Kind of, but not really.

We got another mention on "Bill Moyers' Journal" this week. And, although it's not what I was hoping for, it was better than nothing. (ANY mention in the "mainstream media" (MSM) is better than nothing these days — you know: due to the information blackout about 9/11 Truth and Justice)

This week's piece was a follow up to the DRG-D911D 'fiasco' that we saw unfold before our eyes the last few weeks. (blog post links below) To quickly recap: I made a post suggesting we join in on the fun at Bill's blog and suggest a specific 9/11 Truth book in their 'contest' for what book the next President should take with him/her to the White House, which would then be reported the next week on air. So some of us went over there and suggested David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", which was then arbitrarily disqualified in a supreme act of intellectual dishonesty on Bill Moyers' part. (and/or his staff)

Whereupon I and we and some others complained about it, here and apparently on his blog. Some people apparently didn't know about our little shenanigans and accused Bill of making it all up. (I haven't gone over there to verify that) So THAT is what this latest thing is all about.

Anyway, according to Bill Moyers, quote:

"Also last week we reviewed your picks for the one book that should be required reading for our next President. Some of you have written to protest that we did not mention on air the book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by David Ray Griffin. As I said last week, we didn't include it on air because the responses had all the signs of an orchestrated campaign. You can go online and see that some of you didn't believe me. Now just take a look at these messages we found on one blog site." (notice he purposely doesn't mention 9/11 Blogger as the name of the blog site, or give the URL address or domain name, so "people can check it out for themselves" — although the address is quickly passed by in the browser so you could see it if you rewind your TIVO)

And then they showed a couple of clips of my initial blog post (which I have to admit was kind of cool (hey — I don't get out much)) and had someone verbally voice-over a couple of excerpts:

"...PLEASE all choose the same book to give it an extremely high rating." and "...let's use: "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"..."

btw: I take great umbrage with the voice and tone they used to verbally quote me — maybe that's the way the guy talks all the time, but it sounded to me like he was purposefully speaking in kind of a "pissy" tone, maybe with a trace of snarkiness or "azzhole", perhaps with the slightest soupçon of conspiratorialityness [sic] about it, for good measure.

Of course, they neglected to mention that right above that in the blog post is written: "I'm just going to pick one, because it's not the specific book that is important (in this scenario), it's that we all choose the same one! (and that it is about 9/11 Truth, and have "9/11" in the title)" (as well as in my other post, my pointing out that the book we chose 'suggest[ed] a single book that simply (obviously) represented the 9/11 Truth and Justice issue' — I guess you could miss that subtlety if you aren't too bright — or purposely choose to)

So they PROVED that it really did happen after all! Just like Bill said. Bill Moyers wouldn't lie! (that's kind of a referential humor inside joke) Of course, it's not like we were sneaking around and trying to engage in subterfuge and the like. We did it openly in the light of day for everyone to see. (mostly because I didn't think there was anything wrong with it) I did initially consider spreading the word through e-mail so they wouldn't know about it, except maybe after the fact, when it was too late, but, like all of the stuff we do in the 9/11 Truth and Justice Movement, I did it openly and with intellectual honesty. Because that's how we do things. (and there was nothing wrong with what we were doing)

Unfortunately, that didn't matter to them. It would have been interesting to see how they would have disqualified the book if we had done it secretly. There is no doubt in my mind that that is what would have occurred. Perhaps they would have claimed something like, "Even though we don't have proof or evidence, it looks and smells like it was an orchestrated campaign." (uh oh! at which point they would have been entertaining a 'conspiracy theory!')

Bill then finished with:

"And so, some of you did. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but I wouldn't call it fair, either."

I see. So now Bill Moyers is all about "fairness", as well. At this point I could point out that there were no "rules" posted for the 'contest', and that Bill, et al., arbitrarily decided after the fact to institute this new "fairness rule". (oops! I just did (mention it)) Again, how convenient. And how intellectually dishonest. (again, as well) And isn't it cute how he threw in the little 'conspiracy' jab. Or was it a nod? No, it was most probably a last-word rabbit punch to our virtual kidneys.

I still feel ashamed of and for Bill (and more than a little sad), partly because he apparently doesn't feel the shame himself. Some people might refer to this as "fardo" (from the Latin), which loosely translated means 'to be embarrassed for someone because they are too stupid, ignorant and/or asinine to be embarrassed for themselves'.

Am I being too hard on Bill? Maybe. Maybe not. I do hate to see someone of his 'stature' fall so hard and low, though. Clay feet and all that, I suppose. What an unfortunate waste of a once great career and reputation. Not a good way to go out. And he had such promise.

reference links: (in non-reverse order)

Call to Action — Please Respond!
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13676

9/11 Truth Let Down — Bill Moyers Punks Out and Engages in Intellectual Dishonesty
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13789

Bill Moyers Journal Disqualifies "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" Entries On His Blog
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13799