Curiously, while the corporate media have been obsessively salivating and chewing over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's every word, Republican mentors and supporters have been emitting their own brand of toxic swill in a near vacuum.
Not so much media attention was given to McCain's evangelist pal John Hagee, who has said that "Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans," and something about the Catholic Church being a great whore.
Then there's pastor Rod Parsley, who wrote that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [of Islam] destroyed."
And why should wholesome TV viewing Americans be aware of Rush Limbaugh's provocative and threatening "dreams" of riots in Denver during the Democratic convention?
Could it possibly be there are different standards for the radical righties? Or is it simply just a given that hateful bigoted speech is expected from them, so it's not really newsworthy?
There's not much we can do about spiritually poisoned preachers, but Limbaugh's mouth has sponsors. Have a look at some his hate drenched comments here, and then feel free to boycott and send a message to his advertisers.
Here are his words.
Screw the World! Riot in Denver!
We don't bring people together. That's not how this country works. We defeat our political adversaries so that they're in the minority.
We need as many ignorant Americans to wake up and find out exactly who the modern-day Democrat Party is as dominated by the far left in this country. We need that to be seen. Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) "I'm dreaming of riots in Denver." Remember 1968? And which party did that? It was the radicals in that party, the anti-war radicals, the same bunch of clowns that are running around defining the Democrat Party today.
Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats -- and that's the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think: Don't elect Democrats!
Here are his advertisers:
Bose Wave Radio 508-766-7781
Lending Tree (704) 541-5351
Life Quotes 1-800-670-5433
Select Comfort 763-551-7460
Overstock.com 1-800-989-0135 (customer comments and service email) otherinfo@overstock.com
eharmony 300 N. Lake Ave., Suite 1111 Pasadena, CA 91101 media@eharmony.com 626.795.4814 FAX 626.585.4040
Inverness Medical (maker of stresstabs) 51 Sawyer Road Waltham, MA 02021 1-800-899-7353 weekdays, 8 am. - 6 p.m. (Eastern Time.)
Onstar 1-800-947-AUTO
Hotwire Corporate Headquarters 333 Market Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94105 advertising@hotwire.com 1-877-HOTWIRE (468-9473) 415-343-8400 Sleep Number Bed 1-800-438-2233
The Neptune Society of Northern California Stewart Enterprises 12070 Telegraph Road ..107 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Oreck Upright Vacuum Cleaners Oreck Corporation 100 Plantation Road New Orleans, Louisiana 70123 Online contact form 1-800-289-5888
Smart & Final Customer Relations PO Box 512377 Los Angeles, CA 91001-0377 (Heard on KFI 640 in Los Angeles)
Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee 9151 Grapevine Hwy. North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Phone (800) 733-1110 (web banner ads on rushlimbaugh.com)
AutoZone Inc. P.O. Box 2198 Memphis, TN 38101 Phone (901) 495-7185 Fax (901) 495-8374 investor.relations@autozone.com
Citracal - Mission Pharmacal Bennett Kennedy - Citracal Product Manager Mission Pharmacal P.O. Box 786099 San Antonio, TX 78278-6099 Phone:(800) 531-3333
Blue-Emu 1-800-432-9334
Lumber Liquidators Toll Free: 877-645-5347 Contact list: Link Avacor (hair loss treatment) (customer comments email) comments@avacorusa.com
Lazerguide® (golf instruction tool) PO Box 807 New Hudson Michigan 48165 1-877-266-6430 (toll free)
Mission Pharmacal Company 10999 IH-10 West Suite 1000 San Antonio, TX 78230 Telephone: (800) 531-3333
General Steel Metal Buildings 1075 South Yukon, Ste. 250 Lakewood, Colorado 80226 Toll Free: 1-888-98-STEEL Phone: 303-904-4837 Fax: 303-979-0084
Life Quotes, Inc. 32045 Castle Court Evergreen, CO 80439 1-800-670-5433 info@lifequotes.com.au
Select Comfort Corporation 6105 Trenton Lane N Minneapolis, MN 55442 Phone: 763-551-7000 Fax: 763-551-7826 investorrelations@selectcomfor t.com RegionalHelpWanted.com, Inc. 1 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 506 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 800-365-8630 845-471-5200 Feedback@RegionalHelpWanted.co m
The Swap Shop 3291 East Sunrise Ft. Lauderdale, FL swpshop@aol.com Phone - 954.791.$WAP
Pfizer Inc 235 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 212-733-2323
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The McCain/McMedia Complex
Can anyone still wonder why the Democrats declined the generous invitation from Fox News to debate on their network? If that so called “debate” last Wednesday on ABC was not enough to prove the corporate media may as well be working for McCain, I don’t know what else could do it. For about an entire hour the nation had to endure pointless, propagandistic drivel such as who loves America most, flag worship, flag pins, the patriotism of a Marine Corps veteran pastor, and the activities of a former radical from over forty years ago.
The time that remained for real issues was taken up with such “objectivity” as Charles Gibson’s arguing against capital gains taxes and his reverential reference to Bush’s pet General Petraeus:
“But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, ‘I know better than the military commanders here’?”
Everyone but corporate media hacks and Radical Right mouthpieces has been talking about the tabloid nature and general irrelevance of many of the questions. If you missed the commercial TV event interspersed with an odd little inquisition of idiocy, consider yourself fortunate. Trust me; you’d have been more enlightened watching American Idol or Survivor, or anything else other than TV “news”.
Besides the questions posed by former Clinton crony George Stephanopoulos and Gibson, let me point to this example of the McCain/McMedia Complex.
There was a luncheon for the nation’s newspaper editors hosted by the Associated Press on the Monday before the debate. Both McCain and Obama appeared. Only one of them received a standing ovation. As everyone indoctrinated by the right wing corporate media would presume, the ovation would have to have been for Obama. Nope. McCain was the recipient of the editors’ adulation.
How’s that for “liberal media bias”? But wait, there’s more.
After McCain was greeted with a box of donuts and some coffee and a hearty standing ovation, it was Obama’s turn. However, the Democratic candidate was given no donuts, no coffee, and no standing ovation.
Instead of donuts “with sprinkles” for McCain, he was offered an interesting question from AP Chairman Dean Singleton. He quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"
"I think that was Osama bin Laden," Barack replied.
"If I did that, I'm so sorry!" Singleton said, after his little Freudian, or rather, Rovian slip.
The public was barraged with clucking and squawking over a comment about bitter Americans, but not more than a peep about this media muck up. Neither were they informed very much about Johnny Bomb Bomb’s frighteningly inaccurate assertion about who we were fighting in Iraq:
“Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate. So I believe that we are succeeding in Iraq. The situation is dramatically improved. But I also want to emphasize time and again al-Qaeda is on the run, but they are not defeated.”
This dangerous falsehood was repeated by McCain as much as Hillary told her Bosnian sniper story. Which one did the media play the most?
See what I mean?
Here's another example from the April 10th edition of Hardball on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that -- handshaking in a diner.
SHUSTER: No --
MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right.
SHUSTER: -- he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean --
MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?
SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."
MATTHEWS: No.
SHUSTER: He did. And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] --
MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.
SHUSTER: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.
And let's not forget this gem from September 10, 2006 by Chris Matthews: "The press loves McCain. We're his base. "
I could go on and on.
Let’s go back to the debate. TV critic, Tom Shales of The Washington Post, said Gibson and Stephanopoulos "turned in shoddy, despicable performances."
After some of this outraged reaction to the ABC moderators poured in, Stephanopoulos said: "Sure, there's a risk." But he added: "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme."
Well, wasn’t it convenient that ABC transmitted “clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents” into the debate, much to Hillary’s and McCain’s advantage?
"The questions were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant," Stephanopoulos told The Associated Press. "We wanted to focus at first on the issues that were not focused on during the last debates."
He may as well have said “fair and balanced”. The question about former Weather Underground member William Ayers was fed to Stephanopoulos directly from Fox’s own Sean Hannity.
And this was indeed much to Hannity’s delight. He later crowed, “Now of course, the liberal blogs are losing their minds in part because I suggested the question to George Stephanopoulos Tuesday afternoon on my radio show.”
Stephanopoulos explained to ABC News political correspondent Jake Tapper, “We have been researching this for a while,” he said. “Part of what we discovered is that Sen. Obama had never been asked directly about it, even though it’s being written about and talked about and Republicans are signaling that this is gonna be an issue in the general election.”
There he goes again, transmitting and boosting what those “Republicans are signaling”.
Hannity was not the only delighted member of the Radical Right to laud the debate.
Radio propagandist Laura Ingraham noted that Gibson and Stephanopoulos also asked the candidates about Iraq, Israel, gas prices, capital gains taxes, affirmative action and a Supreme Court case on the D.C. handgun ban.
"That's pretty substantive," she said. "It was one of the best debates of the entire political season, because it addressed substance and character at the same time . . . “
Right wing blogger Ed Morrissey at hotair.com was also impressed:
"Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock . . .Kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly."
Such lavish praise for the liberal media! Why, it’s almost like ABC News has merged with Fox News. The McCain/McMedia Complex is now blooming in all its glory.
Does anybody still wonder who’s going to win the election?
The time that remained for real issues was taken up with such “objectivity” as Charles Gibson’s arguing against capital gains taxes and his reverential reference to Bush’s pet General Petraeus:
“But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, ‘I know better than the military commanders here’?”
Everyone but corporate media hacks and Radical Right mouthpieces has been talking about the tabloid nature and general irrelevance of many of the questions. If you missed the commercial TV event interspersed with an odd little inquisition of idiocy, consider yourself fortunate. Trust me; you’d have been more enlightened watching American Idol or Survivor, or anything else other than TV “news”.
Besides the questions posed by former Clinton crony George Stephanopoulos and Gibson, let me point to this example of the McCain/McMedia Complex.
There was a luncheon for the nation’s newspaper editors hosted by the Associated Press on the Monday before the debate. Both McCain and Obama appeared. Only one of them received a standing ovation. As everyone indoctrinated by the right wing corporate media would presume, the ovation would have to have been for Obama. Nope. McCain was the recipient of the editors’ adulation.
How’s that for “liberal media bias”? But wait, there’s more.
After McCain was greeted with a box of donuts and some coffee and a hearty standing ovation, it was Obama’s turn. However, the Democratic candidate was given no donuts, no coffee, and no standing ovation.
Instead of donuts “with sprinkles” for McCain, he was offered an interesting question from AP Chairman Dean Singleton. He quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"
"I think that was Osama bin Laden," Barack replied.
"If I did that, I'm so sorry!" Singleton said, after his little Freudian, or rather, Rovian slip.
The public was barraged with clucking and squawking over a comment about bitter Americans, but not more than a peep about this media muck up. Neither were they informed very much about Johnny Bomb Bomb’s frighteningly inaccurate assertion about who we were fighting in Iraq:
“Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate. So I believe that we are succeeding in Iraq. The situation is dramatically improved. But I also want to emphasize time and again al-Qaeda is on the run, but they are not defeated.”
This dangerous falsehood was repeated by McCain as much as Hillary told her Bosnian sniper story. Which one did the media play the most?
See what I mean?
Here's another example from the April 10th edition of Hardball on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that -- handshaking in a diner.
SHUSTER: No --
MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right.
SHUSTER: -- he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean --
MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?
SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."
MATTHEWS: No.
SHUSTER: He did. And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] --
MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.
SHUSTER: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.
And let's not forget this gem from September 10, 2006 by Chris Matthews: "The press loves McCain. We're his base. "
I could go on and on.
Let’s go back to the debate. TV critic, Tom Shales of The Washington Post, said Gibson and Stephanopoulos "turned in shoddy, despicable performances."
After some of this outraged reaction to the ABC moderators poured in, Stephanopoulos said: "Sure, there's a risk." But he added: "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme."
Well, wasn’t it convenient that ABC transmitted “clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents” into the debate, much to Hillary’s and McCain’s advantage?
"The questions were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant," Stephanopoulos told The Associated Press. "We wanted to focus at first on the issues that were not focused on during the last debates."
He may as well have said “fair and balanced”. The question about former Weather Underground member William Ayers was fed to Stephanopoulos directly from Fox’s own Sean Hannity.
And this was indeed much to Hannity’s delight. He later crowed, “Now of course, the liberal blogs are losing their minds in part because I suggested the question to George Stephanopoulos Tuesday afternoon on my radio show.”
Stephanopoulos explained to ABC News political correspondent Jake Tapper, “We have been researching this for a while,” he said. “Part of what we discovered is that Sen. Obama had never been asked directly about it, even though it’s being written about and talked about and Republicans are signaling that this is gonna be an issue in the general election.”
There he goes again, transmitting and boosting what those “Republicans are signaling”.
Hannity was not the only delighted member of the Radical Right to laud the debate.
Radio propagandist Laura Ingraham noted that Gibson and Stephanopoulos also asked the candidates about Iraq, Israel, gas prices, capital gains taxes, affirmative action and a Supreme Court case on the D.C. handgun ban.
"That's pretty substantive," she said. "It was one of the best debates of the entire political season, because it addressed substance and character at the same time . . . “
Right wing blogger Ed Morrissey at hotair.com was also impressed:
"Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock . . .Kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly."
Such lavish praise for the liberal media! Why, it’s almost like ABC News has merged with Fox News. The McCain/McMedia Complex is now blooming in all its glory.
Does anybody still wonder who’s going to win the election?
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Warmongers
Maybe you’ve seen the fuss over a comment made by liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz last Friday, April fourth. He was speaking at an Obama fund-raiser in North Dakota and happened to call John McCain a warmonger.
Zounds! How dare those far-left (read liberal) agents of smear and character assassination attempt to slime the good name of Johnny (Bomb Bomb Iran) McCain! Remember that catchy little tune the senator sang for us?
The right wing bloggers quickly puffed up into their favorite posture of self-righteous indignation.
North Dakota's Democrats selected far-left radio talk show host Ed Schultz to warm up the crowd before Barack Obama's speech; he did so by calling John McCain "a warmonger." Obama did nothing to distance himself from Schultz's smear. - poligazette
What’s most interesting about this entire affair, though, is that it shows us how the Democrats will campaign against the GOP. Republicans are “warmongers” and “hatemongers.” The far-left will, undoubtedly, start attacking McCain incredibly aggressively ASAP. – powerlineblog
Robert M. Duncan, the chairman of the Republican National Committee chimed in with his outrage, “Enough is enough. Senator Obama has an obligation to speak out and publicly reject and denounce — not applaud — the shameful and contemptible remarks made by his surrogates.”
There go those liberals for you, shameful and contemptible. Contrast that remark with the diplomatic and respectful comment Johnny Bomb Bomb made about Hillary at a GOP Presidential debate.
He said, “If Senator Clinton has her way, al-Qaeda will trumpet to the world that they have beaten the United States.”
See? Now there’s the way to talk about a senator and peer. Never mind that “liberal” senator refuses to admit that her support for the invasion of Iraq was a lapse in judgment. Why, she was so liberal that she co-sponsored the failed Flag Protection Act of 2005 with Republican Senator Robert Bennett. No wonder al-Qaeda loves her. They don’t like our Constitution either.
They probably love McCain even more for fervently supporting the Iraq War. After all, that war was, and is, al-Qaeda’s biggest propaganda victory.
McCain told reporters, “Mr. Schultz is entitled to his views. I would hope that in keeping with his commitment that Senator Obama would condemn such language, since it was part of his campaign.'’
Ever the politically correct liberals they are, the Obama people quickly stepped in to cringe from the Right’s howling rage. Traveling press secretary Jen Psaki said in a written statement: “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”
Uh, huh.
It’s a good thing Ed Schultz has the spine to stand behind his words.
"He voted for this war," Schultz told the Associated Press on Saturday. "He's a perpetrator of the war. He's an advocate of the war. In my personal definition, that's a warmonger."
Ed is correct, of course. My American Heritage Dictionary defines warmonger as, “One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.”
As we remember, it was not just Bush, Cheney, and the neocons doing all the saber rattling back in 2002.
That would include Hillary Clinton, as well as many Democrats, and nearly every Republican politician. A country does not start an unprovoked war without a warmongering dominant party in its government.
The definition also fits the entire American corporate media, not that they would ever admit to their near total failure of investigative reporting. They were much too busy being “fair and balanced”. You know, like having at least twice as many pro-war as pro-peace opinions in print and on air.
Real men and women admit their mistakes and accept the facts. So don’t look for any acknowledgment of reality from our budding fascist politicians. They would love for us to forget the past and just move on, nothing to see here.
In the meantime, I’m still waiting for a Democrat to find the sense to respond to those truth-sensitive Republicans and offer them the truce Adlai E. Stevenson once suggested.
“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
Zounds! How dare those far-left (read liberal) agents of smear and character assassination attempt to slime the good name of Johnny (Bomb Bomb Iran) McCain! Remember that catchy little tune the senator sang for us?
The right wing bloggers quickly puffed up into their favorite posture of self-righteous indignation.
North Dakota's Democrats selected far-left radio talk show host Ed Schultz to warm up the crowd before Barack Obama's speech; he did so by calling John McCain "a warmonger." Obama did nothing to distance himself from Schultz's smear. - poligazette
What’s most interesting about this entire affair, though, is that it shows us how the Democrats will campaign against the GOP. Republicans are “warmongers” and “hatemongers.” The far-left will, undoubtedly, start attacking McCain incredibly aggressively ASAP. – powerlineblog
Robert M. Duncan, the chairman of the Republican National Committee chimed in with his outrage, “Enough is enough. Senator Obama has an obligation to speak out and publicly reject and denounce — not applaud — the shameful and contemptible remarks made by his surrogates.”
There go those liberals for you, shameful and contemptible. Contrast that remark with the diplomatic and respectful comment Johnny Bomb Bomb made about Hillary at a GOP Presidential debate.
He said, “If Senator Clinton has her way, al-Qaeda will trumpet to the world that they have beaten the United States.”
See? Now there’s the way to talk about a senator and peer. Never mind that “liberal” senator refuses to admit that her support for the invasion of Iraq was a lapse in judgment. Why, she was so liberal that she co-sponsored the failed Flag Protection Act of 2005 with Republican Senator Robert Bennett. No wonder al-Qaeda loves her. They don’t like our Constitution either.
They probably love McCain even more for fervently supporting the Iraq War. After all, that war was, and is, al-Qaeda’s biggest propaganda victory.
McCain told reporters, “Mr. Schultz is entitled to his views. I would hope that in keeping with his commitment that Senator Obama would condemn such language, since it was part of his campaign.'’
Ever the politically correct liberals they are, the Obama people quickly stepped in to cringe from the Right’s howling rage. Traveling press secretary Jen Psaki said in a written statement: “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged.”
Uh, huh.
It’s a good thing Ed Schultz has the spine to stand behind his words.
"He voted for this war," Schultz told the Associated Press on Saturday. "He's a perpetrator of the war. He's an advocate of the war. In my personal definition, that's a warmonger."
Ed is correct, of course. My American Heritage Dictionary defines warmonger as, “One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.”
As we remember, it was not just Bush, Cheney, and the neocons doing all the saber rattling back in 2002.
That would include Hillary Clinton, as well as many Democrats, and nearly every Republican politician. A country does not start an unprovoked war without a warmongering dominant party in its government.
The definition also fits the entire American corporate media, not that they would ever admit to their near total failure of investigative reporting. They were much too busy being “fair and balanced”. You know, like having at least twice as many pro-war as pro-peace opinions in print and on air.
Real men and women admit their mistakes and accept the facts. So don’t look for any acknowledgment of reality from our budding fascist politicians. They would love for us to forget the past and just move on, nothing to see here.
In the meantime, I’m still waiting for a Democrat to find the sense to respond to those truth-sensitive Republicans and offer them the truce Adlai E. Stevenson once suggested.
“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Liberals
I had to pass on a couple quotes from the book, Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America, from Media Matters' own Eric Alterman. It's time for progressives to re-define what the Right has mutilated. Here's a good start.
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal."
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." - John Kennedy, September 1960
--------
Now here's another view, this one from Michael Savage, né "Weiner":
"Liberalism is a mental disorder, and it is also a cover," he says. "All this do-gooderness is a cover for very, very, very evil deeds."
He continues: "You say, 'Are you generalizing?' The answer is no. I have long tried to comprehend the madness of the American left. I have long tried to figure out what motivates them to hate the family, the church, the police, the military. In fact, why they hate the male, the patriarch. The answer is because they know they're no good, they're know they're dirty and are afraid of being found out. They're afraid Daddy will punish them for what they're doing."
Liberals and progressives, he says, are "degenerates" who are "on an express train to Hell."
"I am warning you that many of your progressive friends -- the permissive ones, the ones who laugh at conservatives, the ACLU types, the antiwar types? If they have children, I am warning you to watch your children when they go over to their houses."
Whoa, Michael. You're demonstrating the classic psychological defense mechanism called projection. All that hate you're screaming about is originating from what you see in the mirror.
Who ya gonna listen to, America? You had enough childish name calling and misdirected rage, yet? It wasn't those liberals that screwed things up so royally for the last (thirty) seven years. Now, go pay attention. As George Clinton says, "Think! It ain't illegal yet."
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal."
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." - John Kennedy, September 1960
--------
Now here's another view, this one from Michael Savage, né "Weiner":
"Liberalism is a mental disorder, and it is also a cover," he says. "All this do-gooderness is a cover for very, very, very evil deeds."
He continues: "You say, 'Are you generalizing?' The answer is no. I have long tried to comprehend the madness of the American left. I have long tried to figure out what motivates them to hate the family, the church, the police, the military. In fact, why they hate the male, the patriarch. The answer is because they know they're no good, they're know they're dirty and are afraid of being found out. They're afraid Daddy will punish them for what they're doing."
Liberals and progressives, he says, are "degenerates" who are "on an express train to Hell."
"I am warning you that many of your progressive friends -- the permissive ones, the ones who laugh at conservatives, the ACLU types, the antiwar types? If they have children, I am warning you to watch your children when they go over to their houses."
Whoa, Michael. You're demonstrating the classic psychological defense mechanism called projection. All that hate you're screaming about is originating from what you see in the mirror.
Who ya gonna listen to, America? You had enough childish name calling and misdirected rage, yet? It wasn't those liberals that screwed things up so royally for the last (thirty) seven years. Now, go pay attention. As George Clinton says, "Think! It ain't illegal yet."
Monday, March 24, 2008
Free Speech And Freedom Music
I was honored to be a guest on the fund raiser edition of the WCBN-FM Ann Arbor radio program called "Here and Now". The show's hosts generously offered me the time to have a little of my music played along with the commentary.
Now thanks to my tech-oriented friend Chris, we can offer you all a chance to listen to the show.
Since it was a fund raising show, there were pitches made for donations to the station. Please feel free to call in a donation if you like it. Although the "Here and Now" program is political commentary, Musically, it is one of the most exceptionally diverse and eclectic stations in the country. You can hear music ranging from Sun Ra to Son Seals, Bill Monroe to Iggy Pop. I encourage you all to listen on line to WCBN.
I invite you to sit back and have a listen to some truly American free speech. For those curious listeners with resilient ears, I have listed some of my original freedom music as well.
Here And Now
February 8, 2008
WCBN-FM Ann Arbor
01 - Media Smear.mp3 (6:48)
02 - Original Struggle.mp3 (4:01)
03 - Aiding a Surrender.mp3 (9:49)
04 - Brilliant Business Scheme.mp3 (10:36)
05 - Introductory Segment.mp3 (2:14)
06 - Pleading the Fourth.mp3 (5:14)
07 - Speaking of Scoundrels.mp3 (6:54)
Music By Dave Dubya
01 Liars.mp3 (1:38)
02 G.W.B..mp3 (2:36)
MisUnderEstimatedProphet.mp3 (2:44)
SCAM.mp3 Stupid Corporate American Media (6:09)
BiggestBrother.mp3 (4:00)
06 - Pleading the Fourth.mp3 (5:14)
Now thanks to my tech-oriented friend Chris, we can offer you all a chance to listen to the show.
Since it was a fund raising show, there were pitches made for donations to the station. Please feel free to call in a donation if you like it. Although the "Here and Now" program is political commentary, Musically, it is one of the most exceptionally diverse and eclectic stations in the country. You can hear music ranging from Sun Ra to Son Seals, Bill Monroe to Iggy Pop. I encourage you all to listen on line to WCBN.
I invite you to sit back and have a listen to some truly American free speech. For those curious listeners with resilient ears, I have listed some of my original freedom music as well.
Here And Now
February 8, 2008
WCBN-FM Ann Arbor
01 - Media Smear.mp3 (6:48)
02 - Original Struggle.mp3 (4:01)
03 - Aiding a Surrender.mp3 (9:49)
04 - Brilliant Business Scheme.mp3 (10:36)
05 - Introductory Segment.mp3 (2:14)
06 - Pleading the Fourth.mp3 (5:14)
07 - Speaking of Scoundrels.mp3 (6:54)
Music By Dave Dubya
01 Liars.mp3 (1:38)
02 G.W.B..mp3 (2:36)
MisUnderEstimatedProphet.mp3 (2:44)
SCAM.mp3 Stupid Corporate American Media (6:09)
BiggestBrother.mp3 (4:00)
06 - Pleading the Fourth.mp3 (5:14)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Fun With Bush X 3
Our good man Robert over at Left of Centrist has requested some assistance with a project.
Hey everyone, I need your help. Stop by Left of Centrist and get the ball rolling on a new game I've started called Bush X 3. The idea is to come up with as many three word descriptions of GWB as possible. My goal is to hit 100. With your help, I think we can make it easily and far beyond.
Thanks,
Robert
I am only too happy to pitch in. So let's have some fun and send our contributions to Left of Centrist
While there may not have been WMD's over in Iraq, here are a few WMD's I have found in GWB.
War Mongering Dictator
Wayward Moral Deviant
Witless Malicious Decider
Wantonly Murderous Dunce
Willfully Mean Divider
Wicked Mass Destroyer
Warlike Mad Despot
Warped Malignant Deceiver
Wartime Military Deserter
Wrathful Maligning Dimwit
Wrongheaded Monstrous Defiler
Hey everyone, I need your help. Stop by Left of Centrist and get the ball rolling on a new game I've started called Bush X 3. The idea is to come up with as many three word descriptions of GWB as possible. My goal is to hit 100. With your help, I think we can make it easily and far beyond.
Thanks,
Robert
I am only too happy to pitch in. So let's have some fun and send our contributions to Left of Centrist
While there may not have been WMD's over in Iraq, here are a few WMD's I have found in GWB.
War Mongering Dictator
Wayward Moral Deviant
Witless Malicious Decider
Wantonly Murderous Dunce
Willfully Mean Divider
Wicked Mass Destroyer
Warlike Mad Despot
Warped Malignant Deceiver
Wartime Military Deserter
Wrathful Maligning Dimwit
Wrongheaded Monstrous Defiler
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Mass Media, Mass Madness
Here we are again. We arrive at yet another anniversary of Bush’s glorious war. Why are millions of innocent people suffering for so long? His reasons for the calamitous blunder and debacle were far from the stated purposes. He cared nothing for the Iraqi people and had no proof for his WMD and al-Qaeda claims. He wanted war for power, profit, oil, and last, but not least, his insurance as “war president” to win his 2004 re-election.
How long have we been at war in Iraq? Has it been a lifetime yet? Or have we only just begun?
If you are a child about to leave kindergarten and looking forward to first grade, it has been a lifetime. If you’re John McCain, your 100 year war is just beginning to get rolling. That kindergartener will need a job in 12 or 13 years and can look forward to joining in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I’m sure we will still need him to fight the terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them over here. And while our young American is busy staying the course, I can also imagine how grateful the surviving Iraqi children will be when they greet our young soldier as a liberator, not as an occupier.
What kind of insanity has infected our country to the point where we even consider permanent war? If someone told you ten years ago that we’d be in such a quagmire of self-deluded stupidity today, you would have suggested immediate rehab for the poor wretch.
Instead of the poor wretch in need of detox, we now have an entire nation that desperately needs rehabilitation. Something has gone drastically wrong with our common sense and collective wisdom. We are the victims of our own mass madness.
Most of us individually know what happened. We were deceived into an unprovoked war of aggression. The tyranny of a lockstep, neocon Kool-Aid drinking Republican Party, supported by quivering spineless Democrats was the formula for disaster.
We had the Powell Doctrine that would prevent a quagmire from sucking our blood and treasure. Remember the idea of never committing the military without overwhelming numbers of troops and a clear exit strategy? That got blown away when General Shinseki was brushed aside for asserting that doctrine, and when Powell turned puppet for the neocons at his UN charade.
But there was also another essential element needed in order for the foolhardy crusade to be launched. The citizens needed to support it. Dissent needed to be suppressed. An authoritarian driven propaganda campaign needed to be utilized as a tool for the war machine.
Luckily, for the government of, by and for the corporations, they had the corporate media salivating for the chance to patriotically stir up war fever across America. Not only would war be good for the armaments industry and other military industrial complex corporations, it would also prove to be an incredible windfall of profits for the media conglomerates. There’s nothing like a hyped up, sensationalized call to war to get the presses rolling and the TV viewers glued to their living room screens. And once the fighting started the jackpot would grow even bigger.
Once the media climbed aboard the Republicans’ and Democrats’ war wagon the triumvirate of treachery was complete. At first only 30% of the public bought the idea of invading Iraq. Then the scare tactics were applied full force. Saddam has ties to al-Qaeda. He has anthrax. He has biological weapons, poisonous gas, and unmanned aircraft that will bring the mushroom clouds. Remember those scary aluminum tubes?
Soon 70% of the American public would be frightened enough to buy the propaganda. Off to war!
But wait. Wasn’t it the job of journalists in the media to investigate the claims made by the Administration? Weren’t they supposed to research the arguments and tell the public the truth?
How did this vile incestuous relationship happen between the media and the Bush Administration? Weren’t the media supposed to be liberal? Maybe if the media were actually liberal, instead of corporate run, things would have turned out better. Maybe the press once had that obligation, in the land of free speech and democracy. But they sure didn’t investigate anything in Bush’s America.
The first elements of the right wing propaganda machine got its big boost when Reagan’s FCC dismantled the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting. It was now open season for conservative radio and Fox News to slant the national discourse to the right.
The press had transformed itself into neocon mouthpieces. Journalism was replaced by Fox style propaganda and Judith Miller stenographers. Remember, it was not only Fox that cheered on the Right’s war mongering. “News” programs deliberately hosted twice as many pro-war advocates than guests who questioned going to war. MSNBC fired Phil Donahue because, according to a leaked NBC memo, he "presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.... At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
The New York Times’s critical faculties were short circuited by the frenzy for a victorious war that would forever displace the Viet Nam Syndrome. Judith Miller dutifully reported White House claims against Iraq as fact.
However, before this lockstep media chorus sang its war song, something interesting happened back in August of 2001.
CNN began actively courting favor with the Republican Party. According to the August 6, 2001 issue of Roll Call magazine, CNN Chairman Walter Isaacson went to Washington D.C. to meet with Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Chuck Hagel, J.C. Watts and others in order to improve relations between the cable news network and conservative Republicans. I guess that went well.
The Republicans also had right wing talk radio and internet bloggers to “catapult the propaganda”. We can thank Bush for that quaint phrase.
Here’s what former Bush insider Dan Bartlett told Texas Monthly about conservative bloggers. “That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.”
Regurgitate. Now there’s the operating principle of our pre-war journalism. It’s looking like media regurgitation is a tough habit to kick. We still get it all the time. How about those doctored tapes of the little Iranian speedboats “threatening” the omnipotent U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz? If that had happened a few years ago, we would be at war with Iran for another phony Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Propaganda regurgitation was soon combined with additional merging of government and media. Reports emerged that CIA agents had inserted themselves into news networks. Finally, news reporters were trained to become embedded into military units for the coming invasion.
Now it was onward to victory, with the flag waving, cheerleading media circus in tow.
Let’s take a nostalgic look back at some of the delirious visions and shameless drivel from a few of the nation’s leading media personalities.
Just before the invasion Bill O'Reilly said, "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation; I will not trust the Bush administration again, all right?"
All right, Bill. How’s your memory? We’re still waiting.
After the fall of Baghdad, MSNBC's Chris Matthews declared, "We're all neocons now."
Upon the “Mission Accomplished” carrier landing Mathews gushed, “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.”
A few critics, indeed.
Then Mathews went totally gaga like a teenage girl with a crush. “We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple.”
Never mind Bush was a privileged coward who was AWOL from the National Guard and refused to take a physical with a urine test. And never mind that McGovern was a real combat pilot in the Second World War.
Joe Scarborough, also on MSNBC, said, "I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians, and Hollywood types."
At least Joe had the insight later to reverse his endorsement of the war, after the insurgency and civil war and all hell broke loose.
I should at least give mention to the one “journalist” who had the courage to speak truth to both the media and the president.
The press and the president got an unexpected and unprecedented dose of mockery at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in April 2006. Stephen Colbert gave it to them in his own hilarious style of “truthiness”. He likened the president’s Iraq policy to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The glower on Bush’s face was priceless.
Then, addressing the correspondents directly, Colbert said, "Let's review the rules. The president makes decisions; he's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell-check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know—fiction."
Those were the days. The most powerful militarized nation in the world, with a power mad, war mongering president, was intoxicated by mass madness induced by mass media.
********************************************
And for the musical segment of our presentation, we offer Dave Dubya’s “SCAM Stupid Corporate American Media.”
Here are more participants of the March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm.
How long have we been at war in Iraq? Has it been a lifetime yet? Or have we only just begun?
If you are a child about to leave kindergarten and looking forward to first grade, it has been a lifetime. If you’re John McCain, your 100 year war is just beginning to get rolling. That kindergartener will need a job in 12 or 13 years and can look forward to joining in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I’m sure we will still need him to fight the terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them over here. And while our young American is busy staying the course, I can also imagine how grateful the surviving Iraqi children will be when they greet our young soldier as a liberator, not as an occupier.
What kind of insanity has infected our country to the point where we even consider permanent war? If someone told you ten years ago that we’d be in such a quagmire of self-deluded stupidity today, you would have suggested immediate rehab for the poor wretch.
Instead of the poor wretch in need of detox, we now have an entire nation that desperately needs rehabilitation. Something has gone drastically wrong with our common sense and collective wisdom. We are the victims of our own mass madness.
Most of us individually know what happened. We were deceived into an unprovoked war of aggression. The tyranny of a lockstep, neocon Kool-Aid drinking Republican Party, supported by quivering spineless Democrats was the formula for disaster.
We had the Powell Doctrine that would prevent a quagmire from sucking our blood and treasure. Remember the idea of never committing the military without overwhelming numbers of troops and a clear exit strategy? That got blown away when General Shinseki was brushed aside for asserting that doctrine, and when Powell turned puppet for the neocons at his UN charade.
But there was also another essential element needed in order for the foolhardy crusade to be launched. The citizens needed to support it. Dissent needed to be suppressed. An authoritarian driven propaganda campaign needed to be utilized as a tool for the war machine.
Luckily, for the government of, by and for the corporations, they had the corporate media salivating for the chance to patriotically stir up war fever across America. Not only would war be good for the armaments industry and other military industrial complex corporations, it would also prove to be an incredible windfall of profits for the media conglomerates. There’s nothing like a hyped up, sensationalized call to war to get the presses rolling and the TV viewers glued to their living room screens. And once the fighting started the jackpot would grow even bigger.
Once the media climbed aboard the Republicans’ and Democrats’ war wagon the triumvirate of treachery was complete. At first only 30% of the public bought the idea of invading Iraq. Then the scare tactics were applied full force. Saddam has ties to al-Qaeda. He has anthrax. He has biological weapons, poisonous gas, and unmanned aircraft that will bring the mushroom clouds. Remember those scary aluminum tubes?
Soon 70% of the American public would be frightened enough to buy the propaganda. Off to war!
But wait. Wasn’t it the job of journalists in the media to investigate the claims made by the Administration? Weren’t they supposed to research the arguments and tell the public the truth?
How did this vile incestuous relationship happen between the media and the Bush Administration? Weren’t the media supposed to be liberal? Maybe if the media were actually liberal, instead of corporate run, things would have turned out better. Maybe the press once had that obligation, in the land of free speech and democracy. But they sure didn’t investigate anything in Bush’s America.
The first elements of the right wing propaganda machine got its big boost when Reagan’s FCC dismantled the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting. It was now open season for conservative radio and Fox News to slant the national discourse to the right.
The press had transformed itself into neocon mouthpieces. Journalism was replaced by Fox style propaganda and Judith Miller stenographers. Remember, it was not only Fox that cheered on the Right’s war mongering. “News” programs deliberately hosted twice as many pro-war advocates than guests who questioned going to war. MSNBC fired Phil Donahue because, according to a leaked NBC memo, he "presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.... At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
The New York Times’s critical faculties were short circuited by the frenzy for a victorious war that would forever displace the Viet Nam Syndrome. Judith Miller dutifully reported White House claims against Iraq as fact.
However, before this lockstep media chorus sang its war song, something interesting happened back in August of 2001.
CNN began actively courting favor with the Republican Party. According to the August 6, 2001 issue of Roll Call magazine, CNN Chairman Walter Isaacson went to Washington D.C. to meet with Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Chuck Hagel, J.C. Watts and others in order to improve relations between the cable news network and conservative Republicans. I guess that went well.
The Republicans also had right wing talk radio and internet bloggers to “catapult the propaganda”. We can thank Bush for that quaint phrase.
Here’s what former Bush insider Dan Bartlett told Texas Monthly about conservative bloggers. “That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.”
Regurgitate. Now there’s the operating principle of our pre-war journalism. It’s looking like media regurgitation is a tough habit to kick. We still get it all the time. How about those doctored tapes of the little Iranian speedboats “threatening” the omnipotent U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz? If that had happened a few years ago, we would be at war with Iran for another phony Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Propaganda regurgitation was soon combined with additional merging of government and media. Reports emerged that CIA agents had inserted themselves into news networks. Finally, news reporters were trained to become embedded into military units for the coming invasion.
Now it was onward to victory, with the flag waving, cheerleading media circus in tow.
Let’s take a nostalgic look back at some of the delirious visions and shameless drivel from a few of the nation’s leading media personalities.
Just before the invasion Bill O'Reilly said, "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation; I will not trust the Bush administration again, all right?"
All right, Bill. How’s your memory? We’re still waiting.
After the fall of Baghdad, MSNBC's Chris Matthews declared, "We're all neocons now."
Upon the “Mission Accomplished” carrier landing Mathews gushed, “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.”
A few critics, indeed.
Then Mathews went totally gaga like a teenage girl with a crush. “We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple.”
Never mind Bush was a privileged coward who was AWOL from the National Guard and refused to take a physical with a urine test. And never mind that McGovern was a real combat pilot in the Second World War.
Joe Scarborough, also on MSNBC, said, "I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians, and Hollywood types."
At least Joe had the insight later to reverse his endorsement of the war, after the insurgency and civil war and all hell broke loose.
I should at least give mention to the one “journalist” who had the courage to speak truth to both the media and the president.
The press and the president got an unexpected and unprecedented dose of mockery at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in April 2006. Stephen Colbert gave it to them in his own hilarious style of “truthiness”. He likened the president’s Iraq policy to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The glower on Bush’s face was priceless.
Then, addressing the correspondents directly, Colbert said, "Let's review the rules. The president makes decisions; he's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell-check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know—fiction."
Those were the days. The most powerful militarized nation in the world, with a power mad, war mongering president, was intoxicated by mass madness induced by mass media.
********************************************
And for the musical segment of our presentation, we offer Dave Dubya’s “SCAM Stupid Corporate American Media.”
Here are more participants of the March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
