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
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Randall Tobias, Murderer, Resigns.
This man is named Randall L. Tobias. He was the first U.S. Director of Foreign Assistance, and served concurrently as the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). He is also a murderer.
In his capacity as Director of Foreign Assistance, Tobias encouraged sexual abstinence, and discounted the use of condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS. "Statistics show that condoms really have not been very effective," Tobias told a news conference in Berlin on April 21, 2004. (1) This is a blatant lie, and flies in the face of all credible scientific study of HIV/AIDS.
On April 27, 2007, Tobias immediately resigned after being asked about an upscale escort service involved in prostitution by ABC News. Within minutes of his resignation, Tobias's biography was removed from the USAID website. State Department officials declined to comment on the reasons for Tobias's resignation. (2)
So far, 32 million Africans have died from HIV/AIDS. 47 million Africans are infected with HIV/AIDS. In the time it took you to read this article, 5 Africans have died from HIV/AIDS, and 11 Africans have contracted HIV/AIDS. (3)
Condoms drastically reduce the chances of contracting AIDS. In Cambodia and Thailand, the slowing increase of AIDS contraction and decreasing STD incidence is credited to increased condom usage. In 2005, the UN's special envoy on fighting AIDS in Africa accused the U.S. of endangering the gains Uganda has made in containing the disease, directly due to pressure from the U.S. and from Bush appointee Tobias.
(How is this any different than the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, except for the fact that even more people are dying?)
As one of those directly responsible for pressuring countries and organizations in Africa to decrease condom education and usage, Randall Tobias is responsible for the infection of thousands and thousands of Africans with HIV/AIDS. Most, if not all, of them will die.
Republican policies have consequences. We ignore many of those consequences because it isn't happening here, and it's easy to play "nobody really knows how to make HIV/AIDS stop spreading" when you're just looking at "opinions." But it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
This is what Republicans do, and to my eyes, it's no better than genocide.
Please e-mail USAID about their employment and policy choices.
Why It Isn’t About Hip-Hop.
I continue to maintain that there is a distinct difference between Don Imus and the hip-hop community.
Imus is a member of what we vaguely call "the opinion media." Both he and the discussion about his use of racist language could have opened a valuable doorway into a discussion about that very same opinion media and its many other members (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc). We progressives, instead of leaping at this chance to hold conservative broadcasters accountable for comparable language, have gotten sidetracked into discussing an important, but unrelated, issue.
When I've pointed this out, or tried to articulate the difference between Imus and the hip-hop community, conservatives have attacked me for being a "reverse racist" and progressives have questioned me for having a "double standard" and possibly also for apologizing for offensive and reprehensible lyrics.
Progressives, listen to me: You're missing the point for the principle.
There isn't one, single standard by which we judge all things, simply using more or less intensity in our focus. We have different standards for different things, and this is right and proper. Let's look at a different example. We all know the difference between murdering a person for profit and accidentally killing a person. Our judgment of the matter would reflect that difference. "Fairness" is not some catch-all criterion, where we judge even similar matters irrespective of context or intent.
And the difference between Don Imus and the hip-hop community isn't even a subtle one. It's an obvious and apparent difference. Changing the topic from Imus to hip-hop isn't even a coherent subject change. They are tenuously linked by the topic of racism, but that is, as you know, a very wide topic involving many different things.
The issues raised by Imus and hip-hop, respectively, are also quite different. Imus, as a representative of that opinion media, opens up avenues into a discussion revolving around the accountability of opinion jockeys and what they say on air. Regardless of Imus's political affiliations or (waning) popularity, he falls into the same class of broadcasters as do others such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage. These people have a tremendous amount of influence on the political discourse, and a discussion about them and the hate-speech they use would be both important and beneficial to progressive ends. Hip-hop raises issues about our standards for entertainment, for lyrical content. It does raise some issues for the African-American community (as well as, I might add, the suburban white teenaged community, which may consume up to 71% of mainstream "gangster" rap), as well as a variety of more general cultural issues.
What I hope to establish by pointing out the differences, in a variety of contexts, between Imus and the hip-hop community is simply to establish that they are, in fact, different, and, regarding the issues they lead to, not even related, save by the most tenuous of reasoning. By accepting and promulgating the false idea that they are the same, we as progressives have missed out on a valuable opportunity.
You might be wondering why, if Imus and hip-hop aren't even related issues, we even ending up talking about hip-hop at all, and a very simple answer to that question.
Conservatives don't want to talk about media accountability.
So rather than taking the Imus dialogue in its natural direction, they jumped the train onto a completely different set of tracks. Hip-hop (and gangster rap in particular) provides the perfect foil for conservatives to direct attention to, while deferring responsibility from themselves, whenever issues regarding language usage arise. (and choosing hip-hop to derail…) Derailing the discussion by throwing hip-hop into the mix was very effective, simply because nobody is going to defend gangster rap. Also, while pointing out the disconnect between Imus and hip-hop has nothing to do with apologizing for gangster rap, it's easy to paint it as if it were.
Hip-hop is a subject that we need to discuss, but there’s a time and place for everything. It simply isn't relevant to the “Don Imus discussion,” and it isn't relevant to the political discourse that Imus and the other opinion media figures influence and contribute to. The doorway to discussing media accountability is not the appropriate doorway to discussing hip-hop, and following (and even defending) that rhetorical direction is not beneficial to progressive ends. When we switched topics, we fell for conservative bait-and-switch tactics yet again.
Conservatives always pull this same trick, and we progressives always fall for it. We know that hip-hop is a topic we should discuss, and they use that against us. We need to wake up and start pushing conversations in the right direction, rather than being led around by the nose.
Control of the civil discourse is the key to political power.
Imus is a member of what we vaguely call "the opinion media." Both he and the discussion about his use of racist language could have opened a valuable doorway into a discussion about that very same opinion media and its many other members (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc). We progressives, instead of leaping at this chance to hold conservative broadcasters accountable for comparable language, have gotten sidetracked into discussing an important, but unrelated, issue.
When I've pointed this out, or tried to articulate the difference between Imus and the hip-hop community, conservatives have attacked me for being a "reverse racist" and progressives have questioned me for having a "double standard" and possibly also for apologizing for offensive and reprehensible lyrics.
Progressives, listen to me: You're missing the point for the principle.
There isn't one, single standard by which we judge all things, simply using more or less intensity in our focus. We have different standards for different things, and this is right and proper. Let's look at a different example. We all know the difference between murdering a person for profit and accidentally killing a person. Our judgment of the matter would reflect that difference. "Fairness" is not some catch-all criterion, where we judge even similar matters irrespective of context or intent.
And the difference between Don Imus and the hip-hop community isn't even a subtle one. It's an obvious and apparent difference. Changing the topic from Imus to hip-hop isn't even a coherent subject change. They are tenuously linked by the topic of racism, but that is, as you know, a very wide topic involving many different things.
The issues raised by Imus and hip-hop, respectively, are also quite different. Imus, as a representative of that opinion media, opens up avenues into a discussion revolving around the accountability of opinion jockeys and what they say on air. Regardless of Imus's political affiliations or (waning) popularity, he falls into the same class of broadcasters as do others such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage. These people have a tremendous amount of influence on the political discourse, and a discussion about them and the hate-speech they use would be both important and beneficial to progressive ends. Hip-hop raises issues about our standards for entertainment, for lyrical content. It does raise some issues for the African-American community (as well as, I might add, the suburban white teenaged community, which may consume up to 71% of mainstream "gangster" rap), as well as a variety of more general cultural issues.
What I hope to establish by pointing out the differences, in a variety of contexts, between Imus and the hip-hop community is simply to establish that they are, in fact, different, and, regarding the issues they lead to, not even related, save by the most tenuous of reasoning. By accepting and promulgating the false idea that they are the same, we as progressives have missed out on a valuable opportunity.
You might be wondering why, if Imus and hip-hop aren't even related issues, we even ending up talking about hip-hop at all, and a very simple answer to that question.
Conservatives don't want to talk about media accountability.
So rather than taking the Imus dialogue in its natural direction, they jumped the train onto a completely different set of tracks. Hip-hop (and gangster rap in particular) provides the perfect foil for conservatives to direct attention to, while deferring responsibility from themselves, whenever issues regarding language usage arise. (and choosing hip-hop to derail…) Derailing the discussion by throwing hip-hop into the mix was very effective, simply because nobody is going to defend gangster rap. Also, while pointing out the disconnect between Imus and hip-hop has nothing to do with apologizing for gangster rap, it's easy to paint it as if it were.
Hip-hop is a subject that we need to discuss, but there’s a time and place for everything. It simply isn't relevant to the “Don Imus discussion,” and it isn't relevant to the political discourse that Imus and the other opinion media figures influence and contribute to. The doorway to discussing media accountability is not the appropriate doorway to discussing hip-hop, and following (and even defending) that rhetorical direction is not beneficial to progressive ends. When we switched topics, we fell for conservative bait-and-switch tactics yet again.
Conservatives always pull this same trick, and we progressives always fall for it. We know that hip-hop is a topic we should discuss, and they use that against us. We need to wake up and start pushing conversations in the right direction, rather than being led around by the nose.
Control of the civil discourse is the key to political power.
Political Deformation.
"Their foot shall slide in due time; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste." - Deuteronomy 32:35
I don't have much respect for voting electorates around the world. Almost without exception, they are fickle and easily mislead by charismatic, pandering sociopaths. Foremost in my mind over the past few weeks has been French fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen. The French electorate used to vote predominantly on the left, and the communist and socialist parties held the loyalty of the working class. It is that very same base we see now swinging over in support of Nicolas Sarkozy, this election year's president candidate from the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UMP).
You might wonder why it is Le Pen who is on my mind, rather than Sarkozy. It is irrelevant that Le Pen hasn't ever won a French election worth mentioning. The fact that he has at times been considered a viable candidate shows that France has been moving steadily to the right for some years. And Le Pen has been bullying the country in that direction since he founded his National Front movement in 1972.
France is now considered the most conservative country in continental Europe, but I don't think France is shifting right because of the changing principles of its citizenry. As usual, the electorate is easily led by the nose by anyone "new" and controversial. That's why the leftist parties of the 1960s were so popular, and it was the progressivism of the left that allowed those parties to maintain political control in France for so long. After the left became the status quo, slick vultures like Sarkozy and Le Pen were there to offer "salvation." Considering France's track record on issues like racism, I'm surprised it's taken so long for the right to develop into something worth taking seriously.
Le Pen provides the French political discourse with a strong directive force. By voicing the most racist and exclusionary rhetoric allowable (up to and including tacit Holocaust denial), Le Pen has given the basest of opinions a "face," and thereby made each of those opinions a little more acceptable for the everyday citizen to express.
He points out the flaws in the political system as it stands (such as the corruption of Chirac) and promises change for France. In the end, while he has little chance of succeeding in his presidential gambit (as has been shown again and again, every time he has run), he shifts French politics to right, and makes it a little more acceptable for other politicians to voice right-wing rhetoric. And here, in 2007, we see Nicolas Sarkozy appear as a viable threat to the Socialist Party.
Le Pen and Sarkozy present themselves as if they are "new" alternatives, but they are nothing of the sort. Their kind is as old as mankind. We've always had wannabe dictators and resentful authoritarians looking to weasel their way to the top, looking to get revenge for past failures. Look at Adolf Hitler (failed artist), or Richard Nixon (failed lawyer), or George W. Bush (failed businessman). They will always repackage themselves, redrafting their image right on the cutting edge of contemporary anxieties, like terrorism and immigration reform.
Appealing to people's basest instincts and to their fears always gets votes, especially when that appeal is wrapped in the national flag. It's what's been happening in the United States for the past six years, after all. Why should anyone be surprised that it's happening in France now? Even if Mz. Royale achieves victory in the runoff election on May 6, I'm not sure that I have confidence in her ability to handle the increasingly Americanized press tactics of the French tabloids. Her performance, if elected, will be key to the direction of French political discourse in the near future.
Political reform is always effected by highlighting problems in the current political system and promising to change it for the better. People's utopian hopes, regardless of how unfocused, provide ample field for politicians of any stripe to till. The thrust for change is always effective when offered after a time of stagnation. Unfortunately, it seems that, given enough time, left-wing governments will begin to stagnate, but we must always remember that, given any time whatsoever, a right-wing government will damage the well-being of its nation. So, while the right may be making a "comeback" in France, history informs us it will be a temporary one. I only hope the damage to France isn't as devastating as it has been here in the United States.
I don't have much respect for voting electorates around the world. Almost without exception, they are fickle and easily mislead by charismatic, pandering sociopaths. Foremost in my mind over the past few weeks has been French fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen. The French electorate used to vote predominantly on the left, and the communist and socialist parties held the loyalty of the working class. It is that very same base we see now swinging over in support of Nicolas Sarkozy, this election year's president candidate from the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UMP).
You might wonder why it is Le Pen who is on my mind, rather than Sarkozy. It is irrelevant that Le Pen hasn't ever won a French election worth mentioning. The fact that he has at times been considered a viable candidate shows that France has been moving steadily to the right for some years. And Le Pen has been bullying the country in that direction since he founded his National Front movement in 1972.
France is now considered the most conservative country in continental Europe, but I don't think France is shifting right because of the changing principles of its citizenry. As usual, the electorate is easily led by the nose by anyone "new" and controversial. That's why the leftist parties of the 1960s were so popular, and it was the progressivism of the left that allowed those parties to maintain political control in France for so long. After the left became the status quo, slick vultures like Sarkozy and Le Pen were there to offer "salvation." Considering France's track record on issues like racism, I'm surprised it's taken so long for the right to develop into something worth taking seriously.
Le Pen provides the French political discourse with a strong directive force. By voicing the most racist and exclusionary rhetoric allowable (up to and including tacit Holocaust denial), Le Pen has given the basest of opinions a "face," and thereby made each of those opinions a little more acceptable for the everyday citizen to express.
He points out the flaws in the political system as it stands (such as the corruption of Chirac) and promises change for France. In the end, while he has little chance of succeeding in his presidential gambit (as has been shown again and again, every time he has run), he shifts French politics to right, and makes it a little more acceptable for other politicians to voice right-wing rhetoric. And here, in 2007, we see Nicolas Sarkozy appear as a viable threat to the Socialist Party.
Le Pen and Sarkozy present themselves as if they are "new" alternatives, but they are nothing of the sort. Their kind is as old as mankind. We've always had wannabe dictators and resentful authoritarians looking to weasel their way to the top, looking to get revenge for past failures. Look at Adolf Hitler (failed artist), or Richard Nixon (failed lawyer), or George W. Bush (failed businessman). They will always repackage themselves, redrafting their image right on the cutting edge of contemporary anxieties, like terrorism and immigration reform.
Appealing to people's basest instincts and to their fears always gets votes, especially when that appeal is wrapped in the national flag. It's what's been happening in the United States for the past six years, after all. Why should anyone be surprised that it's happening in France now? Even if Mz. Royale achieves victory in the runoff election on May 6, I'm not sure that I have confidence in her ability to handle the increasingly Americanized press tactics of the French tabloids. Her performance, if elected, will be key to the direction of French political discourse in the near future.
Political reform is always effected by highlighting problems in the current political system and promising to change it for the better. People's utopian hopes, regardless of how unfocused, provide ample field for politicians of any stripe to till. The thrust for change is always effective when offered after a time of stagnation. Unfortunately, it seems that, given enough time, left-wing governments will begin to stagnate, but we must always remember that, given any time whatsoever, a right-wing government will damage the well-being of its nation. So, while the right may be making a "comeback" in France, history informs us it will be a temporary one. I only hope the damage to France isn't as devastating as it has been here in the United States.
Pew Report: Americans Undergoing a Shift in Values
It can be argued that Republican control of Congress came about in 1994 because Americans underwent a change in attitudes and values that brought them closer to what the Republican Party supposedly stood for. This shift led to twelve years of Republican control in Congress, which came to a screeching halt in November 2006.
But was it simply the result of an unpopular president and an advantageous political environment? A new poll by the PEW Research Center suggests that the 2006 election was not a sheer anomaly but the beginning of a nationwide shift in values and concerns back to those of the Democratic Party.
The latest Pew Research Center poll, conducted December 2006–January 2007, shows a massive exodus from the GOP. According to the poll, 50 percent of respondents now align themselves with the Democrats, while just 35 percent align themselves with the GOP.
What this shows is that the American public—specifically independents—are undergoing a change in values and attitudes that favors the Democrats, not that the members of the party are bringing about this change with their actions thus far.
Some other results:
According to the Pew poll, more Americans now believe that the government should care for those who can't care for themselves and should help the needy even if it means going further into debt.
As the GOP continues to try to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and claims that the economy is booming for all Americans, the poll shows that the public has lost faith in the Republicans' economic policy. The poll shows that 73 percent of people now believe that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
American attitudes about foreign policy appear to be changing following endless blunders by the Bush administration, as Americans are becoming more skeptical of the value of military strength as a peacemaking tool.
Another important aspect of changing American values indicated by the Pew poll is the deteriorating religious fervor of the American public. For example, the poll finds greater public acceptance of homosexuality and less desire that women play only their traditional role in the household.
For more visit www.ncec.org
But was it simply the result of an unpopular president and an advantageous political environment? A new poll by the PEW Research Center suggests that the 2006 election was not a sheer anomaly but the beginning of a nationwide shift in values and concerns back to those of the Democratic Party.
The latest Pew Research Center poll, conducted December 2006–January 2007, shows a massive exodus from the GOP. According to the poll, 50 percent of respondents now align themselves with the Democrats, while just 35 percent align themselves with the GOP.
What this shows is that the American public—specifically independents—are undergoing a change in values and attitudes that favors the Democrats, not that the members of the party are bringing about this change with their actions thus far.
Some other results:
According to the Pew poll, more Americans now believe that the government should care for those who can't care for themselves and should help the needy even if it means going further into debt.
As the GOP continues to try to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and claims that the economy is booming for all Americans, the poll shows that the public has lost faith in the Republicans' economic policy. The poll shows that 73 percent of people now believe that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
American attitudes about foreign policy appear to be changing following endless blunders by the Bush administration, as Americans are becoming more skeptical of the value of military strength as a peacemaking tool.
Another important aspect of changing American values indicated by the Pew poll is the deteriorating religious fervor of the American public. For example, the poll finds greater public acceptance of homosexuality and less desire that women play only their traditional role in the household.
For more visit www.ncec.org
Shorter Jonah Goldberg: Americans are stupid, leave governing to us
This is an excerpt from Jonah Goldberg's latest column, which ran in the ABH (4/28/2007) edition. After citing polls and other research that shows that Americans are woefully uninformed about political matters -- "huge numbers of Americans don't know jack about their government or politics" -- he then proceeds to explain why polls are really a bad thing anyway.
------------------------
Goldberg, editor-at-large for National Review Online, is also a syndicated columnist. Send e-mail to JonahsColumn@aol.com
--------------
So if I am following this, electing a president is not about how many people actually vote for him, because it isn't a popularity contest. Therefore small states and rural areas (that have no people in them, like N. Dakota and Wyoming) would be ignored in favor of "going where the votes are." I cannot imagine that by "small states" Jonah is lamenting the fate of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and New Hampshire. No, not at all. By "small states and rural areas" he means those large, empty expanses out West, that are inflicted with low populations. Incidentally what is the basis of awarding electoral votes based on geographic territories?
Make no mistake here, there are more progressives in this country than republicans. The recent Pew Center report shows that 50% of the country now identifies itself as Democrat versus 35% who identify as Republican. This is a shameful attempt to simultaneously insult American voters as stupid while jury-rigging an archaic institution to continue to "protect small-r republicanism" whatever in the hell that is! Just further evidence, along with chronic vote-tampering and electoral shenanigans, that republicans hate democracy. He even manages to cast democracy itself as a bad thing! Simply incredible. I have never seen such bald-faced anti-Americanism!
------------------------
"That the public mood is a poor compass for guiding the ship of state is an old lament. Here are two reasons why.
The first has to do with the laziness, spinelessness and vanity of political elites. Citing polls as proof you're on the right side of an argument often is a symptom of intellectual cowardice. If the crowd says two plus two equals seven, that's no reason to invoke the authority of the crowd. But pundits and politicians know that if they align themselves with the latest Gallup findings, they don't have to defend their position on the merits because "the people" always are right. Such is the seductiveness of populism. It means never being wrong. "The people of Nebraska are for free silver, and I am for free silver," proclaimed William Jennings Bryan. "I will look up the arguments later."
Which brings us to ideology. The days when politicians would actually defend small-r republicanism are gone. The answer to every problem in our democracy seems to be more democracy, as if any alternative spells more tyranny. Indeed, once more the "forces of progress" are trying to destroy the Electoral College in the name of democracy. Their beachhead is Maryland, which was the first to approve an interstate compact promising its electors to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.
If these progressives have their way, we'll soon see candidates ignoring small states and rural areas entirely because democracy means going where the votes are. The old notion that this is a republic in which minority communities have a say will suffer perhaps the final, fatal blow.
But that's OK, because 70 percent of Americans say they're for getting rid of the Electoral College. And Lord knows, they must be right."
Goldberg, editor-at-large for National Review Online, is also a syndicated columnist. Send e-mail to JonahsColumn@aol.com
--------------
So if I am following this, electing a president is not about how many people actually vote for him, because it isn't a popularity contest. Therefore small states and rural areas (that have no people in them, like N. Dakota and Wyoming) would be ignored in favor of "going where the votes are." I cannot imagine that by "small states" Jonah is lamenting the fate of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and New Hampshire. No, not at all. By "small states and rural areas" he means those large, empty expanses out West, that are inflicted with low populations. Incidentally what is the basis of awarding electoral votes based on geographic territories?
Make no mistake here, there are more progressives in this country than republicans. The recent Pew Center report shows that 50% of the country now identifies itself as Democrat versus 35% who identify as Republican. This is a shameful attempt to simultaneously insult American voters as stupid while jury-rigging an archaic institution to continue to "protect small-r republicanism" whatever in the hell that is! Just further evidence, along with chronic vote-tampering and electoral shenanigans, that republicans hate democracy. He even manages to cast democracy itself as a bad thing! Simply incredible. I have never seen such bald-faced anti-Americanism!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
I wanted to commend you for your excellent comedy routine on the April 23rd edition of your show.
Your hilarious impersonation of a raving conspiracy-nutcase was spot on! You nailed it, sir!
Exposing "far-left billionaire George Soros" and his "radical left agenda" of "[b]uying political power" and "influence" "under the radar" by "set[ting] up a complicated political operation" to "smear people with whom he disagrees." Priceless! I think the evil billionaire is a bogey-man that should get more play in today's comedy routines. This reminded me of those hilarious Mike Myers/Austin Powers movies with the smirking, bald Dr. Evil. Is there anyway you can get pictures of George Soros stroking a white Angora cat, by any chance? Be honest, when you said "Soros ... can raise millions for politicians, who will do his bidding" you were ripping off Dr. Evil, weren't you? Even Kent said it; "George Soros is really the Dr. Evil of the whole world of left-wing foundations." I knew it! "Do his bidding!!"
Oh! And the chart! Pure confectionary brilliance! Every raving nutcase on the streetcorner always has some crackpot chart showing all of the nefarious linkages. I especially love the little arrows showing Soros "pouring" and "funneling" "millions" and "many millions of dollars" to buy the "influence." I wish you had thought to work in something about Kruegerrands, that would have been good. Or perhaps suitcases full of Swiss Francs. Can you try to fit that in next time?
And the way you worked in so many scary"organizations" like the "Open Society Institute" and the "Tides Foundation." It almost looked like a chart of ENRON limited partnerships, or Jack Abramoff's rolodex, or the board of directors of the Carlyle Group.
The Bond villians always have those cartoonish, ridiculous goals, like stealing all the gold in Fort Knox or controlling the weather. So you riffed on that brilliantly by coming up with -- "George Soros, an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on." "And on and on" indeed! And all of this from his secret lairs hidden deep inside hollowed out mountains "in Curacao and Bermuda and France."
Crowley got in some good lines too. I really liked this one! "This is an incredibly well-oiled, brilliantly orchestrated machine. And as you pointed out, it's also a brilliant way to get around the campaign finance laws in this country." To brilliantly "get around the campaign finance laws" by complying with them exactly, priceless! The irony! And the part where she says "all this power in the hands of one guy because he's got a billion-dollar fortune, where he can put his money wherever he wants." That is amazing. She almosts makes it sound like she is actually suggesting that for someone to openly and transparently put money in support of causes and candidates that they agree with is somehow "dangerous" or "illegal!" The subtlety! He can "put" "his money" "wherever he wants." Astounding!
Not to push it too much, because I do agree that you spoil a joke by trying to explain it, but I could not help mentioning the pure ironic genius of the part where she says "The problem is ... Number one, transparency. " It implies that he was doing something secretly, like one can't just go to the Open Society Institute's website and see right there on the front page "OSI was created in 1993 by investor and philanthropist George Soros to support his foundations." I get it, tranparancy, Open Society, it's open, right, because it actually is tranparent. Very funny!
The next part where you and Crowley work together to make the whole thing into a total mockery is just so funny, I have to quote it in full. It was an exchange worthy of your vaudeville roots!
"O'REILLY: OK. And also because it's a complicated -- you see where the money flow goes. Can you put that chart up again? Because it goes through three or four places -
CROWLEY: Right.
O'REILLY: - before it gets to the intended source.
CROWLEY: Exactly. But, you know, this is a web, but it's not a particularly tangled web. Because as you pointed out -
O'REILLY: It's clean.
CROWLEY: - you can trace it back two or three organizations away from George Soros. He's not even making an attempt to keep his fingerprints off of this."
It's so "complicated" that it is not even a "particularly tangled web." And "you can trace it back." He's "not even making an attempt" "to keep his fingerprints off of this." Like he's too lazy to even try to hide all they stuff that you have "exposed." Like he was actully trying to fly "under the radar." And the fingerprints and transparancy thing again, hilarious! Hiding their "well-oiled" "orchestrated machine" and "complicated political operation" by listing it right on their "Internet site."
So Soros and his evil minions who "do his bidding" "funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men, who are all well paid" for their "vile propaganda" and their "distorting comments" and their "euthanasia, and on and on" which "directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people" who "find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do."
The crackpot repetition was just right too, for example, this part, where you were practically in chorus!
"O'REILLY: And attacked.
CROWLEY: And attacked.
O'REILLY: And attacked, and attacked. And you know, ripped up --
CROWLEY: And you do not want that danger, not if you're running for president.
O'REILLY: Right. And they don't stop at you. They'll go for your family. They'll go for anyone."
And the punchline! "The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have never even heard of George Soros. This is off-the-chart dangerous, but completely legal under the McCain-Feingold Act." I have never laughed so hard! "Completely legal" you say, after all of this buildup. Comedy Gold! I never saw it coming!
I have to admit that the winking-and-nodding part was hard to catch. You might want to do more nudges or smirks or something to demonstrate clearly that you are kidding. But I was able to detect, just barely, where you were really going with all this. I think it was a dead give-away when you first said "In the past, big business has been accused of doing" this stuff. It's all a dig at the big business and corporate cronyism, the whole K Street project thing, right?
Subtle, but it became totally clear what you were really going after when you said later "are there any Republican or conservative groups that rile Soros' -- rival Soros'?" I knew immediately what you were really trying to say. This is all really about the conservatives! Very clever! The Scaife Foundation and The Project for a New American Century! You are accusing Soros, who is in fact not, of doing what the conservatives are in fact actually doing.
There was a lot of innuendo too. All those jokes about "well-oiled" and "funnel" and "all this power in the hands of one guy" who can "put it wherever he wants" and his "vile" "fingerprints". What about the part where you said "they ... basically take exactly what Soros gives them and spit it out" or "We know he [Moyers] is in bed with Soros" and "he's going to take a big (money?) shot ... on PBS." Or the speculation about the "intrusion of the mainstream media?" And where you said I "have reason to believe John Edwards is taking ... [it]... from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as well." "We believe that John Edwards has forged some kind of an arrangement with Soros." Some kind, indeed, that crazy Breck Girl! Or when you talked about "being held in the pocket by a fabulously rich guy like George Soros" who "can put a big hurt on you fast" because "you just exposed him." Pretty risque!
Too bad you can't just come out and call him a Jew, and blame him for all the wars in the world, like Mel Gibson does. That would have been a topper! But as you said "Yeah, but, we live in a thing of freedom of speech."
Thanks again for all the sidesplitters!! Keep up the fabulous work! Can't wait to see the next installment of "raving conspiracy nutjob & friends."
featured at Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World - Visit him!
I wanted to commend you for your excellent comedy routine on the April 23rd edition of your show.
Your hilarious impersonation of a raving conspiracy-nutcase was spot on! You nailed it, sir!
Exposing "far-left billionaire George Soros" and his "radical left agenda" of "[b]uying political power" and "influence" "under the radar" by "set[ting] up a complicated political operation" to "smear people with whom he disagrees." Priceless! I think the evil billionaire is a bogey-man that should get more play in today's comedy routines. This reminded me of those hilarious Mike Myers/Austin Powers movies with the smirking, bald Dr. Evil. Is there anyway you can get pictures of George Soros stroking a white Angora cat, by any chance? Be honest, when you said "Soros ... can raise millions for politicians, who will do his bidding" you were ripping off Dr. Evil, weren't you? Even Kent said it; "George Soros is really the Dr. Evil of the whole world of left-wing foundations." I knew it! "Do his bidding!!"
Oh! And the chart! Pure confectionary brilliance! Every raving nutcase on the streetcorner always has some crackpot chart showing all of the nefarious linkages. I especially love the little arrows showing Soros "pouring" and "funneling" "millions" and "many millions of dollars" to buy the "influence." I wish you had thought to work in something about Kruegerrands, that would have been good. Or perhaps suitcases full of Swiss Francs. Can you try to fit that in next time?
And the way you worked in so many scary"organizations" like the "Open Society Institute" and the "Tides Foundation." It almost looked like a chart of ENRON limited partnerships, or Jack Abramoff's rolodex, or the board of directors of the Carlyle Group.
The Bond villians always have those cartoonish, ridiculous goals, like stealing all the gold in Fort Knox or controlling the weather. So you riffed on that brilliantly by coming up with -- "George Soros, an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on." "And on and on" indeed! And all of this from his secret lairs hidden deep inside hollowed out mountains "in Curacao and Bermuda and France."
Crowley got in some good lines too. I really liked this one! "This is an incredibly well-oiled, brilliantly orchestrated machine. And as you pointed out, it's also a brilliant way to get around the campaign finance laws in this country." To brilliantly "get around the campaign finance laws" by complying with them exactly, priceless! The irony! And the part where she says "all this power in the hands of one guy because he's got a billion-dollar fortune, where he can put his money wherever he wants." That is amazing. She almosts makes it sound like she is actually suggesting that for someone to openly and transparently put money in support of causes and candidates that they agree with is somehow "dangerous" or "illegal!" The subtlety! He can "put" "his money" "wherever he wants." Astounding!
Not to push it too much, because I do agree that you spoil a joke by trying to explain it, but I could not help mentioning the pure ironic genius of the part where she says "The problem is ... Number one, transparency. " It implies that he was doing something secretly, like one can't just go to the Open Society Institute's website and see right there on the front page "OSI was created in 1993 by investor and philanthropist George Soros to support his foundations." I get it, tranparancy, Open Society, it's open, right, because it actually is tranparent. Very funny!
The next part where you and Crowley work together to make the whole thing into a total mockery is just so funny, I have to quote it in full. It was an exchange worthy of your vaudeville roots!
"O'REILLY: OK. And also because it's a complicated -- you see where the money flow goes. Can you put that chart up again? Because it goes through three or four places -
CROWLEY: Right.
O'REILLY: - before it gets to the intended source.
CROWLEY: Exactly. But, you know, this is a web, but it's not a particularly tangled web. Because as you pointed out -
O'REILLY: It's clean.
CROWLEY: - you can trace it back two or three organizations away from George Soros. He's not even making an attempt to keep his fingerprints off of this."
It's so "complicated" that it is not even a "particularly tangled web." And "you can trace it back." He's "not even making an attempt" "to keep his fingerprints off of this." Like he's too lazy to even try to hide all they stuff that you have "exposed." Like he was actully trying to fly "under the radar." And the fingerprints and transparancy thing again, hilarious! Hiding their "well-oiled" "orchestrated machine" and "complicated political operation" by listing it right on their "Internet site."
So Soros and his evil minions who "do his bidding" "funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men, who are all well paid" for their "vile propaganda" and their "distorting comments" and their "euthanasia, and on and on" which "directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people" who "find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do."
The crackpot repetition was just right too, for example, this part, where you were practically in chorus!
"O'REILLY: And attacked.
CROWLEY: And attacked.
O'REILLY: And attacked, and attacked. And you know, ripped up --
CROWLEY: And you do not want that danger, not if you're running for president.
O'REILLY: Right. And they don't stop at you. They'll go for your family. They'll go for anyone."
And the punchline! "The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have never even heard of George Soros. This is off-the-chart dangerous, but completely legal under the McCain-Feingold Act." I have never laughed so hard! "Completely legal" you say, after all of this buildup. Comedy Gold! I never saw it coming!
I have to admit that the winking-and-nodding part was hard to catch. You might want to do more nudges or smirks or something to demonstrate clearly that you are kidding. But I was able to detect, just barely, where you were really going with all this. I think it was a dead give-away when you first said "In the past, big business has been accused of doing" this stuff. It's all a dig at the big business and corporate cronyism, the whole K Street project thing, right?
Subtle, but it became totally clear what you were really going after when you said later "are there any Republican or conservative groups that rile Soros' -- rival Soros'?" I knew immediately what you were really trying to say. This is all really about the conservatives! Very clever! The Scaife Foundation and The Project for a New American Century! You are accusing Soros, who is in fact not, of doing what the conservatives are in fact actually doing.
There was a lot of innuendo too. All those jokes about "well-oiled" and "funnel" and "all this power in the hands of one guy" who can "put it wherever he wants" and his "vile" "fingerprints". What about the part where you said "they ... basically take exactly what Soros gives them and spit it out" or "We know he [Moyers] is in bed with Soros" and "he's going to take a big (money?) shot ... on PBS." Or the speculation about the "intrusion of the mainstream media?" And where you said I "have reason to believe John Edwards is taking ... [it]... from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as well." "We believe that John Edwards has forged some kind of an arrangement with Soros." Some kind, indeed, that crazy Breck Girl! Or when you talked about "being held in the pocket by a fabulously rich guy like George Soros" who "can put a big hurt on you fast" because "you just exposed him." Pretty risque!
Too bad you can't just come out and call him a Jew, and blame him for all the wars in the world, like Mel Gibson does. That would have been a topper! But as you said "Yeah, but, we live in a thing of freedom of speech."
Thanks again for all the sidesplitters!! Keep up the fabulous work! Can't wait to see the next installment of "raving conspiracy nutjob & friends."
featured at Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World - Visit him!
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Media standards should be higher than those for pop music.
I find it mind-boggling that the firing of Don Imus has led to the discussion of hip-hop music and the deleterious effects it has on the always ambiguous "children." The Don Imus controversy should be opening up a national dialogue about the content, quality, and tone of the civil discourse, as well as the broadcasting standards (or lack thereof) in place since the 1987 repealment of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine (and its corollaries, such as the "personal attack rule" and the "equal-time rule").
The fact of the matter is that gangster rap does not have the same impact on the civil discourse as the news and opinion media (of which Don Imus was a part, addressing news and political issues), and arguments that equate the two are indefensible and unsupportable. You can argue that Don Imus was just an entertainer, but that's simply not true. Imus in the Morning was a political and news show, despite his former reputation as nothing more than a "shock jock," and the public influence of his show grew as a result. Less than a decade ago, TIME magazine placed Don Imus on their list of the "25 most influential people in America."
Of course I'll admit that certain lyrics found in certain kinds of hip-hop are reprehensible. But the fact of the matter remains that hip-hop doesn't have the same kind of influence that the news and opinion media does, and it can't be judged by the same standards. Apparently conservatives would have us judge everyone by the same standards, and that should tell us in what regard they hold the press. We should hold the news media to higher standards than mere pop music.
And a comment to those who suddenly care about young African-Americans: if you want to have a positive effect on the African-American community (and it cannot be judged by the content, merits, or standards of the the so-called "hip-hop community"), stop talking about gangster rap (of whom the listening demographic is 71% white) and start strongly advocating and supporting affirmative action, affordable housing, anti-poverty initiatives, equal opportunity employment. Start donating your time as a counselor or tutor. Donate money to the United Negro College Fund. But condemning gangster rap is a transparent ploy when only used after a conservative gets burned for using hate-speech.
To those pour souls who think Don Imus got "lynched": You don't know what a lynching is.
The fact of the matter is that gangster rap does not have the same impact on the civil discourse as the news and opinion media (of which Don Imus was a part, addressing news and political issues), and arguments that equate the two are indefensible and unsupportable. You can argue that Don Imus was just an entertainer, but that's simply not true. Imus in the Morning was a political and news show, despite his former reputation as nothing more than a "shock jock," and the public influence of his show grew as a result. Less than a decade ago, TIME magazine placed Don Imus on their list of the "25 most influential people in America."
Of course I'll admit that certain lyrics found in certain kinds of hip-hop are reprehensible. But the fact of the matter remains that hip-hop doesn't have the same kind of influence that the news and opinion media does, and it can't be judged by the same standards. Apparently conservatives would have us judge everyone by the same standards, and that should tell us in what regard they hold the press. We should hold the news media to higher standards than mere pop music.
And a comment to those who suddenly care about young African-Americans: if you want to have a positive effect on the African-American community (and it cannot be judged by the content, merits, or standards of the the so-called "hip-hop community"), stop talking about gangster rap (of whom the listening demographic is 71% white) and start strongly advocating and supporting affirmative action, affordable housing, anti-poverty initiatives, equal opportunity employment. Start donating your time as a counselor or tutor. Donate money to the United Negro College Fund. But condemning gangster rap is a transparent ploy when only used after a conservative gets burned for using hate-speech.
To those pour souls who think Don Imus got "lynched": You don't know what a lynching is.
Unpublished letter to the editor.
On April 16, Eric Galdone wrote this letter to the Athens Banner-Herald: Imus firing just the start of stopping hate speech.
On April 19, Johney [sic] Friar wrote this response to Galdone's letter: No shortage of hate anywhere in politics.
When I read Mr. Friar's letter, I decided to write my own response. By this point, I am pretty sure that the Athens Banner-Herald isn't going to publish it, so I have included the text of the letter below.
"I want to invite any conservative to explain to me and the audience of the Athens Banner-Herald exactly how Eric Galdone (author of "Imus firing just the start of stopping hate speech") took the words of conservative pundits Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly out of context in his April 17 letter.
Let's take a look at the specific context of the quote by Fox News host O'Reilly about San Francisco, for example. Here is what O'Reilly said: "And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you [San Francisco] up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead!" (Gives a whole new meaning to his self-granted title, "Culture Warrior", doesn't it?)
Now O'Reilly made this statement while criticizing a ballot measure passed by 60% of San Francisco voters urging the prohibition of on-campus military recruiting in their colleges and high schools. Whether you agree with the San Francisco voters or not is entirely beside the point. My question is this: Does the mere fact that you disagree with other American citizens give you the right to advocate their murder by our enemies abroad? Does O'Reilly have the right to invite terrorists into our country to kill our fellow men and women, just because he disagrees with the content of a ballot measure passed?
I think not. You can try to spin what O'Reilly said, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. This is what passes for conservative rhetoric, and I challenge anyone to defend it."
Let me add a few comments I didn't include in the letter above. A few nights ago, I watched part of an interview O'Reilly was conducting where he stated again and again that media figures should be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course, if you've ever seen The O'Reilly Factor, you'll know he's more than willing to extend this mythical benefit of the doubt only to right-wingers like himself.
But how can we extend the benefit of the doubt to people like O'Reilly when statements like his invitation to terrorists are made so clearly? There's not much room for nuance there, Bill-o.
Conservatives have a choice ahead of them. Either they start saying what they mean and meaning what they say, or they need to quit their jobs as serious social commentators and start doing comedy tours. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. We on left aren't going to accept "Just kidding!" as an excuse every time a conservative "slips up" and says what he really thinks. Personally, I hope conservatives get a lot more honest with their opinions, because when they start saying what they really think, they're only going to humiliate themselves and further divorce their crackpot ideology from mainstream opinion. Remember when O'Reilly made all those obscene phone calls to his female producer, asking questions about her masturbatory habits and the state of her virginity? I have to say, that was pretty damn honest of him. At least we (unfortunately) know what he's thinking about now.
Somehow the message broadcast by these pundits --- often without overt protest from us progressives --- is that conservatives can say whatever they want to, regardless of the veracity of the statement, but the moment progressives like Galdone start being aggressive, suddenly it's progressives who are just hateful and nasty and who degrade the civil discourse.
In response I'd like to ask a question. What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh saying Barack Obama was taught by Muslims for four years and me calling Rush a lying racist and a pill-popping hypocrite? Here's the answer. I can provide extensive documentation backing up each and every word present in that last, colorful phrase, while Rush's claims have been fully debunked here, here, and here. Clarifying the details of Obama's educational history doesn't quite have the punch "Barack went to Muslim school" does, but at least I'm telling the truth.
These people want us to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they have never once given us good reason to do so. When we rightfully call them liars, they say we're trying to "smear" them, and if we call the taste or veracity of what they've said into question, they respond by accusing us of taking their words out of context. But it isn't out of context. We're taking what was said in the greater context of the long, dirty history conservatism has in this country. They mean exactly what they say, unless conservatism is not, in fact, as hateful as first meets the eye, but instead only ambiguously content-free (it's not). Unlike the epithets and blatantly false stories dreamed up by Republican spin doctors, progressive attacks carry weight and have substance. That is why conservatives react so violently to criticism, and apologies are rare and patently fake when provided.
My point is: Never give a conservative the benefit of the doubt. As progressives, we've learned a lot in the past few decades. We're not just going to call conservatives names. We're not just going to chatter on the radio. Instead, we're going to tape and transcribe everything conservatives say. We're going to complain to their sponsors until they become an economic liability. And in the free market, when they become economic liabilities, they will be dropped from major networks.
Mr. Galdone made in his letter to the editor what I consider to be a very important point. We, the people, pay the sponsors responsible for allowing pundits like Limbaugh and O'Reilly to be broadcast. Consumer opinion and the ratings we provide these networks dictate the salaries of these people. And it is up to us to make sure that they never work again.
On April 19, Johney [sic] Friar wrote this response to Galdone's letter: No shortage of hate anywhere in politics.
When I read Mr. Friar's letter, I decided to write my own response. By this point, I am pretty sure that the Athens Banner-Herald isn't going to publish it, so I have included the text of the letter below.
"I want to invite any conservative to explain to me and the audience of the Athens Banner-Herald exactly how Eric Galdone (author of "Imus firing just the start of stopping hate speech") took the words of conservative pundits Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly out of context in his April 17 letter.
Let me add a few comments I didn't include in the letter above. A few nights ago, I watched part of an interview O'Reilly was conducting where he stated again and again that media figures should be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course, if you've ever seen The O'Reilly Factor, you'll know he's more than willing to extend this mythical benefit of the doubt only to right-wingers like himself.
But how can we extend the benefit of the doubt to people like O'Reilly when statements like his invitation to terrorists are made so clearly? There's not much room for nuance there, Bill-o.
Conservatives have a choice ahead of them. Either they start saying what they mean and meaning what they say, or they need to quit their jobs as serious social commentators and start doing comedy tours. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. We on left aren't going to accept "Just kidding!" as an excuse every time a conservative "slips up" and says what he really thinks. Personally, I hope conservatives get a lot more honest with their opinions, because when they start saying what they really think, they're only going to humiliate themselves and further divorce their crackpot ideology from mainstream opinion. Remember when O'Reilly made all those obscene phone calls to his female producer, asking questions about her masturbatory habits and the state of her virginity? I have to say, that was pretty damn honest of him. At least we (unfortunately) know what he's thinking about now.
Somehow the message broadcast by these pundits --- often without overt protest from us progressives --- is that conservatives can say whatever they want to, regardless of the veracity of the statement, but the moment progressives like Galdone start being aggressive, suddenly it's progressives who are just hateful and nasty and who degrade the civil discourse.
In response I'd like to ask a question. What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh saying Barack Obama was taught by Muslims for four years and me calling Rush a lying racist and a pill-popping hypocrite? Here's the answer. I can provide extensive documentation backing up each and every word present in that last, colorful phrase, while Rush's claims have been fully debunked here, here, and here. Clarifying the details of Obama's educational history doesn't quite have the punch "Barack went to Muslim school" does, but at least I'm telling the truth.
These people want us to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they have never once given us good reason to do so. When we rightfully call them liars, they say we're trying to "smear" them, and if we call the taste or veracity of what they've said into question, they respond by accusing us of taking their words out of context. But it isn't out of context. We're taking what was said in the greater context of the long, dirty history conservatism has in this country. They mean exactly what they say, unless conservatism is not, in fact, as hateful as first meets the eye, but instead only ambiguously content-free (it's not). Unlike the epithets and blatantly false stories dreamed up by Republican spin doctors, progressive attacks carry weight and have substance. That is why conservatives react so violently to criticism, and apologies are rare and patently fake when provided.
My point is: Never give a conservative the benefit of the doubt. As progressives, we've learned a lot in the past few decades. We're not just going to call conservatives names. We're not just going to chatter on the radio. Instead, we're going to tape and transcribe everything conservatives say. We're going to complain to their sponsors until they become an economic liability. And in the free market, when they become economic liabilities, they will be dropped from major networks.
Mr. Galdone made in his letter to the editor what I consider to be a very important point. We, the people, pay the sponsors responsible for allowing pundits like Limbaugh and O'Reilly to be broadcast. Consumer opinion and the ratings we provide these networks dictate the salaries of these people. And it is up to us to make sure that they never work again.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)