. Like the list itself, when it comes down to it, it doesn't mean a damned thing. All that have made it this far in the post can now go waste time reading something else that means nothing. But before you go, I have one last parting shot for all to consider: All continents had some representation except for one, Antarctica. And I think the good citizens of Antarctica should be appalled.

The New Brat Pack

You have to love the headline in this story:

Star of 'Simple Life' Heads Behind Bars

And then of course, there's the opening line of the article:

Nicole Richie today became the second "Simple Life" star to be sentenced to time in the slammer.

But then we read further and see:

Richie, like her co-star and friend Paris Hilton, was sentenced to four days in jail after pleading guilty to driving under the influence of drugs.

That doesn't seem to be such a story. Unless, you (like me) fail to see where the message is being driven home.

I seriously doubt Paris Hilton has learned her lesson. Right after she was released, she went on Larry King and lied her ass off. We all know now that Lindsey Lohan, didn't learn a damned thing from her first DUI. Britney has been reported to have been on some kind of mind-altering substance in a recent photo shoot, and apparently has defied court orders that her children not be taken out of the state of California.

These girls are essentially out of control and if their behaviors are not curtailed soon, they run the risk of killing someone, someday. They just don't get it. They think they are above the law and thumb their noses at the justice system, flagrantly and often.

But that's not the half of it. These instances are just the ones we know about. How many more times have they driven drunk or high, and not gotten caught?

It's too late to spank them, which is what they surely needed when they were younger (and probably didn't get). But it's not too late to make them do some serious time for their offenses. (Unless we would like to wait for them to kill someone innocent, first.)

Colorado University Fires Ward Churchill

While the irrational Left will make this sound like a "blow to free speech", the real reason the former CU professor was fired has nothing to do with his repugnant, irresponsible remarks he is best known for. Mr. Churchill was fired for plagiarism, which is a big no-no in the world of academia, no matter how highly esteemed the educator may be. But despite this well-known academic taboo, there are those that are appalled by this decision.

From the Denver Post:

The nearly unanimous decision to fire professor Ward Churchill stirred discontent among some faculty Tuesday, many of whom vowed to fight the decision.

Many professors said they saw the decision coming and said they were crushed by what it might do to recruiting creative professors to the campus.

Looks good on paper, but I submit to you another argument: Allowing plagiarism to go unchecked will do more damage to a university, than firing a professor regarded as a (so-called) champion of free speech. What the Churchill supporters won't tell you is that Mr. Churchill was not just accused of one instance of plagiarism. In fact, just read this 125 page report, if you really want to see just how big of a phony this guy is.

No folks, this isn't about the little Eichmanns comment. People say the most irresponsible things in the world and still get to keep their jobs. (SEE: Congress) But when a university doesn't take action against someone that copies other people's works without giving proper credit, it leaves a black mark on the university and will do more damage than anything else.

So, the only question that remains is, what took them so long?

Breaking News: Jerry Falwell Is Dead

Jerry Falwell has died.

I will not mince words here, I wasn't his biggest fan. I didn't agree with much of his political ideology and did not see eye-to-eye with him in the theological realm, either. But with that said, I feel sorry for those that were closest to him and understand the grief they must now bear, with his loss.

I never wish death on anyone, no matter how I feel about their politics. I never see anyone's death as a cause for celebration. Even when Saddam was hung, I didn't feel a bit good about it, despite the fact that he was a horrible monster that slaughtered innocent blood, on a whim.

But as sure as I am about today being Tuesday, there will be those that celebrate it. Despicable, they are.