Short short stories
How the FBI Came to Doubt the Official Story of Dillinger’s Murder

How the CIA Came to Doubt the Official Story of JFK’s Murder

How Charlie Manson Came to Doubt the Official Story of Sharon Tate’s Murder

How OJ Came to Doubt the Official Story of his Wife’s Murder

= = = = =

One of the above headlines was actually written by actual paid writers.

Granted, it's unlikely that CIA was the sole driving force behind Oswald, but we know with 100% certainty that CIA was deeply involved in watching and AP'ing Oswald. His own motives were pro-Soviet, but CIA and FBI are experts in steering internal motives toward their own criminal purposes.

How can PAID WRITERS and their PAID EDITORS be so totally insulated from all facts and reality that they can't even see the problem with their idiot story?

= = = = =

Partial answer maybe: When I tried to look up obvious and famous murders from various decades to generate more fake headlines, the search yielded very few KNOWN murders and lots of UNSOLVED murders. "Journalists" are uninterested in facts because facts don't allow you to spin a six-month-long soap opera.

Plain facts can't even support a short newspaper item.

Let's try it...

Headline: Who Killed Nicole Simpson?

Story: OJ.

When you're paid by the word or the minute of airtime, a two-letter story isn't profitable.

= = = = =

Wildly irrelevant poetic footnote: On the long headline/short story, I wanted to href the famous Ogden Nash poem about fleas. The online references to the poem agree on the actual poem (Adam had em) but disagree with my memory of the title and authorship. All online mentions say that the poem was improperly credited to Nash, but I read it in a book that was an anthology of Nash poems, published when Nash was alive and while the alleged other author was alive. Presumably the other author wouldn't have allowed the poem to be published and copyrighted in a Nash book. Most of the online refs think the title is simply 'Fleas', while others cite variations on 'Lines about Microbes' or 'Lines about Fleas'. The original title was LONG. Something like 'A disquisition on the historical prevalence and origin of Fleas'. That was the WHOLE POINT of the poem. Long title, short poem.


= = = = =

Wildly irrelevant factual footnote to the wildly irrelevant poetic footnote: Actually Adam didn't had em. Fleas don't like humans because we're hairless. We picked up fleas, along with civilization, from dogs. Seems like a small price, but then dogs always charge us a small price for instruction in love and virtue.

= = = = =

Wildly irrelevant Nashian footnote to the wildly irrelevant factual footnote to the wildly irrelevant poetic footnote: Shouldn't a footnote to a footnote be a toenote?

Labels: Age of Stings, Asked and sort of answered

  ¶ 1:52 AM