Thursday, June 01, 2006
dont tell anyone but i just started getting a free subscription to rolling stone. i dont know how it happened. i get some freebies now and then and i think one of them was that.
the first issue had george bush on the cover with a dunce cap on asking if he was the worst president ever.
now this week i can expect a long indepth article by rfk jr complete with footnotes so you can factcheck his ass.
msnbc's keith olbermann gets praised in it.
The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. ''We're in a terrible fix,'' Rep. Conyers told me. ''We've got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse -- to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That's why our citizens are not up in arms.'' if you dont subscribe, you dont even have to wait for the mailman, you can read the whole article here.
The lone news anchor who seriously questioned the integrity of the 2004 election was Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I asked him why he stood against the tide. ''I was a sports reporter, so I was used to dealing with numbers,'' he said. ''And the numbers made no sense. Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls on Election Night -- and then everything flipped.'' Olbermann believes that his journalistic colleagues fell down on the job. ''I was stunned by the lack of interest by investigative reporters,'' he said. ''The Republicans shut down Warren County, allegedly for national security purposes -- and no one covered it. Shouldn't someone have sent a camera and a few reporters out there?''
Olbermann attributes the lack of coverage to self-censorship by journalists. ''You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble,'' he said. ''You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our electoral system.''
ok so bush sucks and they stole the election. thanks rolling stone, but i think i already knew that. tell me something i dont know.
for example tell me why i can love a band but hate their songs?
to me the red hot chili peppers are an awesome group, but seriously, what am i supposed to do with this? havanna affair?
i think the peppers got the wrong message with under the bridge. it was a good song not because it was mellow, but because it was heartbreaking and real. the lesson wasnt to make more of them or watered down californication tunes, it was to bring back the funk. it was to tell us more about how true men dont kill coyotes.
the chili peppers remind me of rush after moving pictures. it was all, do we just start getting old now and forsake our excellent guitarist, or shall we rock?
ac/dc continued to rock. just sayin.
the irony is the chilis got houses in hollywood and silver lake and stayed away from the wessside but their latest music is the soundtrack to that dreamlike carefree stonyhaze of los angeles the glossed-up fantasy
where the most punk rock you can get is not reading the new york times
maybe the lesson learned is once you play woodstock with giant torches on your head you're due for a long decent into medicoraty.
most people are able to look back at the eighties with loving memories but what they forget is inbetween all those classic tracks that we smile at today were huge rock blocks of phil collins, naked eye, starship, and huey lewis.
you know what 2006 release i will probably listen to far more than the chili peppers' stadium arcadium?
rocket, pictured, who by the way are the Ultimate Band List's Featured Artist this week (scroll down a tad).
metafilter thread about the elections + matt good is writing online again + evil china doll + siri is at 4.50 chumps
# | |
Previously on busblog...