Monday, October 31, 2016

Obama - "Fire the FBI Director NOW"

First, we should settle any possible questions about the political position of this old, high desert blogger. MeanMesa will vote for Hillary Clinton, but that vote will not be based on any great expectation that her Presidency will be anything to be fondly remembered.

Hatch Act or Not: It's Time For James Comey To Go.
Monday Morning.


FBI Director James Comey [image]
Even among the careful players at the atmospheric level of a government executive office, the sabotaging of the final remaining shred of the old American democracy is NOT a "personnel issue." When that opportunistic sabotage is conducted brazenly -- in the harsh light of day -- the "niceties" of "correct" executive management procedures on the part of the President are not in play.


Yes. For anyone not already painfully aware of the state of the electorate a bit of explanation is in order. Comey and his Republican friends correctly spotted an existing opportunity, and after spotting, it they recklessly lurched forward into a scheme to fully exploit it.

In this case the "prize" at the bottom of the pit of their treachery and treason was the opportunity to elect Donald Trump. The "opportunity" they intended to employ for this bit of mischief was the extraordinarily low caliber of the Trump voter's education, information and understanding -- along with the extraordinarily high degree of fear and hatred Trump and the media have managed to incite in these same voters.

The "Ultimate Torpedo"
An "October Surprise" Than Can't Be Undone
Trumpy's Breibart Connection Is Drilling Its Way Into the FBI

Perhaps the greatest aspect of this "opportunity" is that the electoral damage it has created cannot be undone. American voters are exhausted. They've been lied to over and over again. They have been stripped of the opportunity to consider any policy positions during the campaigns. They have been systematically terrified either by the dreadful possibility that Trump might win or the relentless media insistence that "they just don't trust Hillary." They have watched everything from Presidential debates to any reference to very pressing policy decisions evaporate before their eyes.

Not really any important policy decisions facing the next President? After watching the campaign, one might think so.

For example, the Russians ['Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow,' says Russian government-run TV network./INDEPENDENT UK] and the Chinese [HIGH ALERT: China Prepares For War Against U.S. as Russia Edges on Nuclear Catastrophe?!/USAPOLITICS] are both rehearsing preparedness measures for nuclear war.

Can anyone recall even so much as a mention of this in the campaigns?

A lot of effort and a lot of dollars have been invested in making absolutely certain that this thing looks utterly hopeless. Even the perpetually optimistic [jokeMeanMesa is a bit shaken: "We all knew that we were in the last day to day process of cementing our new oligarchic masters into command. The stakes are high. Could we really have expected these heavily soiled political creatures to somehow have acted any more honorably?"

It is not surprising that the FBI Director sent his vacuous letter to the Republican Chairmen of eight committees in the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Leaks were inevitable, anticipated and immediate. The useless domestic media careened into the "content free" hyperbolics without any hesitation.

Ratings would depend on whether the FBI "nothing burger" could be manipulated into a change in the polls. In fact, MeanMesa's "nothing burger" seems to be dripping grease on an old text book about the Hatch Act. [If you're unfamiliar with this, here's a link: What is the Hatch Act -- and did James Comey break it?/CNN]

Watch Out, America! There's a Smoking Gun!
Except there isn't.
Comey's Letter, and "Things" To Notice
Please watch for both what's there and what's NOT there.
This just keeps on getting better and better.

Although you may be doing a "double take" on the contents of this letter as you return again and again to finally "notice" the "smoking gun," MeanMesa encourages you to...uh...just relax. At least, let's say, try to relax as much as possible while watching the nation is shed the last vestige of representative democracy.

There is no "smoking gun."

However, even though there is no "smoking gun," Comey's cautious treachery has worked wonders. For what it's worth, NBC reported this Sunday evening that Clinton -- who had been enjoying something between 8 and 12 point lead yesterday -- was showing a 2 point lead in NBC's national polls today. This treasonous little rat may have just elected President Donald J. Trump.

The Letter

[courtesy of New York Times]

Was this an "innocent blunder?"

It would have hardly required an intellectual master mind to write this letter in a manner which would have:

1. covered Comey's bases concerning later criticism

2. had no particular effect on the outcome of the election going on at the same time
3. manifested some evidence of any concern for the conduct of the country's democratic responsibilities
4. been consistent with the fact that the FBI has no incriminating evidence whatsoever

Anticipating the incredible backlash which would emerge from his letter, Comey sent this memo to all FBI employees. 

Comey's internal memo to FBI employees:

To all:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

Jim Comey

Comey's Claim to Fame
How in the world did this sold out con artist wind up as Obama's FBI Director?

Director Comey insinuated himself into the Obama Administration via a trick seldom employed by right wing reactionaries. He demonstrated integrity. Here's the story from the time: Gonzales Hospital Episode Detailed/Washington Post

Refresh your memory.

He reverted to his more normal role as a Manchurian toady after he had implanted himself in a position from which he could do some real damage.

MeanMesa's Letter to Congress and to All the "Willy Nillies
Who Didn't Even Bother Reading Comey's Letter
What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

Well, Director Comey isn't the only one who can conduct this sort of careful investigation. MeanMesa, upon seeing what Comey had just done, immediately launched a similar investigation of the FBI Director, himself.

We HAD to have "answers," right?

Please don't eat me!  [image]
Happily, MeanMesa's investigation began paying dividends right away. For a start, the following photograph has been located.

Although Comey himself apparently does not appear in the photograph, MeanMesa has opened the investigation to determine if this agitated child has been frightened by the possibility of being a victim of Director Comey's possible child cannibalism.

Watch this blog! There will be more news here just as soon as it becomes available. In the meantime, MeanMesa is rushing this latest news to the Congress. Naturally, this content can also be purchased by the media -- for the right price.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

After 2016 - Will the Democrats Welcome the Billionaires?

Preparing for the Next Republican Post Mortem
Not a problem. They can just "freshen up" their last post mortem.

Photographing cadaver in posing stand
post mortem. 
MeanMesa understands that millions of previously confused hill billies and bigots all across the nation have enjoyed what, no doubt, seemed to be a "moment of clarity" during the twisted, self-destructive campaign of The Donald. Of course this wasn't actually any type of traditional "moment of clarity" as we think of it. Instead, this "moment of clarity" for all these frustrated, rally attending hot heads was little more than a welcome "vacation" from the painful, everyday confusion of fundamentally not "fitting in" with any of the more normal processes surrounding him.

In fact, as we observed the faces filling the carnival mood of a Trump rally, we saw little "human elation" -- even months ago when the poll numbers still looked somewhat positive. Rather than elation, we saw the muffled hysteria a narcotic addict expresses after having a dose of his "medicine." These somewhat more animated than usual faces were showing relief from what had previously been  the truly tragic sensation one inevitably encounters when as he finally realizes that he is not really any part of what's going on around him.

While The Donald was available to focus all these confused aspects in his crowd of supporters, all sorts of things which had not previously risen even to the level of groaning, grumbling, late night beer hall chatter suddenly -- at least for them -- seemed not only much clearer, but also, somehow, refreshingly important. Happily, for the dazed Trumpkins, what had been no more than rambling chatter suddenly became much more like a chorus chanting relevant lyrics as it was sung by "kindred spirits" through an eerily gigantic, media microphone.

At the first sign of a developing "ratings opportunity" in the early stages of The Donald's chaotic campaign, the salivating network executives frantically ordered their media minions to throw as much gasoline on the fire as possible. Even though the most ardent Trumpkins seldom strayed far from FOX and Breitbart, the alphabet execs were banking that vast numbers of the previously uninterested might become at least slightly more "interested" in the blather of the industrial networks, thus boosting their ratings.

Well, now the festival seems to be running out of steam. It looks increasingly likely that the Grand Old Party's effort has fallen even farther from the Oval Office this time than in the last two elections. Even the "death grip"of  GOP control of the Congress also seems to be faltering.

There's No Need to be "Generous in Victory."
There weren't any street side memorials for the death of the last polio virus.

All the "rain drops" in this perfect storm will inevitably plot the path to another repeat of the now utterly forgotten Republican "post mortem" study constructed in the ashes of the Romney defeat four years ago. Oh sure, the GOP's "usual suspects" can brush off their tattered ash cloths and hair shirts for another performance of the maudlin, heart felt, mea culpa, but these actors will still be just that: actors.

The real story will be unfolding high in the atmosphere above the painfully scripted, televised Passion Play of the GOP's rapidly approaching, next post mortem. In country clubs all across the Confederacy the GOP's billionaires will be doing their own groaning. The prospects for "hitting it big" with their billionaire Santa's Wish List from their wholly owned Congress have suddenly grown more than a "little frayed."

Millions of the voters who had gradually grown to accept a government paralyzed by well paid obstructionists seem to have awakened from their slumber. However, no matter how hopeful that development might seem at the moment, it's only "awakened." The possibility that the power of the Congress might be redirected to goals favored by the voters remains a mere sliver of a chance -- and one with an unavoidably long term journey ahead.

It's much more likely that this "awakening" will only result in "louder complaining" in the mean time.

Although MeanMesa isn't convinced that the Russians had that much to do with this, MeanMesa is convinced that Bill Clinton is performing the still alive version of "turning over in his grave" while dancing an uncontrollable "happy song."

So, Where Do the Billionaires Go For Their "Favors," Now?
Spend a few days calming yourselves down, then call the Democrats.
You might say "too bad," but remember, billionaires are really, really flexible.
If there's money to be made, they'll...uh...rise to the occasion,
and, it turns out, Democrats are really, really flexible, too.

Just remember, we're not electing Elizabeth Warren. Soon to be President Hillary, on the other hand, has had plenty of experience threading her way through the labyrinth of interests in Wall Street's back alleys.

It would be quite premature to say that billionaire money in politics has become a thing of the past, or that these "plutocratic dollars" are now understood to be carrying some deadly strain of virulent germs.  At the same point, however, it would not be so difficult to say that the influence of billionaires, themselves, becomes toxic -- if not out rightly radioactive -- when they begin to manage "their investments" in Congressional bribery and political campaigns.

Even though Democratic politicians such as Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren may understand this very clearly, President Hillary is still, most likely, tempted to "dance" with the prospect. This was the tune when Bill was President, and the prospect of returning to those halcyon days will almost certainly be front and center in the mind of Mrs. President this time around.

These billionaires have watched the Party -- and the Congress -- they purchased and controlled with their precious dollars "break loose of the reins" and self-destruct. Aggravating their predicament even more, in one the speeches they paid Hillary to deliver, she has already threatened to "unleash the regulators" if they could not find a way to "adequately" regulate themselves.

Where did all the money go? A quick look
at the US economy since Reagan.
[data source]
Although no one has too clear a picture of precisely what Hillary may have meant by "regulation," it almost certainly includes some provision to avoid wrecking the entire planetary economy again. If she wishes to tackle an even bigger problem, she can attempt to "walk back" the consistent redistribution of national wealth which has been flowing into the pockets of the billionaires every year since the Reagan era.

Happily, more or less normal Democratic Party leadership can approach the "walk back" issue at a rate slow enough to avoid the equivalent of an "oligarchs versus everyone else" style civil war. Bill Clinton was remarkably effective at this, and he will, presumably, be sitting in the room next to the Oval Office.

Still, we have to remember the chilling words of Senator Bernie Sanders as he surveyed the wreckage of the Bush W. catastrophe. "Not everyone had a hard time during the George W. Bush Presidency. The top 400 income earners saw their personal wealth increase by $600 Billion dollars." For the mathematically challenged that is 1. 5/8 of a Trillion dollars, and 2. one and one half Billion dollars over eight years to each one if the money were divided evenly.

Sanders' observation illuminates the continuing ambitions of the billionaire class. They invested heavily with their purchase of the Republican Party and their generous indulgence in Republican politics to position themselves to reap this George W. Bush windfall. After ignominiously dumping the wreckage of the GOP, MeanMesa has no doubt whatsoever that these same "oligarch-wanna-be's" will be wrapping themselves -- and their money -- around President Hillary Clinton as soon as she takes a seat in the Oval Office.

The "final solution" as to whom will be controlling Congress becomes even more interesting at this point.

Hillary won't be able to accomplish much "regulating" with a hostile House of Representatives, but , on the other hand, there won't be many "gifts" for these plutocrats if they can't cozy up to Democrats if they wind up in command.

MeanMesa considers the prospect of a "major sea change" to be over optimistic. The curve of the top money class [chart above] will almost certainly continue to rise regardless. The static curve of everyone else, currently bumping along the bottom of the chart, is probably going to fall through the Earth to China.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Oooops! We've Been Fooled Again

Relax. Everything's Going Just About As Expected
Feels suspiciously good, doesn't it?

Come on. Don't hurt me! I'm TRYING to smile!
 Everything REALLY IS okay, isn't it?
As it is with most Americans by this time in the 2016 election, MeanMesa is "full to the gunwales" with the constant babble which has been so cosmetically embellished and proffered up as "relevant political discourse." In fact what's being offered in such copious, mind numbing amounts doesn't even rise to the quality of having anything to do with even something so fleetingly relevant as the "burning question of the day."

An alien, unfamiliar with the intricacies of what's unfolding in this process, would most likely conclude that there actually wasn't a "burning question of the day" at all! When that observant space traveler returned to his home world, he would report that all the humans -- even though their planet is teetering at the juncture of huge, extinction grade difficulties -- are desperately "threading the needle" with a frenetic spat over ancient biblical sexual piety while being driven nearly crazy by a frantic, widespread, bizarre, un-examined malaise about the "way things are going."

Well, before anyone among this blog's treasured visitors slips into an undeserved episode of painful self-recrimination it's clearly time to "scrape the spoiled parts" off the crust of this election debacle.

Large parts of the old democracy still seem to be somewhat functional. Most of the heavy weights among the political players from before remain in power, and most of these heavy weights are still driven by the same motives which were driving them a year ago.

To their credit, many of the citizens in the electorate are utterly despondent.

All of this is practically screaming at MeanMesa, "It's time for another chapter of the grand conspiracy theory!" The first chapter was posted a few days ago: Is Bill Clinton the "Brain" Behind Donald Trump?  

In any event this means a comforting visit to the blog's "fictional history" section is totally in order. Enjoy!

MeanMesa Fiction
 A Conspiracy Tale 

The Story of Bill and Donald
A 2016 Election update

The cell phone on Donald Trump's secret number buzzes quietly. Only a single person in the entire world has the number. It's Bill calling. The septuagenarian quickly surveys those in the room, making a mental note of possible future eye witnesses. He then quickly stumbles in a confused retreat to his hotel room closet as innocuously as possible, pulling arm loads of suits on hangers in front of the door to further muffle any of the conversation in case someone outside is trying to eavesdrop on his words.

Bill Clinton: "Hi, Donald. It's Bill."

Donald Trump: "I know. You're the only one with this number."

Bill Clinton: "I'm just calling to check on how you're doing. Things are going pretty well, but I know this has to be tough on you. Are you holding up okay?"

Donald Trump: "God! It is getting nasty. I never expected that these people would be so damned savage! They seem to be coming from all sides now. I know that we talked about this before we began, but...damn...this is brutal!"

Bill Clinton: "Well, just hang in there. The whole mess is going to get packed up in a couple of weeks. Hill's going to be President, and you can fire up that Trump network you've always wanted. The Face Book thing seemed to work out pretty well."

Donald Trump: "Even Melania is getting freaked out. Of course I haven't told her anything about the plan, so she's just kind of stuck out there with all this media rolling in on us. I don't think she suspects that we're scheming the game. I guess a lot of this is not really surprising her."

Bill Clinton: "Well, I can't imagine that you need any advice from me on how to handle the women." He chuckles. "You're likely to pull 30 or 40 million votes in November. All of those Trump voters are going to turn into a ready made audience on the first day you're broadcasting -- plus the paranoia about rigging the election should set you up nicely with lots of passion among your viewers. You know that the network is going to be selling commercials -- and your brand, too -- like whores in a lumber camp. When things get discouraging, just remember how good it's going to feel to be sitting up there in the executive office of Trump News or whatever you're planning to call it."

Donald Trump: "I know, I know. I've even been thinking about hiring Hannity and O'Reilly right out from under Murdoch. I am so tired of that old bastard. I'd love to leave him stranded with all the rest of those losers he's got under contract. Plus, if either of them ever cross me, I would be able to just fire their asses. What could be better than that?"

Bill Clinton: "You've got a good eye for spotting business opportunities, Donald. You grabbed a hold of this Trump network idea and ran with it. The best part is that this idea is almost certainly going to work! If you can get half of your voters to tune in to that thing every day, you'll have better ratings than FOX. The Trump network can finally leave the old fascist and his Arab billionaire Prince in the dust bin of history, to use an old Reagan phrase."

Donald Trump: "Don't cut yourself short, Bill. You were the one who spotted 40 million voters who were so disgruntled with the status quo that even a guy like me could draw 'em in! Plus, even though everybody knew that there was no love lost between you and the Republican Party after the thing with Monica, no one thought anyone could ever actually do anything about it. Now look at 'em. They're wrecked. Even the old banksters and billionaires are spinning in their shoes."

Bill Clinton: "Yeah. This thing was just sitting there like a over ripe peach, waiting for a couple of guys with the know how to pluck that baby off the tree. Things might be looking a little dismal for you right now, Donald, but just wait -- payday's coming in November!"

Donald Trump: "Have you got any tips for these last couple of weeks, Bill?"

Bill Clinton: "Just keep going with the racist stuff. Your crowd's gobblin' up that stuff like hungry vultures. The rigged election thing is also working even better than I thought it would. Just remember, every time you get those hill billies and bigots fired up enough to beat down a protester, you're solidifying your new network's viewer base. Just try to picture Rupert Murdoch turning out the lights and locking the door at NEWSCORP."

Donald Trump: "Thanks, Bill. I'm feeling better about this."

Bill Clinton: "Are you ready to hit it hard for another couple of weeks, Donald?"

Donald Trump: "Let's get it done. Give my love to Hillary."

Bill Clinton: "I sure will. Remember to just give me a call -- anytime -- if this stuff starts to get you down again."

Donald Trump: "Thanks again. I'll call you if I need you."

Thursday, October 20, 2016

The Media's Myth of "Radicalization On Line"

The "Two Stories"
It's clearly time to start thinking about the "other one."
That is, the inevitable "media version" 
and the only slightly more difficult to comprehend, "actual version"

The "media" version of terrorism reporting:

The reportage of a terrorist act is dependably represented as "something basically incomprehensible." The network "news narrative" confronts this immediately with a series of quite "palatable, alternative conclusions" intended to produce a delightful, although cynically artificial, "comprehensible" sensation in the media consumer.

This effort is usually approached from two central themes, although there are more "waiting in the wings" should the narrative start growing "incomprehensible" again.

The first "theme" is almost always "mental illness." The terrorist perpetrator's entire life history is scrutinized for evidence of some hidden, lingering craziness which can be used to "explain" what he just did. The viewer, calmed by this wonderful revelation, is immediately more relaxed and satisfied. Whatever the "terrorist" act might have been, the man who performed it was simply not in his right mind.

This opens the possibility for this viewer to "extend" the network's logic just a tad, arriving at an even more calming, reassuring and even more comfortably "comprehensible" conclusion that people around the world really like the United States, and only insane people -- such as this particular terrorist -- would fail to do so.

The second "theme" is "on line radicalization" --  that is the suggestion this individual was, in fact, absolutely, unquestionably, indisputably "normal" prior to the evening that he first linked his desk top computer to a "radical, Islamic web site." Of course, to be fair, we have to, also alternatively, include a completely tax deductible, First Amendment, "radical, dirty shirt, Alabama preacher's web site."

This "theme" offers the industrial media many advantages similar to those noted in the "first theme."

It instantly introduces a very appealing possibility for "placing the blame." For the biblical lunatics attempting to digest this "news story" in a manner which comports with the Old Testament [not to mention, of course, also comporting with the original Vatican "fatwa" introduced in the famous Crusades "Holy Lands real estate" speech of Pope Urban II, ca. 1095 AD -  read it here FORDHAM], the details of the still smoldering violent event being reported need not be "tested for relativity" beyond the fact that it was either not a Christian who committed it, or, at least, not a good Christian.

For media consumers anxious to "go even farther" than simply placing the blame or just lamenting everything existing about the modern Middle East, this "second theme" offers a wonderfully superficial, effortless "response" to the horrible act which has just occurred.

An effortless response? Of course. 

Blame the Internet.

More specifically, these media consumers can not only blame the Internet, but they can proceed to demand that the US government "do something" about these "radicalizing Islamic web sites," but, of course, only while doing absolutely nothing about the "radicalizing, dirty shirt preachers' web sites."

In this way the US media can "do its job."

Wait. What "job" would that be?

That "job" would be two fold:

1. To explain absolutely everything without ever introducing so much as a whisper of the possibility that the United States started this cycle of terror or that the news media had grown to rely on it almost explicitly for the "sacred network viewership ratings." and,

2. To offer a response -- i.e. such as censoring the Internet -- which is guaranteed to be absolutely ineffective at suppressing terrorist acts, but also which would, over time, serve to diminish the interest of those viewers currently hypnotized by the "ratings generating" network terrorism narratives. The industrial "news" business, understandably, "likes things just the way they are.

The "actual" version of terrorism reporting:

It doesn't require a "stretch of the imagination" to speculate some far more realistic causes of terrorist acts. In the past of many of these terrorists is a direct experience. Perhaps this was something like someone's eight year old cousin who was killed while she was running from a bombing attack which had just killed her mother. Maybe it was a long time neighbor who was shot and killed in the middle of a street fight.

Perhaps these events were communicated as a "second hand" account over an Internet site. Maybe this terrorist's brother had worked in an automotive garage for years -- until it was blown to smithereens by the 34th bomb among fifty other bombs which were dropped on the 128th day of an "air war" which saw fifty bombs dropped daily.

Domestic terrorists were not "radicalized" by a few visits to an Internet site. The process was of a much longer duration.

Yet, thanks to the domestic media's "antiseptic" version describing the causes of this horrible process, the target of the "blame" which instigated each one of these domestic murder and mayhem events must be directed at something conveniently close and conveniently deplorable -- the Internet. After months of continuing attacks by the USAF, we wonder why this shallow denial and delusion hasn't accomplished the military objective so carefully crafted by the same media.

The "Mad Hatter" atmosphere seems to be sickeningly self-sustaining. Pretending to be "blameless victims" while pretending to conduct violent war fare -- inflamed for the media by vengeful, righteous anger -- to neutralize everyone who might have a good reason to hate us has essentially no possibility of success.

The Media and the Bomber, Slicer, Shooter or Ax Man
"If it bleeds, it leads!"
For the viewer at home there will be five seconds
 of deep, insightful analysis following the video.

So, why exactly is the US domestic media absolutely refusing to say anything about why some terrorist suddenly careens into an insane terrorism episode?

The answer is unsettling. That kind of reporting can no longer interest the media audience which might have, at one time, actually felt engaged with such a topic. It shouldn't be too difficult to find someone who will offer up the idea that "No, it's always been pretty much like that."

It hasn't.

To place a little foundation under such a proposition we should look at a few examples of the US being "attacked." When the Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk in May, 1915, 128 Americans were among the 1200 lost. When Pearl Harbor was flattened in December, 1941, 2,400 Americans were killed and around 1,200 were wounded. There are plenty of examples.

However, the point is that when this news was brought to the American citizens at home, the country responded. Importantly, these attacks and most others in the period were military attacks, not acts of terrorism. Nonetheless, prior to the shaky "truce" which finally ended the Cold War with the Soviets Americans were quite intolerant of foreign powers raiding, threatening or killing their citizen peers.

In modern times the American military, at least theoretically, is so powerful that modern adversaries have, understandably, switched to asymmetric tactics -- tactics which focus on terrorist attacks instead of military action. The advanced military may create a "realm of terror" on those unable to resist, but the asymmetric tactics of the otherwise militarily inferior -- coupled with the raw avarice of the American media -- can go far to create its own "realm of terror" in the domestic American psyche.

Further, what we see now is a continuation of the cycle, one which began long before the terrorism began. See, people quietly living -- wherever they may be -- their lives do not spontaneously reach a mental state in which they are prepared to sacrifice themselves to "make a media point." There is a long, disturbing series of events which had to occur first.

If the terrorism is occurring here in the US, we can be quite certain that in the past someone from the US started the cycle. Even the US is "hard to hate" in the absence of some pretty direct incitement. For example freedom loving, free enterprise Westerners have been "harvesting" everything not "bolted down" in the Middle East region for centuries with predictable results -- including the current terrorism.

The British Lancet reports that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens -- more than enough of them Sunni -- were killed in the Bush W. "oil war." [Johns_Hopkins_Bloomberg_School] Rest assured, this is more than enough to "get things started."

Everything MUST be Suffocated Into Inane Simplicity
Neither the media's reporting nor the media audience's understanding are exceptions.
The "nothing is real" idea? "Now THERE is something REALLY comfortable!"

MeanMesa watches the now road weary explanation which not only inevitably follows each, utterly amateurish "lone wolf" terrorist effort but is also then repeated ad nauseum for the next dozen "news cycles." Not surprisingly, at least for the producers in the brain locked domestic media, extracting the maximum fear value will necessarily consume a healthy number of echoing, media repeats.

Think of it as a delightful serendipity -- an unexpected opportunity to take a few days off from the drudgery of actual reporting. Just kidding. There's clearly very little drudgery going on in network media reporting.

We really need to acknowledge that these terrorist acts do not materialize from absolutely nothing or even some momentary, frustrated whimsy. There is a story behind each one. The perpetrator of such an act was doing something, thinking something and feeling something which ultimately led up to the violent, anti-social act. Although in most cases the life of the terrorist ends, there was also some sort of life before the days or hours of actually acting like a terrorist -- important moments which led to the state from which finally committing to the act seemed to make sense. 

The decision to undertake a course of action which will cause harm or death to others and almost inevitably mark the end of one's life is the product of acting on some profound conclusions. Of course the precise motivations behind various terrorist acts are almost certainly widely varied, but yet, certain commonalities are almost always present. 

Since committing a terrorist act is unavoidably a "media oriented" affair, these widely varied possible motivations become a central part of the story. Too often any probing hypothetical questioning which might suggest the nature of this commonality in motives is missing. Instead, the domestic media is inclined to adopt the "ratings driven" banal rather than taking the risk of even so much as cautious speculation. 

Naturally, whenever the domestic corporate media finds an avenue of investigation to be "too risky," MeanMesa is always eager to "take the plunge." There is a narrative behind the development of these terrible motivations.

In fact, with respect to these motives it can be asserted here that there are usually at least two readily definable "points of departure" for such a venture. Because all that MeanMesa "has to go on" comes from media reporting, these "points of departure" must be detected from within the "flavor" of that reporting. Hopefully, we can make some more substantial headway from what is routinely reported. These "points of departure" lead directly to the "two stories" mentioned earlier.

Let's "Get Specific" Without Too Many "Specifics"
There will be no "comprehensive list" of terrorists. 
We want to look for commonalities we can detect in the media's treatment.

Just as there are two interesting "narratives" of the events leading to these terrorist "decisions," there are also almost always two versions of what the motivations might have been. One of these versions serves the corporate interests of the media, but understanding the alternative version might possibly be useful in reducing the number of such attacks. Speculating on the details of both will be a tempting undertaking if it can lead to a better understanding of the factors driving the phenomenon. 

Whether we like it or not, as citizens we have "a dog in this fight." However, MeanMesa suspects that the "dog fight" we see on our televisions is actually one choreographed by the industrial media and scripted to guarantee the maximum fear generating impact -- and ratings. The corporate media, certainly FOX, but also the remainder of the now heavily soiled alphabet networks, have intentionally reduced the American audience to a state of utterly unjustifiable terror and dread to promote "viewership."

He seemed like such a nice boy. 
By this means the painfully low, "low information" citizens have been convinced that there is an "Arab terrorist" lurking in every shadow even though the actual number of citizen injuries and deaths remains minuscule compared to the daily body count resulting from police shootings, air pollution, bad water and car wrecks. Historically, the rampaging, domestic, "biblical lunatics" still firmly occupy "first place" in causing civilian deaths by violent acts of terrorism.

Wait! Is the camera running? [image]
The actual terrorists -- mostly located in places beyond the US borders -- do their part to complete this mystical horror. When the conflict was in its beginning even before 9/11, the terrorists took great pains to advertise the idea that they were completely prepared to blow themselves into pieces for the cause. Both the terrorist leaders and the domestic US media knew that this "degree of dedication" would be viewed as horrifying anathema to US domestic media consumers. It was.

With the rise of ISIL the latest crop of terrorists have eagerly begun video taped decapitations and the immolation of captured prisoners locked in cages to further embellish their suicidal program of bombing civilians. Importantly, all these activities have been so tightly integrated into the Western media's narrative that all possibilities of more careful consideration have been "thrown to the wind."

We understand that the domestic media is so blindly manipulated by these ratings seekers as to be utterly useless. However, manipulated is one thing -- complicit is another. In this case the "ball" is bouncing back and forth between the terrorists and the media as if it were in a giant, grisly, pin ball machine.

The point of this post is precisely this. 

Even when some "terrorist" inflicts his inevitable "terror" on another handful of people in our country, his silent partner is the US domestic media. The terrorist and the media are inextricably bound to each other as partners in the same criminal affair, and each is totally dependent on the other, counting on the constant, willing and eager participation and assistance from a perpetual accomplice.

The minority of Americans interpreting these acts through the lens of the Old Testament add the entertaining and saucy  "flames of righteous desperation" to the mix. When this "desperation" is absorbed by the US political system, finally arriving at the place we presently occupy is inevitable.

US Media: The Next Voice You'll Hear Will Be Progressive

So, Will Rachel Maddow Replace Chick Todd?
NBC may still have a "survival instinct" if it awakes in time.

Plenty of strikingly unusual things have been "laid bare" since The Donald converted what was left of the Fourth Estate into a quivering whore with way too much make up. Now, even though MeanMesa, perpetually an unabashed political junkie of the first water, was dutifully disgusted at the outset with the wild, repeating, media dalliance with the "glitz appeal" of this grotesque "non-candidate," the presumption around here [Short Current Essays' Galactic Head Quarters] was that millions of US voters would be blindly "feasting" on the endless pablum of this embarrassing media indulgence in a truly unsettling way as the "alphabet networks" loaded more and more billions of dollars worth of free coverage to his Presidential reality show.

Still, even given the abysmally low, political quality of these media extravaganzas, the voters' comprehension of what is transpiring around them has -- surprisingly -- surpassed the very "low bar" with which MeanMesa typically measures our national efforts at democracy. Further, it's not just the voters who have surprised these old bones -- it is also the networks' media consumers who are also behaving quite surprisingly, in this case, with an unexpected and encouraging new realization of "having seen the light."

The Sleeper Awakes, HG Wells [image_YouTUBE]
Following the traditional, utterly useless media coverage of previous election after dismal, tedious election, in every repetition another mind numbing stream of gaseous, superficial, carnival euphemisms masquerading as "political discourse," this year seems to have brought something quite remarkable and different. The 2016 political media world has, apparently, awakened all those heretofore credulous, comatose television watchers to glimpse a much clearer realization of just what these networks have been doing!

Yes, all these citizens in the electorate had become passive and sponge-like, abused to the point that they would grudgingly accept practically anything that came their way from the politics industry. However, a good number of these citizens have finally now noticed what went on in the first few months of Trump's campaign. Remember how it was? The network news editors lined up like prostitutes at the lumber camp bar on pay day, continuously obsessed with the prospect of publicizing another dump truck full of The Donald's meaningless ramblings.

Well, there was a message to be delivered, and it was not anything which could be found in Donald Trump's confused "word salad" string of talking points. The message wasn't about Donald Trump. 

The message was about the media.

After decades the networks' spell seems to have been broken -- the tattered veil had been lifted. After watching the ugly saga of sausage being made for The Donald, a shockingly painless conclusion suddenly became as "plain as day." 

Believing the media was a dangerous mistake. 

This wasn't anything particularly new to political junkies such as MeanMesa, but this revelatory and auspicious moment was clear evidence that this new understanding of the media was no longer merely dancing in an isolated tavern for political junkies. No, it was "loose" on the streets, and voters who had, before this, long since ceased being interested in politics were, once again, truly taking notice.

Of course we find ourselves in a predictably awkward juncture in the immediate sense. With the US media finally revealed as the soiled charlatan which could only be made to look relevant with sparkly, white toothed "news actors" and plenty of cosmetics, all these voters are now seeking out sources with more dignity and rational credibility.

American Political Discourse Rises From the Dead
If you haven't sampled some progressive media, give it a try.
Don't be embarrassed. Welcome aboard!

Exhuming the Fairness Doctrine [gif.source]
At the time of this posting right wing broadcast media is overwhelming the tiny voices of progressives on the air waves by around 200 to 300 per cent. This means that every time Thom Hartmann airs a single hour of The Thom Hartmann Show, 200 or 300 hours of right wing radio broadcasts are also aired. It's been this way for decades. 

Ronald Reagan obliterated the broadcast Fairness Doctrine in 1987. That law required broadcasters using the public air waves to attempt to mix and balance their broadcast content. The Doctrine had been law since 1949.

Once that troublesome irritant had been permanently VETOed, things began roaring down hill almost immediately. It is quite safe to say that we are either at "the bottom" of the hill or damned close to it. The trillions of dollars worth of free political news coverage of the non-news worthy Trump turns out to be the "straw that broke this camel's back."

The industrial media's total abandonment of any fealty to "broadcasting for the public good" has been egregious, arrogant and infuriating. The billionaires are now unquestionably in charge of what's left of the old, traditional networks, but their "return on investment" may not be as impressive as they thought.

"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.

Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues. 

2/29/16: Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, Columbia Broadcasting System.

So, What Comes Next?
Those who think that the networks are about to re-create themselves,
please join the line forming behind the dumpster.

If anyone has been waiting for a media "rags to riches" story, you've come to the right place. After the despicable sell out to birth the Donald Trump "movement," American media consumers will be searching for an alternative. They won't pause at MSNBC for any longer than it will take to find out where Rachel Maddow has moved.

The alphabet networks won't change because they can't. They are now no more than pitiful waifs being driven by shockingly single minded corporate oligarchs demanding high enough ratings to successfully sell toothpaste commercials for cash. American media consumers may fiddle away a few more weeks or months trying to convince themselves that "it wasn't as bad as all that," but as they gradually sober up, it looks very much like they're going to develop a refreshing new appetite for fact based media which will actually inform them about what's happening.

Happily, the "new news" market they seek is already well established as a minuscule presence buried below the surface of the brain fever infested swamps of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and FOX. Many of these listeners and viewers will soon discover that the major media markets in their large urban communities have been entirely co-opted by the sold out toothpaste sellers for years.

They will discover that any entity broadcasting a progressive message has been quietly transformed into an "all sports," "all tel-evangelical" or "all business" alternative. If the curiosity of these new truth seekers is piqued, they will also discover that these new "alternately themed content" broadcast offerings have generated painfully unrewarding ratings for those who directed these changes.

At this point yet another very smelly elephant is entering the room.

These recently slaughtered progressive media options have not been slaughtered to improve station ratings. They have been slaughtered at the well financed behest of the billionaires' think tanks. They have been censored.

If we were describing the changes make to a sleepy, family owned, 100 KW AM station in Beaver Falls, it would be one thing. We're not. We are describing huge, popular radio and television broadcasters in cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. All across the country massive cities with populations in the millions have become right wing broadcast infested wastelands.

Residents in these places have no choices in the broadcast content they are able to receive. It will be stridently right wing -- day and night, or it will be silence.

Big Players On the Horizon
Probably so big that they will change our idea of "big."
That won't be all that is new, either.

At some point, perhaps a few decades ago, the Democrats slept through the effective end of the Party's presence in the domestic media. Since then all "news" originating from the Democratic Party, its politicians or its spokesmen gradually became a "curious dalliance," evoking a few seconds of the evening "news" as an aside.

This was the state of American journalism at the beginning of what Donald Trump was preparing to "do" to it. Now, after The Donald actually has done this to it, it is in tatters. Neither the billionaires nor the progressives have any thought of being able to effectively "use" the domestic media in any manner which could be "persuasive" to the disgusted, exhausted men and women in the electorate.

The Democrats have already been speaking about creating a network of their own to counter FOX -- and largely the other industrial networks, too. MeanMesa has posted about this: Will the Democrats Finally De-fang FOX?/MeanMesa.

However, not to be left out of the fray -- the tempestuous, democracy wrecking scrap between two openly opposing networks -- the Republicans are, most likely, going to wind up with their own network after Trump loses this election next month.

Trump, once the polls began to paint him as The Wreck of the Ancient Mariner, has, predictably, begun to blame the "liberal media." This is not a shocking development. Republican politicians have been doing the same thing for a long time when their Presidential campaigns become a death march.

What's different is that Trump has collected millions of illiterate hill billies and bigots, and this "scum of the earth" actually believes what he has said about the "liberal media." They are prepared to consider his now essential inevitable election failure as evidence that the process was "rigged" -- his words. They are also, most likely, quite prepared to become irrationally violent about it.

Not a problem. The pundits are now reporting that The Donald, staggering out of the ashes of his election disaster, will start his own network, too. There is little reason to expect The Donald's "new news" network to be even as committed to democratic principles and the good of the nation as, say, Murdoch's FOX. In fact The Donald's network will probably make FOX look like a collection of shows that were too "lefty" for PBS or NPR.

Within two or three years our divided nation will be even more divided, and by "divided" MeanMesa is saying permanently divided.

Nonetheless, the media consumers are awakening. Both the new Democratic Party network and the maniacal "Trump Truth" are going to have to work extra hours to remain salable and consumable to their respective audiences -- both now already cutting their consumption and consuming what they haven't cut with historical levels of skepticism -- network skepticism.

Perhaps the days of the dithering rube utterly packed with right wing blather are ending -- at least for the many Americans who are currently in the process of realizing what the industrial networks, think tanks, corporatists and oligarchs have been trying to do to them.

What To Expect

Let's just give it a little time. MeanMesa feels quite confident that the previously befuddled media consumers in the American market place are about to correct this current monopolistic gamble by the uber rich. Broadcasting businesses and broadcasting equipment is among the most "fickle girlfriend" there is. The same electrons, nuts and bolts that are presently broadcasting endless, rancid hate propaganda today can be broadcasting content that is radically different as soon as tomorrow.

Watch this blog.