The year of excessive bias

Liberal media bias puts a chill in everyone else's legs, Chris Matthews. Well, those who desire some semblance of truth and objectivity with their news.

Where did they find the quotes to lampoon? All over the place, says Bozell.

"I could give you 10,000 quotes from election night alone that would qualify. This was the worst year ever. This was shameless,"Bozell said on the "Fox & Friends" interview. "When Dan Rather bemoans liberal media bias, like he did this year, you know there's a problem."

Bozell began the interview by stating he had a "thrill" running up leg to be on the show, a reference to the Chris Matthews line that was not only mocked by [the GOP prez candidate] John McCain's website.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews achieved the distinction by gushing over an Obama speech in February [2008], saying, "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. … And that is an objective assessment."[Objective. Because he's Chris Matthews, how could he not be objective. Please.]

It was far beyond the ever-vigilantly lame Matthews to be merely an objective journalist, though it seems he's the only one unaware of that. Reuters, the ever-present European version of the AP, won them over, too.

Coming in behind Chris Matthews as the top runner-up for "Quote of the Year" was a Reuters post-election headline: "Media bias largely unseen in U.S. presidential race."


At least Reuters -- which I generally prefer to read over U.S. providers simply because they are foreign (it appears that was a meaningless reason to read them that I've held) -- did not profess that it was their job to assure Obama's administration succeeded. Chris Matthews did this. Quite literally, and he even clarified it. If he were not blind to objective reporting, he might see how funny his one-sided "politi-sex" affair with Obama is to the unconvinced chunk of aware citizens.

Need I remind you that MSNBC is the LEAST watched news network by a massive margin? Is it hard to wonder why? It is more like the Fox Reality Channel for liberals -- mindless entertainment pretending to be representative of reality.

New terminology alert: politisexual reporting. Example: Chris Matthews, especially when regarding his Obama coverage.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

The People's Voice: a babbling manifesto for the rest of, umm, them

Part 2 of series:
Blogs with no purpose except to whine
about the world not fitting their fantasy
Label to look for: slobbering blog

The People's Voice
Need proof of the systemic rot eroding the very cores of our souls? Look no further than the meteoric rise of the grossly under-qualified, hyper-ambitious, morally retarded narcissist who still has a realistic chance to be one heart-beat away from ostensibly ruling the most powerful nation in the world. Palinesque tendencies to “drill, drill, drill,” exploit obscene technological advantages to “cull predatory species,” employ our “justice” system to accelerate the extinction of yet another species (to advance the interests of Big Oil no less), and perpetuate the murderous “sport” of hunting with the intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt justifications of “necessity” and “cultural tradition” serve to shred our ridiculously thin façade of humanity and reveal the truly barbarous nature of Western “civilization” and the “American Way of Life.”

I'm sorry, were you saying something? I was busy watching the paint dry on my secret tree house.

If you think that I am simply anti-liberal, try again.

This site includes among its troupe of sensible activists a pack of mixed nuts who say the Internet as we know it will cease to exist in 2012, maybe sooner. One of them, a gal who wears a near dominatrix (but friendlier) outfit, was earlier offering to have sex with guys who sign on to the activist effort to keep the Net free. Virgins only, though. Sorry, Noam Chomsky.

And these people are taken seriously by someone out there. Awesome.

These people are genuine kooks! These are the folks that gun laws are created to protect... to protect others from them should their nut-job ideas and worries turn into urban assaults on the dangerous "enemy others" with their legally-procured guns (if you aren't diagnosed, you're still considered sane, sadly).

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Iran's leader: A warm Merry Christmas, dear future charcoal under my bombs!

Government rebukes Channel 4 for Ahmadinejad broadcast - Times Online
Mr Ahmadinejad surprised many by reining back on rhetoric and offering the British people his warm wishes. In the speech he sent his congratulations to “the followers of Abrahamic faiths, especially the followers of Jesus Christ, and the people of Britain”.

He said that the ills in the world had come about through nations failing to follow the teachings of the Prophets, including Jesus.

Israeli groups and anti-homophobia campaigners criticised Channel 4’s decision. Ron Prosor, the Israeli Ambassador to London, said: “In Iran, converts to Christianity face the death penalty. It is perverse that this despot is allowed to speculate on the views of Jesus while his Government leads Christ’s followers to the gallows.”

Mr Ahmadinejad once told a Western audience that his country had no homosexuals. Gay men have been filmed being hanged from cranes in Tehran, the country’s capital.

Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, said: “Ahmadinejad’s apparently reasonable words are pure propaganda.

“His actions are devoid of love, justice, humanity and brotherhood. They involve the brutal repression of his own people.”

That's two, be-ahhhitch! Go figure: significant swaths of
the media are fundamentally philosophically and politically
dull-witted, just like here in America. NBC, MSNBC and CNN
must be so proud of Channel 4 today. Yay, acceptance
of nut-job fundamentalist Islamic pseudo-rulers!

Another piece on the TimesOnline site recites portions of the speech from the beloved uncle of all terrorists, and notes why it happened at all.

“If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime.”

President Ahmadinejad’s message will be aired by Channel 4 as an alternative Christmas message to the traditional speech by the Queen. The message, which the President has given in Farsi, will be subtitled in English.

God rest ye, merry gentlemen at Channel 4. May your search for oneness with liberalism fallen off the tracks wind you up in a home, where you will get 24-hour care.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

U.S. busts Mexican drug network in Ariz., Mexican pageant queen gets nabbed

U.S. police bust Mexican drug gang | Reuters
Over the past five years the network moved up to 1,000 tons of marijuana with an estimated wholesale value $1 billion dollars through Phoenix, much of which was subsequently redistributed throughout the United States, the office said.

Most illegal drugs used in the United States enter the country from Mexico, where drug trafficking has become an increasingly bloody activity in recent years.

Mexican cartels have killed around 5,300 people south of the border so far this year, as they fight each other for turf and wage an all-out war with Mexican authorities.
I am curious to see how much traction this gets in the mainstream media. So far, it has NONE, and only four pieces written about it in Arizona press (one example), even. Minor story? Is it? Is it really? Shame. It ought to get some coverage, but I suspect, as some ICE raids on illegals and anything else that has anything to do with negative impressions of our poor, helpless neighbors to the south, it will get less coverage than beauty pageants.

That is a none-too-subtle segue into a related story, odd as it is: In another recent drug gang story there are ties to beauty contests and Mexico! "Mexican beauty queen caught in anti-drug raid": A Mexican pageant queen, Laura Zuniga (center, in picture, the only girl), was caught in a raid in the pot-growing land of Sinaloa (a Mexican state, this is where Mazatlán is located).
"No one expected this young woman to be aboard, along with more than a dozen cell phones, lots of cash, pistols, bullets and two rifles," the spokesman said.
With such bizarre happenings as this, perhaps the overly-sensitive-to-offending-the-perceived-downtrodden U.S. mainstream media will actually cover the story beyond special reports on Nightline or the occasional online or print exposé. Let's hope!

Keep up the good work, drug cartels and drug selling gangs -- the more dumb moves you make, the more public your friends, the better for the rest of us, you slimey creeps. The more publicity you mean dopes get, the more likely someone will have to react against it. Here's hoping for Sean Penn to come visit you next, and write a story about how wonderful you are to the residents of impoverished villages!

I have noted similar stories, including ICE raids that net nearly 500 illegals working at a single company location, and the like, and these stories receive literally no national coverage. I never cease to be amazed at how unimportant such stories are to the alleged news media. It is downright depressing to think the news media is so bogged down with stories about Obama that one writer cannot be pulled away to write about gang arrests. At NY Times, at the Washington Post, at the Houston Chronicle, at the darned Arizona Republic, even.

Lou Dobbs, where are you on this one?

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

The super-evil conservatives must die! Nut jobs alive and well on the Internet George Ciccariello-Maher: By the Time I Get to Arizona
Much has been eclipsed in the post-election euphoria, not least of which is the continuity of racist violence in the United States. The election of Barack Obama notwithstanding, the black population still bears the overwhelming brunt of this violence, in its systematic and informal guises, in prisons and on the streets, and with the far-right gearing up we can expect more of the same. [The far-right, in this instance, is actually the radical fascist far-right, or the Nazis and white supremacists, according to what I found in a link. That's sensible, yup. GW Bush is a Nazi. Uh-huh.] But with new dynamics, political and geopolitical, come new violences, and we have seen in recent years a steady increase in anti-Latino or anti-immigrant violence alongside a notable spike after September 11th in anti-“Arab” violence.

Recently-released statistics show violence against Latino immigrants to be the fastest growing of all hate crimes, fuelled by an atmosphere of linguistic-racial hatred and permissiveness to violence against all those deemed to be from “elsewhere.” In a recent report, the Southern Poverty Law Center noted the shocking growth in anti-Latino hate crime, and in early November, an Ecuadorian man was beaten and stabbed to death on Long Island, New York, by a lynch mob of young, mostly white teens looking for some racist fun “hunting beaners,” a game they claim to have played weekly. Less than a month later yet another Ecuadorean was beaten until brain-dead in Brooklyn, this time allegedly by black men who shouted ethnic and homophobic slurs.

Such informal violence has always gone hand-in-hand with the structural violence of the state. ...
Let's forget that 20 full-fledged gang members were picked up in one little raid alone. Foreign, illegal, and trouble. Let's forget that hate crimes are CRIMES. Let's forget that these folks, if committing hate crimes, actually serve time for it. That's inconvenient and rational. Let's forget about rational! Further, in another section of the piece:

In this rising tide of state and informal violence, Arizona has come to be ground zero. There, Lou Dobbs darling “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio of Maricopa County has institutionalized a “Posse” program, deputizing civilians to enforce anti-immigration laws.

Ahem, that would be anti-ILLEGAL immigration. You know: people who are coming over here, flouting our laws, taking SS numbers from dead people -- and the living -- and generally adding to our legal and social problems, not reducing them. Which includes criminal creeps illegally creeping across our borders. Note that there is ABSOLUTELY no concern for the rape, murder and other crimes committed by the truly despicable illegals in thisa, uhhh, thoughtful piece about poor, poor victims of crimes who are in fact also criminals themselves. No, hurting or killing them is not a solution -- DUHH -- but neither is this drivel from the counterpunch'org crackpots. What of deaths of Pakistanis, Indians, for any variety of violent reasons? I guess they specialize in the Hispanic and black victims. It's good to specialize, as one evil whitey showed us with the assemply line (Henry Ford, that was).

This is not here to comment too deeply on it, but simply to note that goes to lengths to connect conservatives -- and those not interested in a free-for-all society of anarchy -- with radical fascist and hate groups such as the KKK and neo-Nazis.

If you want to read this garbage, go for it. Don't try to claim any rational learning out of it, however. Please note that every time I come across this site I find thoughts that are anarchist, radical socialist, race-baiting, pure prose for preying on those who feel victimized -- especially if they are Hispanic or black. These guys LOVE to bait the illegals and blacks!

Here's one things that makes this especially offensive stuff, in my mind: Tragic and contrary to's madness, there has been a lot of black folks shooting other black folks in my area. In front of nightclubs, etc. I guess there's some clever reason why that is the conservatives' faults, too. Can't blame that on Ted Kennedy or any other long-serving liberals, huh?!

So, race war, anyone?
Yeah, I think writers have dreams about race wars. They want to be the great white leaders of a black and Hispanic war against non-liberal whitey. So, think for yourself, not according to these kooks. I've yet to read anything on this site that doesn't smack or paranoia, race-baiting, some sort of crude race-rage-inducing victimization fantasy. Half-truths are still half-truths, no matter which side is served. These guys excel at telling a very queer, unsavory, one-sided story.

I figure that sites like it are part of the problem, not interested in a sensible solution. Not interested in a solution at all.

So, watch out for anything and anyone linked however loosely to the nuts at Enough said.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Relax! The government is here to help us.

Watch this.
you know nothing at all about economics, and you want to know nothing, and you want to ignore everything about economics.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) on fixing the economy...


If you think he's coming off as a bit smug, then consider that he's trying to keep his disgust with the stupid approach to this disaster in check.

If you think he's a bit cynical, then you get the point. We should all be cynical about how the government led us to economic ruin and are now guiding us out.

The crux of our problems aren't, as some believe and would lead you to believe, inherent to the system in which we live. Oooo, capitalism is bad, it is all about greed and selfishness. Yeah, unlike Soviet communism, which was about individuality. C'mon! The breakdown is that some people have the power and others don't. This is still a free society and the media -- real news is getting harder to find, but it is out there -- is still free.

The CRA mortgage lunacy -- the mortgages that were pegged to a policy of housing prices never, ever going down -- were not just part of this, but the lead-in to this mess, plus they were only ONE sign of the lack of insight of government into being the finance and economy's watchdogs. So there's subprime (the mortgages), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, derivatives, hedge funds, and that's the short list of things they let ride with little control: the White House and Legislature. Mostly, our legislature -- they are the ones influencing regulation directly. The White House can only send bills to the legislature, and wait to approve it once Congress does. It's simple.

These big boys and girls in Washington DC ought to have very few responsibilities, unless you believe we ought to be a socialist country and most people in the country ought to work directly for the government. They ought to run the military, be a watchdog of unethical capitalist behavior and watch the people with the money. Instead, we have people who directly colluded with the companies who brought us here running the show and using more and more money to bolster CEOs and companies that sat on their butts and watched things fail.

No, I am not happy. But am I wrong? I think I am correct. See here. Or, go through all of this.


[via email]

Organizer: check. Money-spender: check. Who's entering office?

The two things that are clear now that the election is over are (one) that Obama spent a lot lot lot more money toward the cause of winning and still barely took the win and (two) the Obama campaign was a damned well-run organization. My hope is that the community organizer turned campaign organizer turned country organizer -- I mean he became the country's president, Skippy -- is what predominates in the White House, and not the vigorous money-spender. After all, only taxes can fund his spending now. And many millions cannot even get a job at this point, let alone pay more taxes.

I hope the organizer is who shows up for the economic recovery work and for keeping the world's militant terrorists and other cretins at bay. We don't have money, not any longer, and if Obama expects to raise taxes as expertly as he raised campaign cash, we're all in deep doo-doo. Exclamation point.

America: wake up and start thinking like a businessman, not a welfare or "bailout" proponent. Capitalism is about selfishness, you say? So socialism is the opposite of selfishness? Please! In a perfect world, perhaps no one would work and all our problems would be solved. If you live in that world, let me in! Otherwise, let's talk about making the real world function.

Here's the problem: a socialist country with lots of power is dangerous, far more dangerous than we could be -- really -- and all the examples of extremely socialistic powers ought to be proof of it. The USSR, for instance, in WW II and afterward, under Premier Stalin. Supposely a nation rules by the common man. As if. Enough said.

Socialism is akin to communism (the real world thing, not the idealistic thing that Marx supposed could work but has been proven a failed idea, because people cannot stick to it, seeing as they are diverse humans and not simple-minded widgets) and they are akin to totalitarianism and fascism. They are not safe models of a national structure for countries with power. Look at what the USSR did for the world: not much. Killed millions upon millions for the will of one leader. That's a wrong idea. Capitalism and republicanism and democracy are far safer, since in our case at least, they are also propped up by ideas and a rule of law (not a rule of man).

We have far too much power, still, in this darker time, than most nations can dream of. We are not Sweden. So, snap the heck out of it, folks. We need to stay at least modestly individualist-minded. That way, losers can learn to win, or they remain losers. The bitter can learn to solve problems, or continue to have them. I have loads of problems. My life will always suck unless I solve them. Simple. That is not a bad system. One where Joe Stalin can rise to the top is a bad system, not one where Obama, or GW Bush, can rise. They are not inhuman, madly paranoid, or otherwise unseemly, no matter how badly you want to believe it. They are not Blagojovichs, for instance. Or even silly, unethical Ted Stevenses.

There is a very clear line to be drawn, and that is going to determine if this economic problem turns out to continue far too long (allegedly) as did the American Great Depression and the Japanese deep recession of the 1990s. Mind you, there are fair arguments that it was not Roosevelt's socialistic ideas that pulled us out of depression, but extended it. It was the efforts to get people back to work, quite simply, that got us out of depression. Social programs don't solve money woes, they exacerbate them. Work and commerce solve money woes. We can only print money so long until it weakens the dollar so much that it is worthless, too, so don't count on that solving the woes, either.

See this post ("In the end, did money win the White House?") for more about money, winning, and what spending tons of cash versus the election outcome means in a fairly rational sense, as opposed to what Obama's fanatics want it to mean. In short, call this a landslide, and what will come eventually is a blow back -- a very painful one for Obama, Democrats, and the government leaders who seem to never learn how to govern.

- jR

Crazed 'Blago' got tough against the Tribune, got FBI visit in return

Was it simply "kill or be killed" for the Chi Trib against this crazed Democratic governor? CNN and others are getting further into the story -- more will surely come. How Obama fits into this ugly picture is yet to be made comfortable for the fresh prince of the Beltway. Stories do suggest that Obama is tied to this "Blago" kook through his buddy Tony Rezko. That's not good. Not good at all. What a year 2009 is going to be -- gag.

U.S. attorney: Blagojevich has taken us to 'new low' -
The Obama transition team is aware that Blagojevich is in federal custody, but has no comment, according to a senior Democratic source.

The government also accuses Blagojevich and Harris of threatening to withhold state assistance to the Tribune Company -- the company that owns the Chicago Tribune -- in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field baseball stadium. The company also owns the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field.

In exchange for assistance, the governor and his chief of staff wanted the newspaper to fire Chicago Tribune editorial board members who were sharply critical of the governor, the government said.
I guess the Tribune won that one. Will they win the business operations war? Bankruptcy was a second shoe dropping. Only time, and lots of turnover in management, will tell.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Recession, recovery, or other: Word definitions and other confusing things

, as I've noted before, tends to report against the predominant ignorance of mainstream (middling educated) media, popular opinion and political convenience. The magazine's pieces tend to follow some sort of logic -- imagine that.

In early December 2008, it was announced that the U.S. had been in a recession for roughly a year, to the surprise of anyone who actually knows that a recession is. I mistakenly assumed that this meant the quarterly GDP reports for that period were to be officially adjusted. I was wrong. But did the mainstream media grab onto this? No, they didn't. However, Forbes actually looked at the numbers and filled in the holes that I found in the government's assertion.

Congratulations, It's A Recession -

They pointed out that a "popular yardstick for recession -- two successive quarters of GDP decline, has not yet been reached. The economy dipped (-.2% GDP) in the fourth quarter of 2007. But in the first quarter of 2008 it grew .9%, and in the second quarter, it grew 2.8%.
The economy tends to be well on the road to recovery before unemployment starts to fall. In 1990-91, it was 15 months after the bottom of the recession that unemployment peaked. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2001, unemployment peaked 19 months later. That means the unemployment rate of 6.5% is likely to get worse for some months before it gets better.

Minding the maxim on investment prospectuses, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. The NBER puts it tersely: "The committee does not forecast." The amount of time until recovery depends largely on what happens to falling home prices and troubled credit markets.

But at least it's nice to be talking about "recovery" instead of tip-toeing around "recession."

Surprise! We've had a recession for a year already! Even though GDP has not been in the negative consistently, we have been in a recession. The definition is changed, it would appear. That's fine -- I would rather see economists err on the side of caution than -- it sounds pale just thinking it, seeing it is how we got here -- to approach things with too much (bloated) confidence.

What kills me is these folks who have been stammering around proclaiming we were in a recession, a deep recession, a depression, without even actually comprehending outside of the self-centered little universe they live in, what any of that actually is, will now think they are brilliant for having been proclaiming recession since they lost their CRA-mortgaged house when their unemployment ran out. Or something.

Those folks, though, will never learn. They don't want to learn, they just want to complain. That's what they do. Perhaps under Obama, they will hold their tongue for a while longer at least, since the great Prince of Darkness will no longer be (a) the president, (b) the vice-president, (c) the Treasury secretary, (d) host of the Tonight Show...

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Best-kept 'secret' in Chicago: crooked governor's party

Note: These odd omissions have ceased after a few days, or they are at least not going to serve any purpose any longer (for those who even slightly pay attention, that is, now know that Blago is a Dem), but it is always odd to see such things as this. Read on.

Dem Label AWOL for Blagojevich in ChiTrib, Sun-Times Coverage |
Gov. Rod Blagojevich's (D-Ill.) name has cropped up quite a few times in the ongoing trial of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) benefactor Tony Rezko. Yet in their latest coverage, both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times left out Blagojevich's party affiliation. The Sun-Times, however, did take note of the Republican party affiliation of another politico caught up in the maelstrom, William Cellini [note: see photos via AP/Sun-Times at the linked story].

The caption for a photo montage accompanying the April 3 article "Levine: Blagojevich knew", reads, "Clockwise from left: Gov. Rod Blagojevich; Tony Rezko; Stuart Levine; Chicago businessman-turned-Hollywood producer Tom Rosenberg; longtime Illinois Republican Party power William Cellini."

Tribune staffers Bob Secter and Jeff Coen also covered the development in a story filed shortly after midnight Eastern time on April 3.

Noting a GOP guy's party while altogether ignoring the party of the central figure in an image (see the linked story, its image showing this gaff) is a bit weird! Since this is home ground for Obama, I am a bit astounded by the lack of ties to Blagojovich, too. Obama moved quickly from community organizer to state senate to U.S. Senate. His own caretakers in his state senate days have stated they wanted to protect him from anything controversial -- like abortion, making a yay or nay vote on most things (sarcasm: check!). And it would seem they kept him away from Blago? Hmmm.

I was wondering what the deal was with this, as I had to do a search of the gov's name and the word "party" to find his affiliation noted somewhere, just because I was trying to figure it out -- it is odd, blatantly odd, that the affiliation was omitted. (Go ahead, say I should find the state web site; I don't live in Illinois, don't have that handy, thanks. Get over that.) Blagojevich's party is not mentioned until it is deep into one article, from the Tribune, that I noted just today.

What a stupid, petty way to exacerbate bias and division, and a lack of one-country-feeling. Great job, Trib. The strangest thing about this effort to omit his party is that the Chicago Tribune -- which was being directly attacked in a variety of ways by this governor, please note -- was the one breaking this story along the way.

The road was a bit tougher to get to the White House than to the guv's office in Illinois. Thank goodness. It is such a failure of politics, news media and clued-in leaders of every kind that so many are able to believe that people such as this crooked governor are not bad folks until they make it so blatantly obvious -- and leave proof, no less -- that they get hauled away by the FBI. Amazing.

This constant omission is laughable, really. Is it a broad problem, though? An in, a full-blown media bias issue? I suspect not. I think is wise to not call this a broad habit. They didn't. And the fact is, if you looked up old stories in a variety of locations (, for instance) on GOP or Dem folks involved in scandals, and you'll find mention of party way down near the bottom of articles. At least, in some instances. It tends to be a policy. (Of course, CNN is among those guilty of assuming that most scandals are by the GOP's folks, not pretty even-handed. Gary Hart? Kwame Fitzpatrick? Bill Clinton's cigars? Hello?) points out holes in stories -- odd omissions, bias, etc. is clearly a conservative site. However, not a rabid one. The site does a darn good job pointing out hypocrisy -- namely liberal and/or Dem bias -- in media. I am impressed with how they keep it to useful specifics, unlike many similar operations on either side of the political fence (far-left-leaning or far-right-leaning). This is worthy for many reasons, but here's one: Sites so broad in their range (that is, not apparently politically or ideologically motivated, covering a wide range of subjects) such as pan the White House as being censors -- yes, they used that word -- for not choosing to hang a Christmas tree ball that states, among other uncheery things, "Impeach Bush." Wow. Idiots.

Being a bit cynical is one thing, but being outright unabashedly one-sided and proudly hateful of GW Bush and friends -- that's entirely another thing. Being that simplistic and ignorant is stunning for those who claim to be reflecting some sort of narrative of our lives. Our lives are very rarely one-sided. and one Christmas decoration artist have proven themselves -- jointly, in one story, keeping it simple to present the case -- to be so shallow. I hope the Tribune and Sun-Times and other such doddering media can control themselves and find some road to balanced reporting in the future. I hope it won't take an outright assualt on a paper's board of directors to get a large or small media org to to the right thing -- and by right, I mean the correct thing.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

A Wonder Boy from Illinois gets his: not Obama, not in a good way

At last, someone recognizes how crooked Chicago and Illinois politics is, this year. I think this comes up every year or so, but this was the first truly big story (only murmurs about it while Obama was running to be prez). Too bad this didn't occur before Obama was elected our president, it might have forced him to spend closer to five times more money to get elected, rather than merely four times as much as the GOP candidate. (Natch.)

Rod Blagojevich, Illinois governor arrest by FBI
The stunning, early morning visit by authorities to the governor's North Side home came amid revelations that federal investigators had recorded the governor with the cooperation of a longtime confidant and had begun to focus on the possibility that the process of choosing a Senate successor to President-elect Barack Obama could be tainted by pay-to-play politics.
It is nice to see that at least a few of the corrupt, self-serving and deceptive Democratic politicians are finally getting their due. Rep. Jefferson in Louisiana, who was storing $90,000 in cash in his freezer (you know, to keep it from going sour), lost to a conservative with a immigrant American Dream story; now, a crooked governor gets his. What's so stunning is that this guy is merely 52, this was his second term, and he racked up loads of crooked dealings yet got reelected. Not a finer abuser of power can one find than this dirtbag, it would appear. So now we have to ask: is this what Obama is bringing to America? I cannot believe that that is so. But this is likely to impact his presidency, but to what level, who knows.

Now if Sen. Chris -- the mortgage sweetheart -- Dodd and sociopathic -- there is nothing risky about CRA mortgages (grin) -- Barney Frank could be ejected, perhaps some balance will come in this government-led economic recovery effort. Until then, we are just feeding a still-devious pack of crooked and all too comfortable leaders.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

ICE nabs 21 foreign national gangsters in California

Kudos to the ICE guys for this one.

Pre-dawn raid nabs 21 alleged gangsters
A law enforcement sweep nabbed 21 alleged foreign national gang members hiding out in the Santa Clarita Valley Wednesday morning, a sheriff's official said.

Four of the 21 suspects were booked at Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station on separate charges. Neri Leon, a 19-year-old male, is charged with allegedly violating an outstanding narcotics warrant. Gaudalupe Vasquez, 48, was charged for alleged battery on a peace officer. Cecilio Rodriguez, 48, and Juan San Augustine, 24, were charged with alleged possession of forged identification, Cambra said.

"The people targeted in today's joint gang operation are career criminals who often prey on members of the immigrant community," said Robert Schoch, ICE special agent. "We want to send a clear message to foreign national gang members that ICE intends to deal strongly with those who disregard our immigration laws and place our neighborhoods at risk."
I find it rather odd that this was a non-story for the broader media. Is this kind of "anti-illegals-criminals" effort happening everywhere? Or is it that the media only cares about crimes committed against illegals, or pandering to illogical illegals coddling and law-breaking support of these earners without social security numbers (ones that are theirs, at least).

Applause goes to the folks trying to prevent crime, especially these bona-fide crooks. I am not interested in the so-called victimless crime supporters, but these guys are at the top of my list of why illegals need to be reined in.

However, folks who work using a "borrowed" SS# card are only committing victimless crimes if it is your SS# is the one used by illegals. Otherwise, if your SS# is passed off falsely once, it will likely be passed off again.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Race and politics still taboo: NY Times' Friedman wrote this drivel... half-drivel

Isn't it a bit goofy that some crystal-clear white liberal guilt is the predominant reflection of one longtime NY Times columnist's upon Barack Obama's win? The regular NY Times nay-sayers would think not; it is clearly a liberal, politically correct (favoring not the poor white guy, but favoring everyone else except him and the slovenly rich) newspaper despite its other reputation, as a publication for superior journalism.

Thomas L. Friedman leads from some white liberal joy into a commentary on some real (in his mind) reasons for the Obama win. I am amazed at what this guy does not see, based on his insight for what he does see.

Finishing Our Work -
This moment was necessary, for despite a century of civil rights legislation, judicial interventions and social activism — despite Brown v. Board of Education, Martin Luther King’s I-have-a-dream crusade and the 1964 Civil Rights Act — the Civil War could never truly be said to have ended until America’s white majority actually elected an African-American as president.

Let every child and every citizen and every new immigrant know that from this day forward everything really is possible in America.

How did Obama pull it off? To be sure, it probably took a once-in-a-century economic crisis to get enough white people to vote for a black man. And to be sure, Obama’s better organization, calm manner, mellifluous speaking style and unthreatening [sic] message of “change” all served him well.

But there also may have been something of a “Buffett effect” that countered the supposed “Bradley effect” — white voters
telling pollsters they’d vote for Obama but then voting for the white guy. The Buffett effect was just the opposite. It was white conservatives telling the guys in the men’s grill at the country club that they were voting for John McCain, but then quietly going into the booth and voting for Obama, even though they knew it would mean higher taxes.
I guess we ought to thank God, then, that we did not elect a woman, or an Hispanic, Native American, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or someone else. Bobby Jindal, don't expect such a big deal should you be elected to a higher office, because you're just a damned Republican, first of all, and second, it's all about the blacks versus the whites here in the good ole US of A!

Friedman then noted the following, which I think is accurate, fair enough, and not nearly as myopic as his Obama win comments (that fact says soemthing about his perspective, indeed):
Somewhere they also knew that after the abysmal performance of the Bush team, there had to be consequences for the Republican Party. Electing McCain now would have, in some way, meant rewarding incompetence. It would have made a mockery of accountability in government and unleashed a wave of cynicism in America that would have been deeply corrosive.
What I find curious is that he, as everyone seems to, refers to Obama as our first black president. He is, by appearances, our first, indeed. However, Obama's mother and thus half his lineage and half his family is white. Why is this not something to be pointed out, and why do such great writers (though not great thinkers, zing). Is being of mixed race lineage still taboo for the liberals, for crying out loud? Not much to sing about for the white liberals who wish to relieve their racist guilt, then, is there? So where does Friedman fall on the scale of taboos -- pro-mixed race or still afraid of the idea? I suspect he has no issue with mixed race, it's just that liberals like to avoid talking about such things. (It's like seeing something in another's teeth at a Manhattan cocktail party -- best that you say nothing, and love them for the toothy grin they give you, spinach and all. Aw, love them! Take them off my invitation lists! Love them!)

I guess it is a good for a writer to see things through myopic glasses than to suspect the whole gamut of reasons why Obama won, why GOP congressmen lost out, and why people blame a president for all their problems. I would rather contemplate it all, but I guess you can't win Pulitzers if you work that hard.


As for Friedman's piece, be sure to read the last two paragraphs, for the ideas within them. He could have left all the other crap out of it.

I hope we see a new age of public service in the vein of what I saw in Israel. Americans, college-educated or not, around me in my little depressing world are quite selfish little turds. In Israel, they would be the ones getting low-end jobs, or scared shitless in the required military service, prompting change in their attitude. We could use a little scared-shitless in our youths these days that doesn't involve video games or misused firearms.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

NY Times' Friedman laments, but does not quite hit, the money crisis cronies

Thomas L. Friedman is a guy who has long-winded opinions -- that's meant as a description, not an insult -- and has made a thorough living, since the 1970s, with his writing, including opinion. He's a Pulitzer winner, several times. In this piece, though, he leaves out the one small group of Americans who, along with the business leaders, the finance companies, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operators, and financially sunken mortgage takers, took our free market and turned it into a free-for-all hedged on a permanently positive economy.

The current economic crisis makes me think -- metaphorically -- of the starving masses when Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake." Smug politicians, and business leaders, have led us down a wrong path, and now presumably informed and intelligent writers such as Friedman say is is everyone who must pay the way.

That's paying homage to an undeserving status quo, I suspect. We are not at an economic crossroads right now, we are at a civilization crossroads. Friedman likely recognizes that the rich and powerful will always be the rich and powerful. I do too. But unlike Friedman, at least in this piece, I think that not merely business leaders and average Joes will suffer these consequences, but our politicians must be held accountable, must own up to their culpability.

All Fall Down -
This financial meltdown involved a broad national breakdown in personal responsibility, government regulation and financial ethics.

So many people were in on it: People who had no business buying a home, with nothing down and nothing to pay for two years; people who had no business pushing such mortgages, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business bundling those loans into securities and selling them to third parties, as if they were AAA bonds, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business rating those loans as AAA, but made fortunes doing so; and people who had no business buying those bonds and putting them on their balance sheets so they could earn a little better yield, but made fortunes doing so.

Citigroup was involved in, and made money from, almost every link in that chain. And the bank’s executives, including, sad to see, the former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, were clueless about the reckless financial instruments they were creating, or were so ensnared by the cronyism between the bank’s risk managers and risk takers (and so bought off by their bonuses) that they had no interest in stopping it.

These are the people whom taxpayers bailed out on Monday to the tune of what could be more than $300 billion. We probably had no choice. Just letting Citigroup melt down could have been catastrophic. But when the government throws together a bailout that could end up being hundreds of billions of dollars in 48 hours, you can bet there will be unintended consequences — many, many, many.
It is a very basic tenet of common economic teaching that economies move in cycles. It is also an obvious fact that a lot of people get into the money business to make ridiculous amounts of money on speculation. For years, the Bush Administration, from Treasury to other finance-relevant departments, urged Congress to act to rein in subprime loans. Nothing happened with the GOP in leadership; nothing happened after 2006 with Dem leaders. They are all to blame. So who do we trust? Who can we trust?

The most horrendous error in this whole debacle, which is causing the biggest, most historic global economic upheaval since 1929, is that financiers, banks and government leaders were ignoring that knock on the door. In other words, everyone who should have known, or at least had some idea, of the complexities of markets and economic paths, proved they did not know or did not care. Most to blame are the leaders of our government, who are the only ones who can tell anyone what to do in the self-centered and greed-oriented banking and finance industries, for assuming that hard-to-believe products were, indeed, unbelievable.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Obama's fans in search of new mission... already

Oh when the diss, oh when the diss, oh when disappointment is rolling in:

Barack Obama's grass roots in search of new turf - Los Angeles Times
James Dillon, a onetime Republican activist who grew disgusted with politics, was so inspired by Barack Obama's candidacy that he joined the campaign's massive volunteer army, hosting house parties and recruiting supporters.

But beyond influencing the November election, Dillon thought he was joining a new political movement that would be mobilized for big goals -- to end poverty or fix the healthcare system, or maybe to end the U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

Amid Obama's transition to power, a spirited and often secretive debate has broken out among top campaign staff members over how to refashion the broad network of motivated volunteers into a force that can help Obama govern.

With 13 million e-mail addresses, hundreds of trained field organizers and tens of thousands of neighborhood coordinators and phone bank volunteers [also: paid telemarketers and door-bangers], the network has become one of the most valuable assets in politics, and Obama's team may choose to deploy it to elect other Democratic officials, or to lobby Congress for his toughest legislative goals, or even to apply pressure on local and state policymakers across the country.

But while aides sort out the details, the Obama team's early hints about how the network should be used -- as well as its tight-lipped planning process -- have struck some supporters as missteps.

Among the critics is Marshall Ganz, a legendary figure in the field of community organizing who from his post at Harvard University helped train Obama’s campaign organizers and volunteers.

Ganz has publicly questioned the campaign for not conducting a more open deliberation over how to sustain the network, which grew and thrived in part on open dialogue and online social networking. "Is this really what 'building on the movement to elect Barack Obama' is going to look like?" Ganz asked. "I can't believe this was put out by the same people who trained organizers in how to do house meetings in the campaign over the past two years."

Of the reference to the "first dog," Ganz concluded: "Give me a break."
Once you create something and use it to your gain, if it has a mind of its own -- millions of them, in fact -- when it comes time to further serve a purpose after it has served your purpose, what do you do with it? Obama is already hearing unrest from the masses, and he has six weeks to go before he is even in office, announcing members of his administration at a brisk rate.

Has he awakened some strange, codependent type of disappointment in people who seem to think he understood each of them? OK, I am being sarcastic with that one. However, when you draw people, many of whom seemed to not even know how Obama's votes and past campaigns went, into an army of worker bees, it would appear they expected to continue as some sort of storm-troopers for the Democratic president-elect.

It is a risky thing to attract people with three-word mottoes that inspire utopian ideas, hopes and wishes, especially for people who are highly imaginative but spoiled, since the blow-back may be not only loud but very, very embarrassing for everyone involved. This is just one hint -- and very, very early -- of the post-election let-down for Obama supporters, but I wonder what else may happen, now that Obama is elected.

With hope for something that is not akin to mass demonstrations and riots by undereducated, text messaging, iPod-wearing, Wii-malformed brats in baggy jeans and t-shirts, I offer this video.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

A quote: "They have nothing to fill their pathetically empty lives."

Wish us luck!

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

NARA, not NRA: election history

Questions about election numbers throughout history? Look here: The National Electoral College site. So long as they keep this site up, and accurate, I guess they can stick around. But if they start some kinda trickery -- look out!

In the end, did money win the White House?

Obama Spent Four Times as Much as McCain at Race End |
McCain spent $26.5 million in the final weeks of the campaign, with $9.5 million going for advertisements, $4.5 million for message phone calls and $2.2 million for salaries. He ended up with $4.9 million in bills still to be paid. McCain also had $25 million in his legal and accounting fund, which can cover expenses incurred during a mandatory FEC audit.

After Oct. 15, Obama reported spending at least $80 million on advertising, mostly on television. He listed another $14.5 million in expenses for travel and lodging, $7.9 million for “staging, sound, lighting,” $7.9 million for payroll and $4.3 million for telemarketing.

Obama also listed $14.7 million in contributions. As in the past, he made payments to state political parties. The Minnesota Democratic Party, for instance, got $350,000, and the Missouri Democratic Party got $550,000.
The vast difference in the finances of the get-out-the vote efforts -- in the end, it's all about getting votes -- suggests that the soon-to-be president is wise to not dance to the tune sung by his goofy worshipers. They are claiming that his election was a landslide. Landslide is a fun word that is often used by people unwittingly showing their own lack of logical, factual awareness (to be kind). Take Chris Matthews of MSNBC as an example.

First, it is absurd to presume that this was a landslide since the difference between the Dem and GOP takes were not even into double digits. So, no, not a landslide. Compare it to Reagan's 1984 victory, and his 1980 win, which was a solid win -- in double digits -- in both popular votes and states won. Second, it was simply not a landslide, if so much money was spent and they won by a very small margin.

Historically, even when Democrats lose, they spend more money than the GOP, in national elections. While this lends itself to a good joke about the difference in money and economic policy of the two parties, it also points out that, having won with such a small margin against a foe with such a small cash amount, that Obama ought to assure his victory is sweet by having it be a realist's victory, not an MSNBC-style,, Karl Rove-style victory.

The Democrats will flaunt the win at their peril -- and are, evidenced by the blow-hard tactics of Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.) in the midst of this economic crisis. Doddering Mr. Dodd has proclaimed quite loudly that it the fault of the Fed Reserve and Treasury that the banks -- which he oversees as a Congressional leader -- are not giving out loans with the money shoved at them.

- jR

Note: Have a look at this later post, for a more concise and easier to digest view of what the organizer and money-spender sides evoke in one little pontificater:

Powered by ScribeFire.

Daily Banter: possibly the butt of progressive thought jokes

A new series:
Blogs with no purpose except to whine
about the world not fitting their fantasy
Label to look for: slobbering blog


Ben Cohen is a ... progressive. Check that, he's a Democrat. No, no that's not it. Perhaps he's a whiner with severe daddy issues. No, that might be too generous, assuming there's some deep cause for his mental myopia. Cohen dislikes anyone who has a record of doing something that is not highly radical -- to the extents of Noam Chomsky-like psychobabble. Or so it would appear. Judge for yourself:
Professor Noam Chomsky has influenced my thinking more than any single person on earth. His speeches, interviews, articles, and books have profoundly changed the way I see the world, and I feel forever indebted to him for his contributions to human knowledge.

The MIT linguistic professor is regarded as the world's leading intellectual for good reason.
So Cohen calls the Bush legacy -- now a legacy is everything one has done, in this case an entire administration -- tragic. Not the usual -- and slightly rational -- war-mongering, or stumbling, but TRAGIC. He's young, his Cohen guy: it's cute to see how the adults fool the young ones so thoroughly.

This guy, and perhaps his cohorts on Banter, either read(s) too little or react(s) too dramatically and emotionally. I think it is likely they read too much in one direction, but mostly the latter. This is a far left, socialist-leaning pack of knee-jerkers. In other words, mistaken liberals who are actually socialist utopian cry babies.

He's such a whiner that independent senator Joe Lieberman is on his list of ten Democrats who need to go not once, but twice. And the second time, he actually calls the senator a "d**k head." Thanks for the commentary, Mr. Cohen.

I think he could have included the pathological denier, Barney Frank, in that list, with Chris Dodd, too (the king of "their fault" politics in the midst of this economic crisis). I find it strange, actually, that seeing as Pelosi and Reid are on his list, that these two contributors to the do-nothingness of the recent Democratic leadership were not included.

Here's what anyone can do to decide for themselves about Daily Banter: Read this post, then the related post regarding Republican leaders. If you don't notice the holes, in content and members, of both listings, then... well, enjoy reading Daily Banter. I suppose this one must be for you.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Sean Penn: Mountain of questionable, umm, conclusions?

Sean Penn: Mountain of Snakes

Sean Penn is a writer. Why is he a writer? I can only guess it is because he is a celebrity and a fan of communism versus capitalism. Because he is part and parcel of the Hollywood elite. Here's a quote from this article that I suspect explains how Sean Penn has been entitled to speak for America, and specifically, American liberals (poor liberals): "...the fact is,[sic] that our most respected, call that mainstream media, in print and on television are, in part, conscious manufacturers of deception." I bolded the important words so the commas and garbage wouldn't get in the way. What is it? And why is he writing it? Why him, and to what end? Am I required to read this entire piece of bunk to "get it"? Sorry, I have to have a life outside of being mystified by celebrity writers.

So glad that's OK with you, Mr. Penn. Liberals, oddly, have not been bothered by propaganda in journalism, perhaps, is his point. It is certainly loud and clear in the example of MSNBC and TIME magazine. So why does Penn have an issue with it? One can only interpret his broad point, since that sentence, his words generally, make no sense on their own.

Here's another piece of valuable commentary, perhaps it is his self-centeredness that is driving his exposure of the media: "Meanwhile, I challenge anyone to hunt up the few pictures that were taken by the random photojournalists who'd stumbled upon me, and find a single one that would've passed the test of my own narcissistic scrutiny."

Dear Sean Penn: Nobody with a good reason to live cares about your self-adulation. But, in that topic, I should note that it doesn't mix well with your liberal white guilt (see 'Milk' interview by Penn with Charlie Rose).

Please, Mr. Penn, please continue writing. You are good entertainment for those who know how to write, for real.
Despite multiple assassination attempts by the CIA on his older brother Fidel, the destabilization tactics of Robert F. Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, The Platt Amendment with the taking of Guantanamo Bay, and even despite an endless and unjustified embargo (in effect: blockade) on Cuba by the United States, here we were in 2008, and Raul Castro said flat out that if the American people, who today stand with candidate Barack Obama, continue to stand with President Barack Obama, then "meaningful and productive advances could be achieved in Cuba and the world."
He must have accidentally left out the Mariana Boatlift, in which Castro sent his worst -- WORST -- criminials to American shores. That must have been America's fault, too.

Says the economist, Penn: "Free market capitalism and greed in the hands of humans are, in fact, a marriage that never rids itself of the demon. They are of one body."

"In the hands of humans"? As opposed to under the hooves of jackasses? What's the need for that phrase? Wait: Is that a terribly naive question? Yes, it is, considering the topic inspiring the question.

Well, the real impression for me here is this: Can it get any better than this for Americans with a clue? I mean ones who are not socialists or communists, of course. If you buy into socialism -- the Bolivarian type -- and Castro's governing tactics. But real Socialists and Communists, not to be confused with far-left Democrats. They do pose as far-left Dems, like Penn here does, clearly. He is clearly confusing freedom with popular oppression. But that's throwing stones.

I guess Sean might take after his dad the accused communist. While Joe McCarthy's un-American committee was not right, neither is Sean Penn's obfuscate attack on the system that netted him, too, tons of cash. TONS. Did I mention that Sean Penn is rich thanks to the system he hates, and seems far from loathing himself for it? If his dad was a communist, that certainly rubbed off on Sean, even judging this writing liberally; if he was hypocrite, then Sean didn't fall far from that tree.

The Huffington Post is desperate for writers, enough to put this garbagge on their site? I find that hard to believe. They must be simply desperate for the inclusion of far-leftist celebrities who are willing to write odd little mementos from far-leftist countries.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Media Contacts (version 1)

Media Addresses - Media Research Center

Read, heard or watched something that ticks you off? Use the incomplete, but pretty thorough, Media Research Center's list to get to the source of the bunk you're wishing to respond to.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

NewsBusters: gotcha on the liberal media's 'have it both ways' ways.

Liberal TV News strikes again. (Did you expect anything else?)

The people who have been appointed, by some odd accident, to run American news media, at times really make it seem as if we ought to just close down TV altogether. Hit reboot, try again.

Granted, it seems that NBC and anything with those three letters in it, and TIME magazine and its buddies (including CNN), have really got a stranglehold on have-it-both ways, biased coverage, but this piece only proves one thing: the news media bias can't tell it's nose from its ass. Here's just a few snippets, but read the whole thing so you see the expert media blunderers and the author's contrariness in their whole glory.

NBC Exec: Obama's Skin Color Gives Him More Legitimacy Than Any American Leader In History |

The number two man at NBC News believes Barack Obama's skin color gives him more legitimacy around the world than possibly any American leader in history.

Imagine that. Because Obama is black, before he even steps into the White House and accomplishes one darned thing he already has more legitimacy around the world than possibly every American president that came before him.

Another quote out of the NewsBusters piece:

MATTHEWS: One reason for the rage from the east, and I’m no expert. All these years that have led to the terrorism, the undercurrent of rage against the west, us, is the sense that we have disrespected them, their culture, we have looked down on them. In fact, we have defeated them technologically in some cases. But there’s that sense that they feel they're reacting to the hatred of the west. By electing somebody with this name, are we going to diffuse some of that? I think that would be very hopeful if we could.

Imagine that. Throughout the campaign we were told by liberal media members that any reference to Obama's middle-name was racist. Now that he's about to be president, his middle-name is an asset that can be freely discussed.

Those who thought the Obama-loving media would become more impartial once he was elected were clearly kidding themselves.

Sucks, huh? The liberal B.S. continues, and will be in force, for at least four years. No matter what Obama does, in fact, the liberal B.S. will go on. They will go against him at some point, and that is when I think I will celebrate. Because they have acted shamefully. They have veiled their own interests as they do their deeds, unlike conservative or liberal radio guys. They are dishonest. And for that, I heap loads of disrespect on them.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Consumers Union: Tell the new prez we need smart health biz

"If you know of friends and family who have put off their dreams for fear of losing their health insurance, or got sicker because they couldn't afford health care, please forward this message on to them. The big banks, insurance companies and automakers are lining up at the new President's door; let's make sure Americans' need for quality, affordable health care is heard, too."

This is what it's all about, to me. I am a living example, and there are many many many out there, of someone the business side of the health care system has failed, simply because it has maintains the agenda of profits over care. Insurance and health coverage companies, legislators, and perhaps even drug companies (as C.U. maintains) are screwing us over for massive profits. When a person cannot afford to see a doctor, that person will get more sickly.

Someone could lose a job because they cannot afford to care for themselves. It happens; it happened to me, not long ago. I worry today, without health insurance since I am currently between jobs, that something might ruin my day, big time. Nobody cares, and nobody can do anything about it, except if I demand that an ER give me basic care. That is the default answer in a broken system -- ERs are not meant for basic care! I don't want to subscribe to that, but I will probably need to at some point. There is NOTHING for unemployed people, even if they served in the military (the deal is a bit less brutal, then), and I didn't. I don't want to go down that road of visiting the ER for every little issue.

I will be on the road to the Capitol if it doesn't start getting on the right path with health care. I don't specifically want some universal health care program -- namely, if the government runs it, I don't want it! -- but I will be awfully loud and clear with my opinions if the system, private-run, lawfully fair to humans and not just investors, is not reinvented. It has been this poor an overall system for health care in the U.S., for at least a decade or more, based on my personal knowledge. If the system's failures mean I might die too soon, too needlessly, then I hope the Capitol has good security, because I will try to righteously take a few lame Congressmen with me. Ridding of a few large stains on our Democracy will at least be one thing I was able to do before I leave. OK, maybe that's a bit severe. Perhaps I'll just throw eggs at them, or golf balls. See The "Tee" Party for America -- yeah!

The big banks, insurance companies and automakers are lining up at the new President's door looking for help. Let's make sure that real people like us are heard too! I just sent an email to the President-elect urging him to make affordable, quality health care coverage a top priority along with the economy. Would you take a moment to do the same?

We can't expect our economy to recover unless we make sure families aren't going without needed health care or going bankrupt just to pay for it. We saw what happened when our leaders let Wall Street run amok. We can't afford to continue to let the big insurance and drug companies dictate our health care. Rising premiums and higher co-pays and deductibles are the result, and our care isn't getting any better.

The President-elect campaigned on improving our health care system along with our economy. Let's make sure he knows we want him to follow through on that promise.

You can join me and send an email at:

Thank you!

- jR

MoveOn announces 'most important campaign ever'

MoveOn announces 'most important campaign ever'

Impressive. says they're going after the lobbyists. Who would believe this who is not a full-fledged liberal Kool-Aid drinker? I frankly find it hard to believe.

It's obvious, it is true: We need to get rid of myopically motivated, morally questionable corporate-agenda-floggers to achieve legitimate progress and improvements in a wide variety of areas. There are many people seeking sway in Washington, though. is of course omitting many in this email from their tiny little far-left liberal CentCom in NYC.

I think is invested in blockading others so that special-interest liberal lobbyists -- those who favor and fund Democrats -- will have more room to proceed. It is that simple, I would gamble. They ought to be called on it.

They are speaking to a pack of amateur activists with little use for in-depth facts, perhaps, but their omission of the more powerful lobbies needs to be brought out, loud and strong. Notice that there is no mention of education lobbies -- which are steadily eroding the value of our public education with the watering down (and filtering all leaders from fed to state to local) with interest to protecting bad teachers and apathetic education leaders, the broad reach and influence of labor lobbies (a wide range, they give members' money to liberal ideals only, and force-feed influence about liberal agendas to their members), and the state and local government employee lobbies (these guys fund more politicians than anyone and are around 98% Democrat-funding, which makes me thoroughly suspicious of every government worker statewide and locally). There's the common joke, for government workers, that they would have to kill their supervisor to lose their job, generally. There's a logical motivation for that absurd comment, and the monstrous lobby machine for gov't workers is clearly party to that problem.

See for yourself at -- the "Heavy Hitters" lists shows who is leading among cash cows for political parties.

When grouped, these labor and employee and teachers' unions are vastly more influential than any energy or medical field lobbying groups. Yet, we moan and groan -- liberals do -- about the industry lobbyists. How is it we are going to change energy and health care, but not teaching and labor, and that is ? That is a clear agenda that is not mindful of everyone, but of liberal groups.

I am for excellent teachers and effective workers. I am one. Or, I have thought so. I.Q. of 130, business educated, helped start three companies and I find myself a bit off the tracks right now. That's unfortunate for me and my wife, but no one else. But the lobbying problem is a bigger, broader problem.

It seems there is a goal with lobbyists to level the playing field not for excellence, but for the mundane and uninspired to excel in teaching, but gaining ridiculously high incomes for very nontechnical jobs, and other offensive things that are ruining education, manufacturing, and more. If the lobbies, all lobbying groups, were at all balanced in their motivations, it would be a good thing. They prove they do not have any balance -- they are not only self-serving, but vacuously so.

Begin forwarded message:

There are literally tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington, funded by countless millions from corporations and industry groups. The oil and coal companies. The pharmaceutical industry. The HMOs. The telecoms. They're all gearing up right now to stop any bold health care bill or energy plan dead in its tracks.

They're going to fight Obama at every step. We have to be prepared to fight back harder.

That's why we've launched a huge campaign to flood Washington with the voices of real Americans who are crying out for change. On TV, on billboards and buses, in district offices and the halls of Congress, we're going to amplify the voices of MoveOn members and make Barack Obama's progressive mandate impossible to ignore.

Our plan is really ambitious. And it'll take serious money. MoveOn doesn't have Exxon or Pfizer to go to—we only have each other. Can you chip in $15 per month to fund this big campaign? It's easy—we bill your credit card each month, and you can cancel any time. Just click here:

After the election, MoveOn members felt strongly that we needed to keep the momentum going and continue organizing for change.

Right now, volunteers are gathering hundreds of thousands of stories and photos and signatures of the real Americans who are hungry for change. We'll deliver them to our representatives in Washington in January, in the biggest day of grassroots action MoveOn has ever organized.

Obama won a powerful mandate, and we're going to make sure nobody forgets that.

Even with volunteers doing almost all the work, we'll still need money to pay organizers, print materials, and run ads. Can you help out with a monthly contribution of $15?

Thanks for all you do.

–Peter, Ilyse, Justin, Wes and the rest of the team

AirAmerica: The NEW Right Wing Celebrities List, a work in progress

The idea of keeping a Right Wing Celebrities List is not so that they can be boycotted or persecuted, unless they get altogether TOO gross and actually DO something justifying such action. It's a counter-propaganda operation to fight the Republican mantra of "Liberal Hollywood."

I offer a decent enough comment, since it is not absolute driveling idiocy of full of "flaming" or "cyberbullying" or "cybercyncicism". It is loopy and paranoid, but not otherwise wacky. Sadly, the link might not work; it is possible the posting person doesn't either, just sits around thinking about paranoid stuff all day:
Posted by: ZoWie Nov 2 2008, 06:54 PM
Here's a good article on how far along the self-described right wing conspiracy to take over The Industry really is:

There are several highly influential conservative action centers within The Industry. Along with the Wednesday Morning Club, there's a Sunday Evening Club, and a good portion of the USC School of Cinema Old Boy Network, plus an older buddyhood of mean Irish types (though they're dying off), and a rather dedicated neocon cabal run by a righty foundation that plants its people in The Industry and then describes on its web sites how the takeover is going. This group is now capable of getting projects made just on the basis of who they are, though by definition you'd never have heard of any of them any other way, since without the politics they'd be pretty small time players.

This is somehow not creepy? I mean the little "new" list at AirAmerica, but the commentary, too. 

Highly influential, indeed -- apparently there is not a single film, script line or song that a Republican can use in his campaign without drawing outright sniveling disgust from those involved. This from anything beyond country music and a thin line of Hollywood personalities, I mean. This post's author makes it sound as if the neocons and the Irish mob are committing a hostile takeover of the entire movie industry. How bizarre. But, there is no hostility like the hostility of a far-lefty's dislike of unrepentant conservatives. Check out that article, if it will load for you, or see this link: hardly about some devious taking over of Hollywood. These AirAmerica folks really are creeps!

This list is called counter-propaganda? That's rich. This version was launched by a 19-year-old, according to the individual's profile (which could mean nothing, since it is an online profile). I could tie my own shoes by that age, maybe this guy can, too. He started this list from another, apparently longer and less meaty list (it identified folks in the GOP, not specfically evil donators to and evil public supporters of the party of hate -- the GOP, I mean).

You'll note (see the posting) that the list includes not even 50 people. So how is it that "Liberal Hollywood" is an incorrect tag? This is the best that could be gotten of a list of active Republicans in Hollywood? I could write up that many Hollywood liberals -- rabid, serious liberals, not mere center-left folks -- from memory right now.

And ... done.

So how is it that this mere statement, above, is not some of the purest evidence of the one-sidedness, the blatant lack of openness, of lefty liberals? How does it not smack of a longing for fascism? This is not even fair to be called liberalism, it is one-partyism, one-sided, bread-line-standing, generic-jumpsuit-wearing, shrill creepiness. This list is party to the definition of an un-American spirit. Quite. The fact is, even rational and sincere Hollywood people would concede the fact of a liberal Hollywood today, this is not just the claims of the, ummmm, evil Hollywood Republicans.

The least this Fairness Doctrine dependent operation, AirAmerica, could do is call this list counter-counter propaganda. This is a reason why I am disgusted that any of these one-eyed ideologues call themselves liberals. These are the types of fanatics that make the idea of a Liberal Arts school offensive to me. Anything with the word liberal tied to it is despicable if I relate this kind of single-pattern, fall-in-line-or-go-away thinking to it.

They are off the rails, wandering in the desert with a gun and bullets but no water, traveling too far up the side of a cold mountain without proper boots. They are kooks, radicals, whack-jobs, silly bastards. Many of the AirAmerica Place commenters, you can see for yourself, insist on such things as signatures that are seven inches tall; some are even animated (thus, the point is not the comment, but, predictably, "look at ME!").  

What's frightening is, they can own guns; what's a relief is, they likely don't own guns because it is against their godless religion. These folks are the reason to justify far-right nut-jobs. However, on the far-right, the real nuts are the bloody KKK and Aryans, not the people running such an out front Web site as anything badged as AirAmerica!

Funny I didn't turn out one of these types seeing my history, which I will not go into. I guess I just did too much thinking things through, though. Odd.

This list here, this is a reason I didn't attempt a Hollywood career early in life: it was so obviously and insanely liberal by default that it discouraged me. The hypocrisy of that saddened me then, and has ever since. I was afraid of either being treated like a toy -- dropped at their will, or that I would be disliked purely for my non-fancy-boy rhetoric. I didn't need the uphill battle, frankly, so I chose another that for a time seemed to work well: news media.

I thought my talents were going to serve me well in media. Sorta right, I was. But that's another story.

This list on AirAmerica is outright creepy. They are saying "oh, I don't want this for any bad reason, except that I do want it -- when the time comes. Not now. Not if they stay out of the way of the truth, way and light of Hollywood, which of course is the liberals, but we are not going to admit to that!" This is not fascist? Nuts? Wacky? It is preparation for not only censorship, but what else? Blacklisting? Wasn't Sen. Joe McCarthy's madness enough for these idiots in Hollywood? Maybe this 19 year old and his cohorts (commenters, supporters, etc.)

Will this list go underground at some point? Perhaps, because it is not proper to let the infiltraters see that you are on to their infiltration. You cannot pounce on them with the utmost of surprise then.

So I wonder: Why is AirAmerica still going? Didn't it lose its shirt months ago? I have so many comments relating to this, to AirAmerica failing to draw an interested audience, to the regurgitation of the so-called "fairness doctrine" (fully supported by these "liberal" freaks). I should just stop here. Wait till later on this.

Surely, there will be more kooky things like this coming, since it is so clear that the Obama Administration is going to be all about AirAmerica's clan -- divisive, one-sided, highly partisan, highly left-leaning. Sad deal. So much for change. Glad I didn't have my heart in his success as a centrist or bipartisan. How about you? The current signs point to rhetoric that still insists on bipartisanship, but his appointments do not.

- jR (revised)

HSUS: Which national pet store chain supports puppy mills?

We are moving in the right direction with regard to abuse of living beings. But we need to keep moving against demeaning treatment of living beings of all kinds: humans (yes, there are still issues involving the inhumane treatment of humans, as if they are a mere commodity), livestock, and pet breeds. We ended slavery (though sex slavery and other crudenesses are still in existence, even in the U.S., though we rarely hear about it), we are seeing a response to the improper care of livestock. We must see an end to puppy mills and such other wrongs as well.

The message below says, in short, let PETLAND stores know what you think about puppy mills. Talk to them, in your area or at the corporate level, and tell them you have a problem with puppy mills. Note the lines I highlighted: "Most of the puppies bred at puppy mills are eventually sold over the Internet or through pet stores, including many Petlands in the U.S. The unseen victims are the mother dogs who are forced to live their entire lives behind bars."

This is wrong. Simple. Petland and other stores support this -- there is no reason for HSUS to make this stuff up. Someone is selling these improperly bred dogs -- its the whole point to raising them, the profit gain. The more profit, the better. This is the underbelly of capitalism. Let's rid of it. The message includes the stores in my area. Likely, online you can easily find stores in your area, perhaps from the HSUS site (links are below).

Puppy mills are despicable. I cannot comprehend -- aside from the same sickly, apathetic and self-serving way that people ignored Naziism when it did not negatively impact them selfishly -- why anyone would knowingly work in pet stores that were encouraging the continuation of puppy mills. It is simply inhumane. It leads to pets that are carrying disease, and other surface ills. It ought to be regarded as morally, socially and culturally wrong at every level.

So, how does this related to politics? Laws can and have been passed that get us beyond things such as abuse of livestock. Government policy is what can permanently (ideally) change the climate of humane treatment of animals used for breeding pets and livestock.

Just wanted to share. Check out the HSUS message by clicking on the first text link below.

- jR

Begin forwarded message: