Joe Paches standing in for Glen Beck

Sans TV, listening to radio is the one of the main plugs into the media apparatus that I still suffer. To clarify, this is meant in an original sense of the word "suffer" - to allow.... and just in case anyone is thinking I've recently gone all neocon, no, this is not that but instead happenchance byproduct of 104.7 FM. By night this is the flagship of the Pirates. Often I sit on the back porch at night with a pocket radio tuned into the game. By day, same station happens to be currently operating as the local FM affiliate of Fox News, which is to say, before or after ballgames, when I am too lazy to change the dial, and the radio is on, I am barraged with the same basic pile of mainstream conservative dogma that has come to the fore in recent months due to the so-called "change" voted last November. Okay, enough for the lead in to this little slice of news broadcast mid-morning today.

Here is a recap of said broadcast this morning. At approximately 1040 AM I clicked on faithful pint-sized radio already tuned to 104.7 FM. I did not immediately recognize the male personality talking his talk, but he was already mid-stream in conversation with a woman caller to his program. They were respectfually agreeing that they do not 100% agree with each other. Best I can piece together after the fact, before I clicked on she had said something about the forthcoming Amero Dollar and was linking this to impending NAU and the massive NAU Highway currently being erected smack dab down the middle of this continent from Canada to Mexico. Mr male talking head guy respectfully said he does not see what the problem is / why woman caller has a problem with this new highway seeing that to a smaller degree (less lanes, not as wide) a highway already exists from Canada to Mexico. He told the caller "despite what you said, the Amero is not going to happen by next week, so I really do not connect it with the NAU Conspiracy you talk of, so you're gonna have to do better if you want to convince me of same". The woman caller then began trying to convince him by saying "there are layers upon layers to this NAU / NAFTA / TCH / Amero situation and...", at this point, male talking head cut her off and said "I'm sorry, I don't have time for you to explain layer upon layer, I've got other callers waiting to call in, plus we're coming up on the next commercial cycle, so if you can't convince me in 15 seconds or less, then I just don't see the connection between all of this and the so-called Conspiracy you speak of".

It was at this point that the woman caller sort of lost her focus. Not that I can blame her, it is not an easy task to come up with the right sequence of words that fit within 15 seconds or less necessary to convince a cog in the media apparatus that the Conspiracy is not a theory, it is reality, happening right in front of our faces, and NAU coupled with NAFTA "free trade" is currently one among the faces the conspiracy uses among its countless many disguises. Before the 15 seconds was up and she got cut off, she mentioned Ron Paul. I'm not really sure why she decided to throw this in at the last moment, but she did. Then talking head hung up her connection and promptly proceded to editorialize. Don't you just love it when media cogs disconnect a caller first, and then once they are gone and no longer able to defend their position, the cogs then go on to editorialize ad nauseum on why the caller's position is so weak. Anyway, male talking head guy then went on to say (paraphrased) " I just don't buy the fact that NAU and Amero and TCH being evident of impending take over by a conspiracy....'cause Americans will just never stand for it.....and on the matter of Paul, I kinda liked Ron Paul a bit, I kinda agreed with some of the issues he campaigned on, but this is the same Ron Paul who decided to associate himself with Alex Jones and thereby attempted to give credibility to all the whacked out conspiracy theory that the Jones crowd is involved with...."

The program went to commercial. When it came back the talking head male guy identified himself as " Joe Pachs (sp?), standing in for Glen Beck...."

"....Americans will never stand for it....", when was the last time anyone heard this used before as among the boiler plate excuses for why the conspiracy can't exist? Everybody knows, it cannot ever happen in America, right? Everybody knows the conspiracy will never succeed because Americans' just won't stand for it, right? HA HA! Just ask the people in Texas who either have (already) or are soon to lose massive tracts of their personal property "eminent domain" to be used to help widen TCH "NAU super highway", just ask them how goes the fight to not stand for it. This woman caller said she lives in the state of Indiana and people there too are losing (already, or soon to be) huge tracts of personal property. Is this what it really looks like when Americans are 'not standing for it' ?

As a face currently being put on mainstream conservative doctrine, Joe Paches is a poster child of somebody who just had his face rubbed in reality AND who came away from the experience with a half-baked effort to characterize the experience as merely a theory ... one which cannot ever exist in reality because, among other reasons, American's just won't stand for it.


There is the old saying "today's conservative is yesterday's liberal". In view of recent noise coming from the orthodox conservative segment of the media apparatus, this has never been more true. It seems that today's conservative mouth pieces have picked up right where liberal mouthpieces were about 8 months ago, they've picked up the same so-called issues and are going forth trying to make more news out of the same stuff. I do give some credit where credit is due to these personalities fronting for mainstream conservativsm. They are telling roughly 1/2 the truth. Unfortunately, as is nearly always the case, they are studiously not talking about the other 1/2 of the situation. Just like the liberals were before their hallowed change last November, they too were polluting the airwaves with roughtly 1/2 truth, but then there was always the other 1/2 that they would not talk about, ever. This has been said before but bears repeating; take the 1/2 of truth that conservative mouthpieces are spouting about, couple with the 1/2 of truth that liberals spout about, put them together and you pretty much have an entire, accurate picture of what is happening. By and large, be they liberals or conservatives, both are pretty good at remaining quiet on what they are each bad at. Both are pretty good at being quite noisy about what the other guys are guilty of. Take what they say about themselves and discard. Take what they say about the other side, add the two together, and you have a pretty thorough picture of what is really going on. The problem there, of course, is that the collective media apparatus will never stand for it, will never allow the whole story to be told, which is all the more reason the apparatus is content to allow only 1/2 sided versions of partisan pictures to be painted via the canvas that is the collective media.

From the recent couple weeks of studying this one particular FM station of the apparatus, it seems to me that Michael Savage has been giving people closer to 60 percent, perhaps even 70 percent of the whole story. Just last night he said (paraphrased) "....our entire system is corrupted up one side and down the other, and even if we didn't have this abomination of Obama in office, we would still have that loser McCain running things.....". Mike also is compromised by biases for orthodox conservative doctrine, but in my opinion, around the edges, at times he comes closer to telling a complete fair & balanced story than does a Beck or Hannity or Limbaugh or O'Riley et. al..



Tweet