Friday, July 12, 2002
On 4 July, the front page of the Daily Mirror was as powerful as any I have known, a tabloid at its best. George W Bush was flanked by a row of Stars and Stripes, chin up, eyes misted. "Mourn on the Fourth of July," said the banner headline. Above him were the words: "George W Bush's policy of bomb first and find out later has killed double the number of civilians who died on 11 September. The USA is now the world's leading rogue state."
The next day, Tom Shrager, a fund manager with the American investment company, Tweedy Browne, phoned Philip Graf, the chief executive of Trinity Mirror, to complain about the front page and the accompanying article, which I wrote. He reportedly "did not threaten" to sell his company's 4 per cent share of Trinity Mirror and "began by stating that he respected the concept of freedom of the press".
So let me get this straight. Pilger writes a headline that is patently and demonstrably untrue, someone calls to complain about it, and thus we see the seamy underside of Bush/Enron non-freedom of the press. And what's with the scare quotes? I imagine that Graf tells Pilger, "This guy Schrager called to say you're a bleeping idiot for using blatantly wrong casualty numbers." Pilger asks excitedly, "Did he threaten you? Did he threaten to sell his shares of the company?" And Graf says, "What the heck are you talking about? Of course not!" Which disappoints Pilger at first, until he figures out how to spin it into the "reportedly 'did not threaten'" text in his article.
But the biggest hoot comes later:
In the US these days, as in Britain, genuine investigative reporting, which is costly, time-consuming and often politically unpalatable, is rare.
Genuine investigative reporting? Is that what Pilger's Daily Mirror article was? The silly bastard couldn't even investigate any casualty figures beyond the discredited Herold report of January! To paraphrase Bugs Bunny, what a maroon. What a ta-ra-ra-goondeyay. Just take a Pilger.
Plus, he crashed a rival's campaign event wearing a yellow chicken suit to protest the fact that rival refuses to debate him.
End the Jewish media’s control of our government by contributing to Independent candidate Jim Giles’ campaign for the Third Congressional District from Mississippi.
Jim Giles is the only candidate in America running for Congress who is advocating cutting the $10 million a day that the U.S. gives to the Zionist state of Israel to slaughter Palestinians. His Republican and Democrat opponents’ support of Zionism puts Americans in deadly peril. Of course the Jewish media in this country support Israel no matter what. They are un-American, unpatriotic and treasonous just like the Republican and Democrat parties and the phony CONservatives who claim to represent genuine conservatives. Consequently Jim Giles’ campaign has been blacked-out by the Jewish media.
This election is a national referendum on how many common people in America support putting Israel first or America first. The Jewish media control of our government which puts Israel first and Americans in danger is wrong. All Americans have a vested interest in opposing the Jewish media. They are the root of all our problems. They control everything we read, see and hear. They are better organized and financed than the common people of America but they are ultimately a tiny minority and can be defeated if a champion can rise up with the backing of the masses in America. Jim Giles seeks to be that champion.
And then he gets nasty.
Apparently Giles ran against Trent Lott in 2000, and inexplicably lost (although he did pull in almost 9,000 votes -- wait, the Washington Post says he got 9,300+ votes -- you see how those media lie!). This year he's setting his sites a wee bit lower and is gunning for a Congressional seat.
But enough about the Middle East. What are Southern Heritage candidate Jim Giles's stands on other issues?
To save time and money, Jim Giles adopts the positions on the issues so eloquently and definitively expressed by America’s number one patriot, Patrick J. Buchanan, Chairman of The American Cause, as his own.
Actually, this fits pretty well with my own assessment of Pat Buchanan.
Rankin County, MS – Jim Giles issued the following statement today:
Amazingly, America amid the perils of the new century is flying blind. If a suitcase bomb should kill a whole American city, historians of the future, if any survive, should give prominent place to the print and electronic communications media in pointing the finger of blame....
In the present circumstances, one result of Yankee Jew media dominance threatens the lives of U.S. citizens. The $10 million a day the U.S. gives Israel to slaughter Palestinians, which fuels Arab anger and thirst for revenge.
How much longer will the stupidity continue? How much more mileage will the Jews get out of the Holocaust? How many body bags must we stock to deal with the next installment of the cost of Zionism?
I am off to lunch, so I don't have time to explore further. But this guy's site boasts a local TV news poll that shows him in the lead in his Congressional race. So, once again, is this for real?
For Bush, it's a win-win situation. If the Palestinians elect the Hamas crowd, he can say, "Fine, I respect your choice. Call me back when you decide to put self-government before self-detonation." If they opt for plausible legislators, Bush will have re-established an important principle: that when the Americans sign on to nation-building they do so only to bring into being functioning democratic, civilized states -- as they did, against the odds, with post-war Germany and Japan.
But a question worth asking is: Why couldn't Chrétien or Chirac give a speech like that? How did it come about that the rest of the West reflexively stuck with an aging terrorist who cancelled the last scheduled elections? Which bear is really the one with the little brain? The one who in under three weeks has changed the entire dynamic of the Palestinian question? Or the one whose gags are as stale as his world view?
I think the answer is clear.
Now it's up to arbitrators to work out a compromise between the unions and the city government. The only issue on which the two sides are far apart is job security. The city has offered to continue the current policy of guaranteeing jobs for life to any employee who has worked for the city for at least ten years (this covers 80% of the unions' employees). The unions want the guaranteed lifetime employment policy extended to employees who have put in at least six years of service.
Anyone want to bet that the arbitrator concludes that the threshold should be eight years of service?