Hypocrisy at the Union-Tribune


How ironic that the editorial board of the San Diego Union Tribune would condemn Michel Zucchet to prison, or other council members, because they happen to have been caught accepting bribe monies from con artists for local strip joints. Is it because these younger politicians (naive greenhorns) were involved in a “sex scandal!?” Never mind that, probably over time, several local politicians have taken brides for other affairs (that the UT is/was aware or suspected over the years) that did not involve a sex industry; yet somehow these other bride taking behaviors were treated more benignly? Were they just par for the course in America’s finest city?

The hounds at said paper, in their seemingly santimonious, blue nose, Puritanal zeal, apparently feel there is something particularly egregious about a sex scandal that denies the claustrophobic mores of the Judeo-Christian church. Who is it that really gives much of a rip whether strippers and nightclub owners make more money off sexually starved “adults” that “voluntarily” frequent such places? And why do these non-appointed, non-libertarian, big government interference avocates, who frame their self-righteous motives as arguments for social hygiene (feeling they have some noblesse oblige obligation to protect supposed degenerates and plebes) waste such time in their persecution? Do you reader know anyone who has asked the people at the paper to prosecute and sentence anyone?

Yet the Union Tribune does not feel justice has been rendered by an “official” judge’s decision. Meanwhile the Union Tribune did editorialize against leniency to Zuchett prior to his sentencing even after he humiliatingly made his plea. Even now they went so far as to waste ink “requesting” opinions from their readership after their board has already made it clear that “it” intends to be the prosecution, judge, and jury. Obviously they do not like it when they somehow are denied the final say in all matters. Yet no one elected any of these self-appointed news judges to rule this community. And when has their de facto ethics on journalism come anywhere close to the rules of professional justice?

Still one can infer some kind of a supposed injustice with one x-Councilman dead (why?), one going to prison, and one getting off lightly; but, since when has this paper sought justice except their own often distorted sense of judgment? For example, did they complain and then demand public relation letters when judges ruled against Donna Frye winning the election? Have they ever demanded letters supporting a view other than their own? And why are they not demanding a lighter sentence for Inzunza if they really care about him—is it because they can not forgive themselves for their own mistakes and failings—that they continue to mete out harsh judgment and criticism against others?

Besides who is to select which letters get printed out of those that decide to write the right wing diatribe—how would one expect fair and balanced? People ought to know that one of the biggest forms of censorship in America is all the Letters To The Editor newspapers do “not” print (and no doubt there are many self-serving rationalizations as to why so many letters have been suppressed over the years). Therefore why would anyone waste time writing a letter to a main stream newspaper just to have it either edited with a heavy hand or rejected because it did not meet narrow-minded preconceptions?

Take for example the pictures used in their call for opinion on Tuesday. Look at how they schemingly project a mug shot of Zucchet with his face looking down in some kind of presumably devious grin. Surely the paper has numerous pictures to select from to give whatever impression it wants? The picture selected of Zucchet is over-exposed to give more darkness to his eyes as black in squint. Take this distortion of photographic bias and compare it to the one selected for Inzunza, who is looking you straight-in-the-eye, from the right side, that somehow gives the impression that he is more overall honest. Is this just a coincidence or has certain individuals at the paper decided that they are determined to get their brand of justice to meet their own ego-maniacal demands with whatever manipulative ploys they feel they can fob off on the public—a public they obviously hold in contempt because they believe the public forever manipulable to demogoguery?

More importantly what about some of the the more pertinent faults of the editorial board that they, themselves, readily ignore? For example, what about their right wing propaganda that denied the atrocities of the current Iraq war for so long until the could no longer deny them with a straight face? How much time have they spent educating Americans on how many civilians were killed in Iraq—especially children and women? Sure they they can parrot foreigner Murdock’s Fox News network speil about a few bad apples in the Army, that is those who supposedly conducted torture on their own whim; but, what is even worse is that some who work the main stream news editorial boards across the nation, advocated the “administration’s” distortions and black propaganda about reports of weapons of mass destruction, and hence allowed those that did torture people to think they were doing so for a good reason (getting answers that really did not exist).

Yet the weapons were dismantled and destroyed prior to the invasion. Anyone who was really looking for dissent opinion from credible sources at the time could have found plenty of alternative answers. Books were written and speeches were made that gave ample pause to counter the supposedly official NeoCon/ Israeli lies.

The Union Tribune’s current Tuesday editorial, that indicates, at best, self-deceit on the part of the paper, makes the smug assertion that Bush did not lie—he likely made a mere mistake. Poor guy seems to make a lot of mistakes when it comes to reality. Perhaps George W. was himself deceived, but people in his administration (like Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, etc., and the secret AIPAC intelligence cabal working in the Pentagon against the CIA’s purported reservations) had more than a clue—they apparently created the falsifications. Furthermore the newsmedia should have had a clue. Yet disinformation continues to be perpetuated in America’s venal newspapers. Bush’s foreign policy was likely highjacked by these people he elected to surround himself. He may be a blue blood cowboy but he ain’t no genius. Still he bears responsibility.

Furthermore the episodes of torture and prison murder, that Americans eventually learned, were just as much the fault of the mainstream media as they were the result of the people who actually committed the atrocities. So much for nobility and righteousness by those that maybe knew more than did the President. The current attack right wing attack on the equally corrupt Democratic leadership is a redhearing to obviate the press’ misdeads (or mistakes) in the matter.

Meanwhile Zucchet or Inzunza are not likely connected to heavy patterns of crime, and Zucchet is probably not well connected to friends in high places. But what if he were, say Jewish, and had many friends in synogogues and other places like legal institutes—would he be as likely persecuted by the media—just because a judge was supposely too lenient? Or would it be the case that the mainstream news media would find themselves more sympathetic from Jewish owned media conglomerates? One wonders. Maybe because Zucchet is a seemingly a vulnerable Anglo-Saxon rookie that he becomes a convenient target for those that are motivated to find a diversion. **Note the sarcasm to follow about such a hypothetical allegation versus the real main point of this opinion peice.

Yet where’s the hunt for justice for the criminals that have real power and sway like those involved in lost billions of U.S. taxpaid dollars that were suppose to go to rebuild Iraq's’infrastructure? Why the continuous smear campaign against Kofi Annan when the U.S. has so much undo influence in the U.N. and Security Council? Where’s the outcry about the stolen election (2004 Ohio—see www.freepress.org).

And where’s the pissing and persecution regarding the dozens and dozens of porn companies that spam advertizements indiscriminately on the Internet—that are not invited by consenting adults—but are advertisement by “monied” and “calculating” exploiters (in the name of free capitalism)? Is it because they have more connections and can buy better lawyers? You would think the Uniton Tribune would get off their high horse and learn a little humility and common decency but likely they are neither decent nor just. Petty maybe.

Michael Zucchet is part of the privileged class, and therefore the laws for the masses doesn't apply.

Yes there are laws for the privileged and laws for the masses.

That could all change tomorrow IF THE MASSES QUIT CONVICTING THEMSELVES AS WELL AS THEIR NEIGHBOR, and stop being intimidated by judges and the courts.

What the jury decided for Zucchet was totally and completely appropriate notwithstanding how many other politicos should also be behind bars.

When this country was first formed, Franklin was asked what kind of government was created by bystander, and his response "...a Republic, if you can keep it."

Phrases like Thomas Jefferson's "Eternal Vigilence" means self governance carries responsibility securing the only three basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness.

Today, we deserve the government typified by what surrounds someone like Michael Zucchet.

For more information about becoming an informed jurorer, see www.fija.org