PissInformation

R. D. Kushner
October 23, 2002

No. That's not a typo. It's a new distinction. Information and Disinformation are not adequate to describe the type of insulting information that is currently being directed toward the good citizens of the United States of America.

Information: Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.

Disinformation: Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation.

PissInformation: Deliberately misleading information announced publicly that is so maligned that the person or organization, in the act of delivering this information, is performing the moral and intellectual equivalent of urinating on those who are subject to the dissemination of this information; those to whom this information is intended to mislead are deemed to be nothing more than loathsome animals that ought to be pissed on.

On Monday, October 14, 2002 approximately 2.3 million people purchased the Monday edition of the newspaper, USA Today. The front page prominently listed the following headline:

"Al-Qaeda suspected in Bali"

Those alert readers who ventured further into the paper were exposed to the smell of uric acid; and that smell was not the pungent odor of fresh newsprint. On page 12A, the article revealed the deceitful and vile nature of the front page headline:

"No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, and there were no reports of evidence that would link the attack to a specific group or suspects."

If there were, "...no reports of evidence that would link the attack to a specific group of suspects," then the front page headline is a gross distortion of reality. Who suspected that Al-Qaeda might be responsible for the bombings in Bali? Who? USA Today made very clear that there were "no reports of evidence," therefore one can reasonably assume that it was the senior editor's grandmother who suspected the Al-Qaeda link. Perhaps the senior editor's daughter also had a suspicion; perhaps she suspected Kermit the Frog. Should that suspicion be front page news? The fact is, some people "suspect" that Al-Qaeda may be implicated in the bombing; this is indisputable. If a newspaper headline makes this claim, then the next question is "who?" In the case of the USA Today article it would have been more appropriate if the headline read.

"Al-Qaeda suspected in Bali, by my friend, Bob"

Without attributing the claim to someone, it remains completely amorphous and unsubstantiated; and attributing the claim to an unreputable source, renders the claim meaningless and absurd. Is it immoral or unreasonable to "suspect" something without proper evidence. No. Is it misleading for a nationally syndicated paper to claim a suspicion without reporting the source for this suspicion, just so that they can have a flashy headline on the front page? This is not a rhetorical question.

The very next day, October 15, 2002, in a reaction to the sniper shootings in Virginia and Maryland, a very prominent political figure delivered a huge quantity of yellow bladder fluid to the living rooms of millions of Americans via public television. Ari Fleischer attempted to explain the administration's position on firearms "fingerprinting" by taking a piss on the American public. This is not funny.

Mr. Fleischer stated the following:

"How many laws can we really have to stop crime, if people are determined in their heart to violate them no matter how many there are or what they say?"[1]

How many laws? Is that a serious question? Well, seriously, perhaps no laws are needed at all. If really determined people will be able to break laws anyway, then forget all the laws that are on the books. Laws are only needed to keep not-so-really determined people from committing crimes.

Mr. Fleischer continued his golden stream of pissinformation:

"There are some issues that are raised with this that deal with the accuracy of the ballistic fingerprinting that need to be explored and reviewed before any final determination can be made." [2]

Of course. Although the probability of developing ballistic fingerprinting as a crime fighting tool is one-hundred times more likely than successfully developing an anti-missile shield based in Alaska, ballistic fingerprinting obviously needs to be studied further before diverting any of the billions of dollars that are currently earmarked for the science fiction, defense contractors wet dream that is missile defense.

"In the case of the sniper, the real issue is values. These are the acts of a depraved killer who has broken and will continue to break laws and so the question is not new laws." [3]

Yes, "values." So if no new laws are needed, then perhaps new values are. The killer needs to go to Wal-Mart and purchase a new set of values. But if really determined people are going to exercise their bad values anyway, then new values won't help either.

The lack of integrity demonstrated by these statements is mind boggling. Since nobody really believes any of this politically charged claptrap, it would be much more reasonable for Mr. Fleischer to come clean and say what everyone knows he really means:

"The GOP's position on any further gun control measures is very simple. Though I may go on and on with what might be medically termed a horrible case of oral dysentery, what I really mean is that this administration cannot advocate any gun control laws because the GOP receives huge donations from the NRA; and the stipulation attached to these donations is that we cannot support any new gun control laws. If that means a couple of "depraved killers" with "bad values" will run rampant after buying rifles at K-Mart, then that's just the price we have to pay for freedom and democracy. As I stated earlier, new laws will not solve this situation. Especially new laws that involve this administration having to piss off the NRA. It's much better to piss on you than to piss off them."

But Mr. Fleischer is not alone with his weak bladder. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, although he said that he is open to having the Senate look into the national fingerprinting system, said:

"I don't think there's any question that it's important for us to review all of those laws and find ways to ensure that law enforcement has every tool available to them." [4]

Yes. Please Mr. Daschle. Ride the fence a little more. Is it too much to suggest that you might get a hold what used to be the spinal column supporting your beliefs, and get up off the floor. Everyone knows that this is difficult to do when all your vertebrate are missing, but please try. Just one time. Stand up straight and put your foot down for something you believe. Oh wait. That isn't possible. This is an election year.

Welcome to the world of pissinformation. Don't forget your umbrella.

Credits:

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/15/bush.sniper.guns.ap/index.html
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.