Tuesday, May 29, 2007
John McCain proves he is irrelevent, possibly racist, nazi
In the annals of uncritical reporting, this one is yet another indication that John McCain (aka Senator McFudd) is increasingly irrelevent, has a tin-ear, Nazi sympathies and is possibly a racist.
From noted "assasination" website, Media Matters:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "flak" as:
Main Entry: flak
Variant(s): also flack \flak\
1: antiaircraft guns
2: the bursting shells fired from flak
3: also flack : criticism, opposition
Thereby entirely demolishing Senator Fudd's argument in the time it takes to look up one word. But more telling, to me anyway, is the etymology of the word.
Etymology: German, from Flugabwehrkanonen, from Flieger (flyer) + Abwehr (defense) + Kanonen (cannons)
Date: 1938
So, John McCain clearly prefers the Nazi spelling, even though the word has been incorporated into the English language. Hmmm, troubling.
Not only does Senator Fudd correct the spelling of his esteemed African-American collegue, he does it incorrectly. Troubling, indeed.
UPDATE: The New York Daily News is reporting:
An unnamed McCain aide piled on, telling the Politico Web site that "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."
I thought that had to be a joke when I first heard it.
So Senator "Grampa" McFudd thinks an effective rebuttal to criticism on the Iraq War is to critique the spelling??? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!?
From noted "assasination" website, Media Matters:
Obama, responding in part to McCain's criticism of his recent Iraq war vote, issued a May 25 press release arguing that "the course we are on in Iraq" is not "working." Obama said "a reflection of that [is] the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket" and other military protection when walking through a Baghdad market during a trip to Iraq in April. In a response the same day, McCain took issue with Obama's spelling: "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "flak" as:
Main Entry: flak
Variant(s): also flack \flak\
1: antiaircraft guns
2: the bursting shells fired from flak
3: also flack : criticism, opposition
Thereby entirely demolishing Senator Fudd's argument in the time it takes to look up one word. But more telling, to me anyway, is the etymology of the word.
Etymology: German, from Flugabwehrkanonen, from Flieger (flyer) + Abwehr (defense) + Kanonen (cannons)
Date: 1938
So, John McCain clearly prefers the Nazi spelling, even though the word has been incorporated into the English language. Hmmm, troubling.
Not only does Senator Fudd correct the spelling of his esteemed African-American collegue, he does it incorrectly. Troubling, indeed.
UPDATE: The New York Daily News is reporting:
An unnamed McCain aide piled on, telling the Politico Web site that "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."
I thought that had to be a joke when I first heard it.
So Senator "Grampa" McFudd thinks an effective rebuttal to criticism on the Iraq War is to critique the spelling??? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!?
Gut Check Time!
It is me, or does this strike you as just a lil' bit fascist-y?
It's MSNBC's new reader talk-back forum.
Not surprisingly it is full of all the usual
excrement.
Ok, how about this then?
It's MSNBC's new reader talk-back forum.
Not surprisingly it is full of all the usual
excrement.
Ok, how about this then?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Small Change
I was struggling yesterday to identify what it is about the upcoming "change" election that has me filled with trepidation. It was sparked by the tidbit I caught on the radio about the Iraq Funding Bill. The moderator (ABC News Radio) opened by saying -- "Democrats reach compromise on Iraq war funding bill, no timelines for US troop withdrawals, benchmarks for the Iraqi government, Democratic leadership says this is not a defeat, then a soundbite of Harry Reid saying "we don't have the votes to overturn a veto so its a cinch we won't get what we want, but this is pretty good."
My first thought was, if I was the Democratic strategist, I would have played this differently. Something like this:
"I regretfully inform the American people that we failed you today in the US Congress. We failed to obtain from the Republicans any compromise on ending this pointless and costly war. We failed to place any restrictions on this President's reckless and wanton deployment of our troops. We failed to obtain timetables for their return home. We failed to prevent their tours of duty from being extended. Because this President and the Republican party refuse to concede to reality and instead cling stubbornly to a hopeless strategy, we have failed to carry out the clear will of the American people, to do what they sent us here to do in November.
Now 78% of the American people believe we are on the wrong track in this country and a majority agree that a military solution t this war is no longer possible. To date the surge is not turning the tide, but rather putting even more troops into harms way. Because this President's callous disregard for the will of the electorate and his repeated threat to abuse his veto power and overturn any bill which includes any measure of accountability for his administration and its abysmal war strategy, we are left with no choice. We could prolong this stalemate, but we lack the votes necessary to overturn a veto, because the Republicans in Congress are more concerned with loyalty to their party and their President, then they are with concern for our soldiers or respct for the will of the American people.
We, the Democratic majority in the House and Senate, out of concern for the troops that have been and now will continue to be deployed in Iraq for the foreseeable future, have agreed to put their interests first and extend funding to ensure that they will have the resources necessary. However we strongly object to this President's failed plan, his continued reckless unaccountability and the abuse of his veto power in the face of overwhelming support by the American people to put limits on the duration of our troops occupation of Iraq."
I cannot figure out what is accomplished by spinning an obvious loss as something of a compromise. It just makes the Democrats look weak. I also can't help but notice that whenever the war is called into question, Republicans keep saying, "if you want to end it so bad cut off the funding. Why do you keep funding it?" Acquiescence is tacit approval and that is the way all of the '08 candidates are going to be taken apart. "You were for it before you were against it."
Then this morning I happened to come across this at TomDispatch:
As Andrew Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism, puts it: "None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of check and balances.... The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."
Or as Dave Lindorff puts it:
"Why is the party leadership blocking impeachment? Machivellian self-interest. They don’t care about their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. All they care about is winning re-election in 2008, and they have come to the conclusion that the Republicans are in such bad shape that by doing nothing or next to nothing but talking a good game from now to November ‘08, they can win, whereas if they take any decisive action, whether halting funding for the war or initiating impeachment hearings, they might hurt themselves."
I think that is a good explanation for why the party of change sounds an awful lot like the party of same ole, same ole. Click here for more.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Republicans weak on planning.
I'm only going to write letters to the paper about the Fairness Doctrine (which I will talk about more later), so here's one I tried to get in a week or two ago that didn't fly with the editor.
REPUBLICANS WEAK ON PLANNING
To quote former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you [want]." This is a true statement, but I think Rumsfeld and the rest of the war hawks missed its implications. You only go to war if the army you have can achieve preset victory conditions.
If clear victory conditions had been set when we went to war in 2003, I have no doubt that our troops would have achieved them. But the point of this war has been as deceptive and unclear as its justification. Conservative apologists try to rationalize around every fact, but they can't obscure the poor planning behind this war any longer.
Planning is what wins wars, not rhetoric. And I hear a lot of rhetoric on the right about "victory" and "winning," but, by their actions, conservatives and their Republican representatives have shown the American people that they never had the competence to take this nation to war. That is why the preferred Republican course of action now is to do nothing. What is more ineffectual and weak than refusing to change to meet the circumstances?
Our sons and daughters are being sacrificed for no good reason, and the message from President Bush and his supporters is clear: If you don't like it, shut up and sit by while we let even more soldiers die. Well, I think that's unreasonable and, frankly, disgraceful.
REPUBLICANS WEAK ON PLANNING
To quote former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you [want]." This is a true statement, but I think Rumsfeld and the rest of the war hawks missed its implications. You only go to war if the army you have can achieve preset victory conditions.
If clear victory conditions had been set when we went to war in 2003, I have no doubt that our troops would have achieved them. But the point of this war has been as deceptive and unclear as its justification. Conservative apologists try to rationalize around every fact, but they can't obscure the poor planning behind this war any longer.
Planning is what wins wars, not rhetoric. And I hear a lot of rhetoric on the right about "victory" and "winning," but, by their actions, conservatives and their Republican representatives have shown the American people that they never had the competence to take this nation to war. That is why the preferred Republican course of action now is to do nothing. What is more ineffectual and weak than refusing to change to meet the circumstances?
Our sons and daughters are being sacrificed for no good reason, and the message from President Bush and his supporters is clear: If you don't like it, shut up and sit by while we let even more soldiers die. Well, I think that's unreasonable and, frankly, disgraceful.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Getting to Know MORA
Media Ownership Reform Act
(Upcoming Legislation to Restore the Fairness Doctrine)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY22)
Rep. Hinchey's Website
Bill Summary
I. Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting
Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan.
MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
II. Restores Broadcast Ownership Limitations
Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is essential to the condition of a free society." And yet, today, a mere five companies own the broadcast networks, 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks, produce three-quarters of all prime time programming, and control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. One-third of America's independently-owned television stations have vanished since 1975.
There has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations; minorities own a mere four percent of stations today.
* MORA would restore a standard to prevent any one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. television households.
* The legislation would re-establish a national radio ownership cap to keep a single company from owning more than five percent of our nation's total number of AM and FM stations.
* The bill would reduce local radio ownership caps to limit a single company from owning more than a certain number of stations within a certain broadcast market, with the limit varying depending upon the size of each market.
* Furthermore, the legislation would restore the Broadcast-Cable and Broadcast-Satellite Cross-Ownership Rules to keep a company from aving conflicting ownerships in a cable company and/or a satellite carrier and a broadcast station offering service in the same market.
* Finally, MORA would prevent media owners from grandfathering their current arrangement into the new system, requiring parties to divest in order to comply with these new limitations within one year.
III. Invalidates Media Ownership Deregulation
MORA would invalidate the considerably weakened media ownership rules that were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2003; rules that are now under new scrutiny through the FCC's Future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The legislation further prevents the FCC from including media ownership rules in future undertakings of the commission's Biennial Review Process.
IV. Establishes a New Media Ownership Review Process
MORA creates a new review process, to be carried by the FCC every three years, on how the commission's regulations on media ownership promote and protect localism, competition, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership, children's programming, small and local broadcasters, and technological advancement. The bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on its findings.
V. Requires Reports for Public Interest
MORA requires broadcast licensees to publish a report every two years on how the station is serving the public interest. The legislation also requires licensees to hold at least two community public hearings per year to determine local needs and interests.
Source: Rep. Maurice Hinchey's (D-NY 22) House Website
Bill Text
(Upcoming Legislation to Restore the Fairness Doctrine)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY22)
Rep. Hinchey's Website
Bill Summary
I. Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting
Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan.
MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
II. Restores Broadcast Ownership Limitations
Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is essential to the condition of a free society." And yet, today, a mere five companies own the broadcast networks, 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks, produce three-quarters of all prime time programming, and control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. One-third of America's independently-owned television stations have vanished since 1975.
There has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations; minorities own a mere four percent of stations today.
* MORA would restore a standard to prevent any one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. television households.
* The legislation would re-establish a national radio ownership cap to keep a single company from owning more than five percent of our nation's total number of AM and FM stations.
* The bill would reduce local radio ownership caps to limit a single company from owning more than a certain number of stations within a certain broadcast market, with the limit varying depending upon the size of each market.
* Furthermore, the legislation would restore the Broadcast-Cable and Broadcast-Satellite Cross-Ownership Rules to keep a company from aving conflicting ownerships in a cable company and/or a satellite carrier and a broadcast station offering service in the same market.
* Finally, MORA would prevent media owners from grandfathering their current arrangement into the new system, requiring parties to divest in order to comply with these new limitations within one year.
III. Invalidates Media Ownership Deregulation
MORA would invalidate the considerably weakened media ownership rules that were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2003; rules that are now under new scrutiny through the FCC's Future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The legislation further prevents the FCC from including media ownership rules in future undertakings of the commission's Biennial Review Process.
IV. Establishes a New Media Ownership Review Process
MORA creates a new review process, to be carried by the FCC every three years, on how the commission's regulations on media ownership promote and protect localism, competition, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership, children's programming, small and local broadcasters, and technological advancement. The bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on its findings.
V. Requires Reports for Public Interest
MORA requires broadcast licensees to publish a report every two years on how the station is serving the public interest. The legislation also requires licensees to hold at least two community public hearings per year to determine local needs and interests.
Source: Rep. Maurice Hinchey's (D-NY 22) House Website
Bill Text
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Some "Fair Tax" Insight
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee praised a "fair tax" without noting what it actually would do: impose a stiff retail sales tax on all goods and services sold in the U.S., easing the tax burden on the richest Americans:
Huckabee: "If we had a fair tax, it would eliminate not just the alternative minimum tax, personal income tax, corporate tax, it would eliminate all the various taxes that are hidden in our system, and Americans don't realize what they're paying."
Huckabee isn't the only GOP presidential candidate endorsing the "fair tax" proposal. Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are among the 60 House and Senate cosponsors listed by "Americans For Fair Taxation," which backs the proposal.
Whether it is "fair" or not is of course a matter of opinion. The "fair tax" does propose a "prebate," which would soften its impact on low-income persons, in the form of a monthly check equivalent to the amount of tax paid up to the poverty level, which varies according to family size. But any sales tax also would lower taxes for those upper-income persons who save and invest large portions of income that would be taxed under current law — but not under the "fair tax."
In fact, President Bush's bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform rejected the idea, saying it would substantially increase taxes for 80 percent of U.S. taxpayers while benefiting those at the top. The panel calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax. Furthermore, the panel said, a monthly cash rebate to every American would amount to the largest entitlement program in history, costing approximately $600 billion to $780 billion per year and making most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government for a substantial portion of their incomes.
From Factcheck.org
Huckabee: "If we had a fair tax, it would eliminate not just the alternative minimum tax, personal income tax, corporate tax, it would eliminate all the various taxes that are hidden in our system, and Americans don't realize what they're paying."
Huckabee isn't the only GOP presidential candidate endorsing the "fair tax" proposal. Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are among the 60 House and Senate cosponsors listed by "Americans For Fair Taxation," which backs the proposal.
Whether it is "fair" or not is of course a matter of opinion. The "fair tax" does propose a "prebate," which would soften its impact on low-income persons, in the form of a monthly check equivalent to the amount of tax paid up to the poverty level, which varies according to family size. But any sales tax also would lower taxes for those upper-income persons who save and invest large portions of income that would be taxed under current law — but not under the "fair tax."
In fact, President Bush's bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform rejected the idea, saying it would substantially increase taxes for 80 percent of U.S. taxpayers while benefiting those at the top. The panel calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax. Furthermore, the panel said, a monthly cash rebate to every American would amount to the largest entitlement program in history, costing approximately $600 billion to $780 billion per year and making most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government for a substantial portion of their incomes.
From Factcheck.org
Monday, May 14, 2007
Lou Dobbs sinks even lower
Dear Mr. Dobbs,
I for one would like to applaud your foray into this brave (and mostly) unexplored new world of journalism ... just making shit up!
The Southern Poverty Law center reports that you are spreading stories that immigrants are bringing leprosy to America, and concocting numbers to support your position. I even heard you say to Leslie Stahl "Well, I can tell you this. If we report it, it's a fact." and "Because I'm the managing editor, and that's the way we do business, We don't make up numbers, Lesley. Do we?"
Unfortunately, it seems like you pinched your numbers from a far-right nutcase named Madeleine Cosman.In addition to writing about the prevalence of leprosy, Cosman, who died in March 2006, told an anti-immigrant conference in 2005 that "most" Latino immigrant men "molest girls under 12, although some specialize in boys, and some in nuns," a variation on a speech she has given elsewhere.Madeleine Cosman's false claim that there were 7,000 cases of leprosy diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2004 was included in her article, "Illegal Aliens and American Medicine." More than once, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" reporter Romans repeated Cosman's statistic, saying, "Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy."
Cosman's piece was published in the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which represents private practice doctors. The journal is known as a right-wing periodical whose science has been the subject of harsh criticism.
Though the article notes her Ph.D., it does not say that the degree is in English and comparative literature. Cosman had no medical training other than as a medical lawyer.
In the article, Cosman provides no source for her claim of 7,000 cases of leprosy, also known as Hansen's Disease, in three years — presumably 2001 to 2004, given the article's publication date.
The claim has no basis in fact.
But please don't let that stop you from continuing to say it and defend your actions. You should probably start conferring with Dan Rather over how well his career has progrsssed using fictious sources.Keep up the demagogery, Lou.
Sincerely,
V. Publius
Please let Lou know what you think of this at lou.dobbs@turner.com
Thanks to Orcinus and Media Matters for providing some timely quotes, research and general factcheckery.
I for one would like to applaud your foray into this brave (and mostly) unexplored new world of journalism ... just making shit up!
The Southern Poverty Law center reports that you are spreading stories that immigrants are bringing leprosy to America, and concocting numbers to support your position. I even heard you say to Leslie Stahl "Well, I can tell you this. If we report it, it's a fact." and "Because I'm the managing editor, and that's the way we do business, We don't make up numbers, Lesley. Do we?"
Unfortunately, it seems like you pinched your numbers from a far-right nutcase named Madeleine Cosman.In addition to writing about the prevalence of leprosy, Cosman, who died in March 2006, told an anti-immigrant conference in 2005 that "most" Latino immigrant men "molest girls under 12, although some specialize in boys, and some in nuns," a variation on a speech she has given elsewhere.Madeleine Cosman's false claim that there were 7,000 cases of leprosy diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2004 was included in her article, "Illegal Aliens and American Medicine." More than once, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" reporter Romans repeated Cosman's statistic, saying, "Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy."
Cosman's piece was published in the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which represents private practice doctors. The journal is known as a right-wing periodical whose science has been the subject of harsh criticism.
Though the article notes her Ph.D., it does not say that the degree is in English and comparative literature. Cosman had no medical training other than as a medical lawyer.
In the article, Cosman provides no source for her claim of 7,000 cases of leprosy, also known as Hansen's Disease, in three years — presumably 2001 to 2004, given the article's publication date.
The claim has no basis in fact.
But please don't let that stop you from continuing to say it and defend your actions. You should probably start conferring with Dan Rather over how well his career has progrsssed using fictious sources.Keep up the demagogery, Lou.
Sincerely,
V. Publius
Please let Lou know what you think of this at lou.dobbs@turner.com
Thanks to Orcinus and Media Matters for providing some timely quotes, research and general factcheckery.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Alan Colmes On the Air
Alan Colmes, the quiet one, on Fox's Hannity & Colmes has his own radio show in the coveted timeslot of 10 pm to 1 am weeknights. When he is unfettered from Hannity, he is surprisingly good. I have listened to him eviscerate several stupid right-wing conservatarians over issues like gun control. He has a keen intellect and has honed his sparring technique from being Hannity's punching bag for so long. Also, I think there must be a litte "revenge is sweet" going on there.
He describes himself as "progressive," however, it is not just a one man blab fest, like Rimbaugh or Billo...
From www.alan.com (how's that for an easy-to-remember url?):
"Every viewpoint is welcome. In our “Friday-Night-Free-For-All” you, the listeners, get to choose the topics. Remember, Alan ends every night with his trademark one sentence and one sentence only, “Radio Graffiti!” You've gotta be quick, though.
There are several phone lines at 1-877-367-2526, which are normally occupied by callers from across America all night long. The Alan Colmes Show tries to get as many of you on air as possible. Sometimes it’s a long wait, but everyone says it’s worth it because you really are given the opportunity to present your opinion."
Actually all of the callers I have heard so far I would classify as "right wing," and Colmes does not just shut them off, he duels with them until they are (even more) tired and befuddled than they were when the called. When was the last time you saw Rimbaugh do that? The only calls he takes are from the ditto-heads.
He describes himself as "progressive," however, it is not just a one man blab fest, like Rimbaugh or Billo...
From www.alan.com (how's that for an easy-to-remember url?):
"Every viewpoint is welcome. In our “Friday-Night-Free-For-All” you, the listeners, get to choose the topics. Remember, Alan ends every night with his trademark one sentence and one sentence only, “Radio Graffiti!” You've gotta be quick, though.
There are several phone lines at 1-877-367-2526, which are normally occupied by callers from across America all night long. The Alan Colmes Show tries to get as many of you on air as possible. Sometimes it’s a long wait, but everyone says it’s worth it because you really are given the opportunity to present your opinion."
Actually all of the callers I have heard so far I would classify as "right wing," and Colmes does not just shut them off, he duels with them until they are (even more) tired and befuddled than they were when the called. When was the last time you saw Rimbaugh do that? The only calls he takes are from the ditto-heads.
I Hate Sean Hannity
While this is a true representation of my opinion, it also happens to be the name of a very good website which monitors and chronicles Hannity's hate speech/idiocy.
Here is a sample:
"Here is the secret formula for an hour of a Hannity radio broadcast:
1. Bring up a news point (1 minute)
2. Complain about how the liberal-biased media has taken it out of proportion (14 minutes)
3. Whine about how liberals are ruining the country, even if it has nothing to do with the news story (45 min)
Try it! I've put a clock to him over and over again. He is trying like crazy to become famous for being more outrageous than Ann Coulter. Forget it Sean, she has something you'll never have. Balls."
I made the mistake of listening to Sean "interview" Bernard McGurk (sp?) from the Imus program, the other day. It was an insensible diatribe against "political correctness" and an exercise in misdirection and also sour grapes. McGurk seemed to feel "we treated everyone the same," Irish, Catholic, Jew, black, women, etc. and he proceeded to prove it by reading as many offensive racist and hateful "jokes" as he could in 15 minutes. He also said it was "a locker-room mentality." I am not sure why he felt that this was somehow exonerating him.
When I say that he said these two things, I mean it! He must have said them each two dozen times, sometimes strung together and peppered with disgusting jokes like this: " Why don't Iraqis get circumcised? So they have a place to hide their chewing gum during a sandstorm." Lovely.
The actual Hannity website is here. I noticed that they are on the ABC Radio network. When I visited it, the banner was showing an ad for Pepto-Bismol, ironically.
He also mentioned that there are two call in lines the regular line (3-6PM EST)
800.941.7326 and the "Hate Hannity" line, "if you are a liberal." I can't find the Hate Hannity Hotline # on the website. Too bad. I will keep looking.
Here is a sample:
"Here is the secret formula for an hour of a Hannity radio broadcast:
1. Bring up a news point (1 minute)
2. Complain about how the liberal-biased media has taken it out of proportion (14 minutes)
3. Whine about how liberals are ruining the country, even if it has nothing to do with the news story (45 min)
Try it! I've put a clock to him over and over again. He is trying like crazy to become famous for being more outrageous than Ann Coulter. Forget it Sean, she has something you'll never have. Balls."
I made the mistake of listening to Sean "interview" Bernard McGurk (sp?) from the Imus program, the other day. It was an insensible diatribe against "political correctness" and an exercise in misdirection and also sour grapes. McGurk seemed to feel "we treated everyone the same," Irish, Catholic, Jew, black, women, etc. and he proceeded to prove it by reading as many offensive racist and hateful "jokes" as he could in 15 minutes. He also said it was "a locker-room mentality." I am not sure why he felt that this was somehow exonerating him.
When I say that he said these two things, I mean it! He must have said them each two dozen times, sometimes strung together and peppered with disgusting jokes like this: "
The actual Hannity website is here. I noticed that they are on the ABC Radio network. When I visited it, the banner was showing an ad for Pepto-Bismol, ironically.
He also mentioned that there are two call in lines the regular line (3-6PM EST)
800.941.7326 and the "Hate Hannity" line, "if you are a liberal." I can't find the Hate Hannity Hotline # on the website. Too bad. I will keep looking.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Politicizing Government Service (by Raum Emanuel)
(Guys, I'm working on something lengthier at the moment, but here's an excellent article by Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. These remarks were prepared for delivery Wednesday at a forum hosted by The Brookings Institution.)
Politicizing Government Service
by Ralph Emanuel
I don't think politics is a dirty word. (And, those of you who know me know that I am very knowledgeable when it comes to dirty words.) Politics is a vital and essential element of our political system—the vehicle by which we advance our governing principles and policies.
Believe me, I'm not naïve. President Clinton made me a top aide in the White House not because of my good looks or charm—and not because I was a top policy expert. No, I got to the White House the same way he did: through politics. I am not one who believes you can ever fully divorce politics from policy in a democracy. It would be like trying to do physics without math. Yet I've also always recognized that there is a balance; that we should never allow the basic functions and solemn responsibilities of government to be subjugated to or take a backseat to politics or party interests.
President Bush came to the White House with an entirely different understanding.
MORE HERE
Politicizing Government Service
by Ralph Emanuel
I don't think politics is a dirty word. (And, those of you who know me know that I am very knowledgeable when it comes to dirty words.) Politics is a vital and essential element of our political system—the vehicle by which we advance our governing principles and policies.
Believe me, I'm not naïve. President Clinton made me a top aide in the White House not because of my good looks or charm—and not because I was a top policy expert. No, I got to the White House the same way he did: through politics. I am not one who believes you can ever fully divorce politics from policy in a democracy. It would be like trying to do physics without math. Yet I've also always recognized that there is a balance; that we should never allow the basic functions and solemn responsibilities of government to be subjugated to or take a backseat to politics or party interests.
President Bush came to the White House with an entirely different understanding.
MORE HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)