RobsRealNews

For those who saw the first Die Hard movie you might remember the plot involved a group of conspiritors who
rig the altometer of a commercial jet so it would crash into the ground when the pilot thought they still had
plenty of room before they touched the ground. Rumor has it that a former head of the United Auto workers was
assasinated by tampering with these instruments that are critical for the landing of a plane. When visibility is
poor the plane will inevitably crash into the ground if the instrument is tampered with in this manner. If one looks
back in time two senate races ago they see that the democratic senator from Missouri, Carnahan died
10/16/2000 in a plane crash right before the election. Fortunately his wife wasn't on board. Her deceased
husband won the election and she assumed his duties in Washington. The conservative who organized his
assasination were not expecting this outcome. When they planned the assasination of Paul Welstone on
10/25/02 they made sure his wife was on board. His death garaunteed the conservative control of the senate
after that election. Now with the advent of Debolt voting machines, (a company controlled by a loyal friend of
George W) that leave no paper trail, as far as I know conservatives no longer had to assasinate anyone in the
last election. Isn't technology wonderful. I know for certain John John Kennedy's plane was sabatoged in a like
manner. His body was hastily buried at sea to prevent an autopsy. So whats new. Everyone by now should
know we live in a dictatorship controlled by these sick Fuckers. I guess even with absolute media contol for their
propaganda the conservative masters couldn't garauntee the outcome of elections. Read the link above for
more information on how the criminals stole the last election.

In consideration of these facts, if George W's father cared about the good of the nation he would hire someone
to assasinate his boys. Bush invited Ted Kennedy to watch the movie 13 Days. He indicated to Kennedy that
the Bush's were also a political dynasty. So Bush wants to be thought of like the Kennedys. That means papa
Bush will have to be scrapin the kids bodies off the sidewalk. But some sick fuckers from Texas killed the Texas
clan. There are plenty of sick fuckers to do away with the Bushs also. G. H. W. Bush hired the white trash Lee
Atwater to run his campaign. Anyone who hires the likes of Atwater and Rove deserves a fate worse than the
Kennedies. Bush expressed a desire to be like the Kennedies. So be it.

The following is a statement by Paul Welstone before he was assasinated:

The following is the introduction written by Paul Wellstone to 2000's "It's the Media, Stupid" by Robert
McChesney and John Nichols. It is being made available in memoriam to Paul Wellstone, who passed away Oct.
25, 2002.

Media & Democracy
by Paul Wellstone

The media is not just any ordinary industry. It is the life blood of American democracy. We depend on the media
for the free flow of information that enables citizens to participate in the democratic process. As James Madison
wrote in 1822, "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a
prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." That's why freedom of the press is enshrined in our
Constitution. No other industry enjoys that kind of protection.

Yet, at the dawn of the 21st Century, America is experiencing a wave of media mergers and that is leading to
an unprecedented concentration of ownership in the hands of a few giant communications firms. This rapid
concentration of control over the U.S., and indeed global, media raises troubling questions for our system of
representative democracy.

Over the past several years, I have expressed concern over the explosion of mergers in one industry after
another, notably in agriculture and finance. But of all the industries where concentration of ownership is
accelerating at such a rapid pace, it is consolidation in the media and entertainment industries that should
alarm us most.

For our democracy to function effectively, we depend on the media to do two things. We depend on
newspapers, radio, television and now the Internet to provide citizens with access to a wide and diverse range
of opinions, analyses, and perspectives. And we depend on the media to hold concentrated power-whether
public or private power-accountable to the people. The greater the diversity of ownership and control, the
better media will be able to perform these vital functions.

But as ownership and control of the media becomes concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, it
becomes less likely that we can rely upon the media to fulfill these basic responsibilities. Common ownership
and control is not conducive to diversity of viewpoints and perspectives. And as these far-flung multinational
corporations extend their holdings and influence into more and more new industries-with interests of their own,
as regards regulation in particular-how much confidence can we have that they will hold any of those interests
accountable to the people?

Most Americans are shocked when they learn of the degree of media concentration that has occurred over the
past 15 years. When Ben Bagdikian wrote The Media Monopoly back in 1983, about 50 media conglomerates
controlled more than half of all broadcast media, newspapers, magazines, video, radio, music, publishing, and
film in this country. By 1986, that number had shrunk from 50 to 29. By 1993 it had shrunk even further, to 20
firms. Today fewer than 10 multinational media conglomerates-Time/Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch's
NewsCorp, Viacom, Sony, Seagram, AT&T/Liberty Media, Bertelsmann, and GE-dominate most of the American
mass media landscape. The range and diversity of their holdings is astounding. Growing consolidation of media
corporations raises very urgent questions about political power in our democracy. As Gerald Levin, the
chairman of Time Warner, said recently, global media is "fast becoming the predominant business of the 21st
century," and it is therefore "more important than government. It's more important than educational institutions
and non-profits."

Global media corporations wield enormous influence over the formulation of our public policy. Yet they often
have direct economic stakes in the outcome of our public policy debates. And the larger they get, the more
influence they exercise, the more money they can donate to members of Congress, and the more high-paid
lobbyists they can afford to blanket the halls of Congress with their self-serving messages.

Ordinary citizens don't stand a chance of having their voices heard against the power and influence of these
corporate titans. What's more, ordinary citizens have almost no say in the way these conglomerates operate.
Yet, we know that what's good for global media corporations is not necessarily good for America.

So what, if anything, can we do about the crisis of concentration?

I believe that the media mergers that have led to this troubling degree of concentration warrant the highest
level of scrutiny by our antitrust agencies and by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They may
also require Congress to consider a new legislative framework to address the growing problem of media
concentration. If our antitrust laws can't do anything to stop eight conglomerates from dominating this
multi-trillion dollar industry, clearly we need to start rethinking our antitrust laws. I think it's long overdue for
Congress and the White House to reassert the importance of antitrust laws in the global economy of the 21st
century-and nowhere is such a move more urgently needed than in regard to the media industry.

Undoubtedly such an effort would meet considerable resistance, not least from media corporations themselves.
Progress in the area of antitrust has almost always come in response to public pressure.

Yet, this is the fundamental quandary of democratic media reform: involvement of the public in this debate
depends on coverage and attention by the major media that has traditionally been the source of information.
Unfortunately, the record to date has not been encouraging. The major media have been virtually silent on the
public policy implications of its own rapid consolidation over the past 15 years.

But, now, the silence is beginning to be broken. Citizens are beginning to ask tough questions about media
mergers, and Bob McChesney and John Nichols are with showing them how to turn those questions into a
powerful movement for media reform.

Thanks to the courageous and groundbreaking work of tireless advocates such as McChesney and Nichols,
more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate the enormity of the stakes involved in the debate over
media concentration. And, with this book, citizens are being offered a sense of the power they have to force this
issue onto the agenda of our political parties and, ultimately, of local, state and federal government.

It is time for such a movement. Indeed, if we truly care about the health and future of American democracy, we
must involve every citizen in this crucial work of insuring that the life blood of that democracy -information from
diverse and distinct sources-is allowed to flow freely.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This file is not intended to be viewed directly using a web browser. To create a viewable file, use the Preview in Browser or Publish to Yahoo! Web Hosting commands from within Yahoo! SiteBuilder.