Handsome
1994 - 2005
Rest in peace, my little Mr. Man, my little buddy
Friday, August 26, 2005
Sunday, July 10, 2005
The Bush lightbulb joke
How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to change a lightbulb?
Thanks to Celia for this!
- One to deny that a lightbulb needs to be changed.
- One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the lightbulb needs to be changed.
- One to blame Clinton for burning out the lightbulb.
- One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the lightbulb or for darkness.
- One to give a billion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new lightbulb.
- One to set up a photograph of Bush dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: "Lightbulb Change Accomplished!"
- One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.
- One to viciously smear #7.
- One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong lightbulb-changing policy all along.
- And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country.
Thanks to Celia for this!
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Bush's speech by the numbers
From the excellent site Think Progress
Bush Iraq Speech: By The Numbers
Bush Iraq Speech: By The Numbers
References to “September 11″: 5
References to “weapons of mass destruction”: 0
References to “freedom”: 21
References to “exit strategy”: 0
References to “Saddam Hussein”: 2
References to “Osama Bin Laden”: 2
References to “a mistake”: 1 (setting a timetable for withdrawal)
References to “mission”: 11
References to “mission accomplished”: 0
Friday, April 29, 2005
Bigotry rears ugly head in Lexington
The following is also an eye-rolling exercise in so-called journalism:
Here’s the story from the Associated Press, from the local NBC affiliate website:
Father Of 6-Year-Old Confronts School Over Book With Same-Sex Parents
LEXINGTON (AP) -- A dispute over a children's book that includes gay characters leads to the arrest of a father in Lexington.
David Parker refused to leave the Estabrook elementary school yesterday after a meeting with School Superintendent Bill Hurley. Parker confronted school officials after his six-year-old son brought home a book titled "Who's in a Family?" The book includes parents who are gay.
In a statement, Parker says he asked that he be notified in the future anytime his son is exposed to classroom discussion about same-sex households. Parker says the superintendent turned down the request.
When he refused to leave, Parker was arrested for trespassing on school property.
same story from the site 365gay.com:
Parent Arrested Protesting Gay Kids' Book
by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: April 28, 2005 9:00 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Police arrested the father of a six year old boy after he refused to leave a Lexington, Mass. school where he was protesting against a children's' book with gay characters.
David Parker became enraged when he discovered his son had brought home the book "Who's in a Family.'
The book by Robert Skutch, and illustrated by Laura Nienhaus is aimed at children between three and seven. It catalogues a variety of multicultural contemporary family units, including those with single parents, lesbian and gay parents, mixed-race couples, grandparents and divorced parents.
But, it was the inclusion of same-sex parents that angered Parker. He confronted officials at the Joseph Estabrook School.
Parker, who is a member of the Article 8 Alliance, which supports the ouster of four judges on the state's Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, demanded that the book be removed from the school library and that his son be pulled from discussions about homosexuality whether they are in planned lessons or arise spontaneously,
Lexington Schools Superintendent Bill Hurley rejected both demands.
When Parker refused to leave the meeting police were called and he was charged with trespassing.
In court today Parker pleaded not guilty and was released on $100 cash bail and ordered to stay off school grounds.
After his release, Parker said teaching children about homosexuality should be left to parents not teachers.
"Because of the same-sex (marriage) law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest children," he said. "It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information.'"
Worcester Telegram headline, with the AP story (and can you GET a WORSE headline?!?!):
Man arrested after dispute over gay lifestyle teachings pleads innocent
The Associated Press
CONCORD, Mass— A Lexington father who wouldn't leave school property after officials refused his demand to remove his 6-year-old son from discussions about homosexuality pleaded innocent to a trespassing charge Thursday.
David Parker, 42, of Lexington was released on $100 cash bail after his arraignment in Concord District Court and ordered to stay off school grounds.
After his release, Parker said he wanted to teach his son about gay lifestyles, not leave it to a teacher.
"Because of the same-sex (marriage) law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest children," he said. "It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information.'"
Lexington school officials released a short statement dealing with the facts of the arrest and did not immediately return a request for comment.
Parker first complained to officials at Joseph Estabrook School in January, after his son brought home a book called "Who's in a Family?", which included pictures of same-sex households. He was arrested after a meeting Wednesday in which school officials refused to notify him whenever homosexuality was discussed and remove his son from class.
Parker spent the night in a cell at the Lexington police station.
And here’s the Christian extremist coverage, from the agape press:
Report: Christian Parent Arrested After Being Denied Say-So in Son's Education
By Jody Brown
April 28, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Massachusetts group battling judicial activism and the advancing homosexual agenda in their state is reporting that the father of a kindergarten student was arrested on Wednesday during a scheduled meeting with the principal of his son's school. Since January, the father of the six-year-old had been attempting to get his son opted-out from discussions portraying homosexuality as acceptable.
According to reports by the Article 8 Alliance, David Parker and his wife Tonia had been in e-mail contact with Joni Jay, principal of Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington regarding material brought home by their son from school. The "Diversity Book Bag" included a book titled Who's in a Family, which portrays same-sex parent families as morally equivalent to traditional families. The Parkers, over the course of several e-mails with Principal Jay, attempted to make it clear they wanted their son removed from the classroom any time discussions or displays dealt with homosexuality -- and they sought a commitment from the principal that their desires would be accommodated.
"You are not permitted to infringe upon our religious beliefs and parental rights or obviate our freedom of choice, to exclude our son from material that would expose him to beliefs contrary to the Word of God in our Christian faith," the Parkers wrote in a March 4 e-mail to Jay.
After attending an "anti-bias meeting" in early April, David Parker again requested a meeting with Jay, which occurred yesterday (Wednesday, April 27). Article 8 Alliance reports that during that meeting, Mr. Parker reiterated his demands: that the school inform him when the topic of homosexuality was to be discussed with his son, and that the school permit his son not be included in those discussions. Parker's requests were reportedly denied by the principal, the director of education, and the superintendent.
Parker refused to leave the school unless his requests were granted, says a press statement -- and then police were summoned, who informed the father he would be arrested if he did not leave the school. When he did not, school officials had Parker arrested for trespassing.
Article 8 Alliance says Parker spent the night in jail, and was scheduled for arraignment Thursday morning. Brian Camenker of the Alliance is a friend of Parkers. "This is an unbelievable outrage," Camenker states. "It's where last year's same-sex 'marriage' ruling has brought us."
Camenker's group is seeking to remove the four judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council whose vote imposed homosexual marriage on the Bay State. The Alliance contends those four jurists unconstitutionally changed state law.
The group also is seeking to strengthen the state's "Parental Notification and Consent Law" so that parents would no longer have to "opt-out" their children in cases like the Parkers', but instead would have to choose to "opt-in." The Article 8 Alliance says homosexual activists are opposed to the move because they "know that this will stop the homosexual agenda in the public schools by giving parents the power."

and this guy has the unmitigated GALL to be on the anti-bias committee at the elementary school! i guess he just wants to make sure there’s no bias against intolerant ignorant stupid people.
Lexington Minuteman Online
Parents upset with silence day
By Bethan L. Jones
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The effects of the Day of Silence held at Lexington High School two weeks ago is anything but quiet.
At the School Committee meeting Tuesday night, several parents and community members spoke out against what was called by one Lowell Street resident as the "homosexual agenda of Lexington High School."
LHS was the location of adult protestng and students battling out agendas inside the school. The Day of Silence is a national effort to recognize those who feel disenfranchised because of the social bias against their sexual orientation.
In the public comment section of Tuesday's meeting, several stood up to speak against the actions of school system.
Parent David Parker of Bedford Street and a member of the anti-bias committee at Estabrook Elementary School said he was unhappy with the planned distribution of school books depicting homosexual parents.
"[Schools] have unfettered ... access to children's psyches," he said, adding he resents being denied the role of gatekeeper of the information his son is exposed to.
Parker said the accepting of homosexuality is inextricably linked to the sexual element of the lifestyle, something he felt the schools should not foster.
Lorraine Fournier of Cedar Street said she finds "what's happening in the school system appalling," attributing the efforts to the "liberal agendas of the school system."
She protested that words which demean students who are homosexual are banned from the schools but other words like "bigot" and "homophobe" are still used, making students who are exercising their rights feel threatened.
"You have no right to do that to any student who walks through that door," she said.
The School Committee and LHS Principal Michael Jones did not comment.
BTW, dontcha just LOVE that stupid woman’s comment in the last article, where she protests that it’s OK to use words like “bigot” and “homophobe” but it’s not OK to use demeaning words about homosexuals. This, of course, is an interesting First Amendment argument; theoretically maybe she has a point. Technically, realistically, and in context of creating an atmosphere of fear and fomenting hatred and perhaps violence, let’s just say we don’t see too many groups uniting to promote diversity and tolerance practicing HATRED and BIGOTRY in the name of religion or freedom. Hate speech is more likely to come under the 1st amendment exception of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theatre for no reason.
All righty, this leads to the following, contacts for the school administrators if you feel like writing notes of support:
For the first story about the arrested bigot:
contact:
Estabrook Elementary
117 Grove Street
Lexington, MA 02420
(781) 861-2520
Joni Jay, Principal
jjay@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us
superintendent of schools
whurley@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us
William Hurley, Superintendent (781) 861-2550
for the second story about silence day:
Lexington High School
251 Waltham Street
Lexington, MA 02421
(781) 861-2320, ext. 1000
Dr. Michael Jones, Principal
mjones@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us
as for the lexington minuteman online, the only thing i could find for letters was a general “contact us” form for the herald, the parent company:
http://www.heraldinteractive.com/contactus/index.bg
there are pulldown menus to indicate where you would like your comment to be directed.
Here’s the story from the Associated Press, from the local NBC affiliate website:
Father Of 6-Year-Old Confronts School Over Book With Same-Sex Parents
LEXINGTON (AP) -- A dispute over a children's book that includes gay characters leads to the arrest of a father in Lexington.
David Parker refused to leave the Estabrook elementary school yesterday after a meeting with School Superintendent Bill Hurley. Parker confronted school officials after his six-year-old son brought home a book titled "Who's in a Family?" The book includes parents who are gay.
In a statement, Parker says he asked that he be notified in the future anytime his son is exposed to classroom discussion about same-sex households. Parker says the superintendent turned down the request.
When he refused to leave, Parker was arrested for trespassing on school property.
same story from the site 365gay.com:
Parent Arrested Protesting Gay Kids' Book
by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: April 28, 2005 9:00 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Police arrested the father of a six year old boy after he refused to leave a Lexington, Mass. school where he was protesting against a children's' book with gay characters.
David Parker became enraged when he discovered his son had brought home the book "Who's in a Family.'
The book by Robert Skutch, and illustrated by Laura Nienhaus is aimed at children between three and seven. It catalogues a variety of multicultural contemporary family units, including those with single parents, lesbian and gay parents, mixed-race couples, grandparents and divorced parents.
But, it was the inclusion of same-sex parents that angered Parker. He confronted officials at the Joseph Estabrook School.
Parker, who is a member of the Article 8 Alliance, which supports the ouster of four judges on the state's Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, demanded that the book be removed from the school library and that his son be pulled from discussions about homosexuality whether they are in planned lessons or arise spontaneously,
Lexington Schools Superintendent Bill Hurley rejected both demands.
When Parker refused to leave the meeting police were called and he was charged with trespassing.
In court today Parker pleaded not guilty and was released on $100 cash bail and ordered to stay off school grounds.
After his release, Parker said teaching children about homosexuality should be left to parents not teachers.
"Because of the same-sex (marriage) law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest children," he said. "It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information.'"
Worcester Telegram headline, with the AP story (and can you GET a WORSE headline?!?!):
Man arrested after dispute over gay lifestyle teachings pleads innocent
The Associated Press
CONCORD, Mass— A Lexington father who wouldn't leave school property after officials refused his demand to remove his 6-year-old son from discussions about homosexuality pleaded innocent to a trespassing charge Thursday.
David Parker, 42, of Lexington was released on $100 cash bail after his arraignment in Concord District Court and ordered to stay off school grounds.
After his release, Parker said he wanted to teach his son about gay lifestyles, not leave it to a teacher.
"Because of the same-sex (marriage) law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest children," he said. "It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information.'"
Lexington school officials released a short statement dealing with the facts of the arrest and did not immediately return a request for comment.
Parker first complained to officials at Joseph Estabrook School in January, after his son brought home a book called "Who's in a Family?", which included pictures of same-sex households. He was arrested after a meeting Wednesday in which school officials refused to notify him whenever homosexuality was discussed and remove his son from class.
Parker spent the night in a cell at the Lexington police station.
And here’s the Christian extremist coverage, from the agape press:
Report: Christian Parent Arrested After Being Denied Say-So in Son's Education
By Jody Brown
April 28, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Massachusetts group battling judicial activism and the advancing homosexual agenda in their state is reporting that the father of a kindergarten student was arrested on Wednesday during a scheduled meeting with the principal of his son's school. Since January, the father of the six-year-old had been attempting to get his son opted-out from discussions portraying homosexuality as acceptable.
According to reports by the Article 8 Alliance, David Parker and his wife Tonia had been in e-mail contact with Joni Jay, principal of Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington regarding material brought home by their son from school. The "Diversity Book Bag" included a book titled Who's in a Family, which portrays same-sex parent families as morally equivalent to traditional families. The Parkers, over the course of several e-mails with Principal Jay, attempted to make it clear they wanted their son removed from the classroom any time discussions or displays dealt with homosexuality -- and they sought a commitment from the principal that their desires would be accommodated.
"You are not permitted to infringe upon our religious beliefs and parental rights or obviate our freedom of choice, to exclude our son from material that would expose him to beliefs contrary to the Word of God in our Christian faith," the Parkers wrote in a March 4 e-mail to Jay.
After attending an "anti-bias meeting" in early April, David Parker again requested a meeting with Jay, which occurred yesterday (Wednesday, April 27). Article 8 Alliance reports that during that meeting, Mr. Parker reiterated his demands: that the school inform him when the topic of homosexuality was to be discussed with his son, and that the school permit his son not be included in those discussions. Parker's requests were reportedly denied by the principal, the director of education, and the superintendent.
Parker refused to leave the school unless his requests were granted, says a press statement -- and then police were summoned, who informed the father he would be arrested if he did not leave the school. When he did not, school officials had Parker arrested for trespassing.
Article 8 Alliance says Parker spent the night in jail, and was scheduled for arraignment Thursday morning. Brian Camenker of the Alliance is a friend of Parkers. "This is an unbelievable outrage," Camenker states. "It's where last year's same-sex 'marriage' ruling has brought us."
Camenker's group is seeking to remove the four judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council whose vote imposed homosexual marriage on the Bay State. The Alliance contends those four jurists unconstitutionally changed state law.
The group also is seeking to strengthen the state's "Parental Notification and Consent Law" so that parents would no longer have to "opt-out" their children in cases like the Parkers', but instead would have to choose to "opt-in." The Article 8 Alliance says homosexual activists are opposed to the move because they "know that this will stop the homosexual agenda in the public schools by giving parents the power."

and this guy has the unmitigated GALL to be on the anti-bias committee at the elementary school! i guess he just wants to make sure there’s no bias against intolerant ignorant stupid people.
Lexington Minuteman Online
Parents upset with silence day
By Bethan L. Jones
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The effects of the Day of Silence held at Lexington High School two weeks ago is anything but quiet.
At the School Committee meeting Tuesday night, several parents and community members spoke out against what was called by one Lowell Street resident as the "homosexual agenda of Lexington High School."
LHS was the location of adult protestng and students battling out agendas inside the school. The Day of Silence is a national effort to recognize those who feel disenfranchised because of the social bias against their sexual orientation.
In the public comment section of Tuesday's meeting, several stood up to speak against the actions of school system.
Parent David Parker of Bedford Street and a member of the anti-bias committee at Estabrook Elementary School said he was unhappy with the planned distribution of school books depicting homosexual parents.
"[Schools] have unfettered ... access to children's psyches," he said, adding he resents being denied the role of gatekeeper of the information his son is exposed to.
Parker said the accepting of homosexuality is inextricably linked to the sexual element of the lifestyle, something he felt the schools should not foster.
Lorraine Fournier of Cedar Street said she finds "what's happening in the school system appalling," attributing the efforts to the "liberal agendas of the school system."
She protested that words which demean students who are homosexual are banned from the schools but other words like "bigot" and "homophobe" are still used, making students who are exercising their rights feel threatened.
"You have no right to do that to any student who walks through that door," she said.
The School Committee and LHS Principal Michael Jones did not comment.
BTW, dontcha just LOVE that stupid woman’s comment in the last article, where she protests that it’s OK to use words like “bigot” and “homophobe” but it’s not OK to use demeaning words about homosexuals. This, of course, is an interesting First Amendment argument; theoretically maybe she has a point. Technically, realistically, and in context of creating an atmosphere of fear and fomenting hatred and perhaps violence, let’s just say we don’t see too many groups uniting to promote diversity and tolerance practicing HATRED and BIGOTRY in the name of religion or freedom. Hate speech is more likely to come under the 1st amendment exception of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theatre for no reason.
All righty, this leads to the following, contacts for the school administrators if you feel like writing notes of support:
For the first story about the arrested bigot:
contact:
Estabrook Elementary
117 Grove Street
Lexington, MA 02420
(781) 861-2520
Joni Jay, Principal
jjay@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us
superintendent of schools
whurley@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us
William Hurley, Superintendent (781) 861-2550
for the second story about silence day:
Lexington High School
251 Waltham Street
Lexington, MA 02421
(781) 861-2320, ext. 1000
Dr. Michael Jones, Principal
mjones@sch.ci.lexington.ma.us
as for the lexington minuteman online, the only thing i could find for letters was a general “contact us” form for the herald, the parent company:
http://www.heraldinteractive.com/contactus/index.bg
there are pulldown menus to indicate where you would like your comment to be directed.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
I should be ranting about Time magazine's abhorrent neocon pandering . . .
. . . but it's too close to bedtime. Instead, another delightful news brief from The Onion.
New Tech-Support Caste Arises In India
NEW DELHI—Thanks to widespread outsourcing of telephone-service jobs, a sixth caste has blossomed in India: the Khidakayas, a mid-level jati made up of technical-support workers. "I am happy to be a Khidakaya," said technical-support agent Ranji Prasat, who speaks English with a flawless American accent and goes by the name "Ron" at work. "While we rank below members of the reigning order, those of us responsible for helping Americans track their online purchases and change their account PINs share many privileges not enjoyed by the merchant class below us." Prasat said he expects to marry another tech-support worker.
New Tech-Support Caste Arises In India
NEW DELHI—Thanks to widespread outsourcing of telephone-service jobs, a sixth caste has blossomed in India: the Khidakayas, a mid-level jati made up of technical-support workers. "I am happy to be a Khidakaya," said technical-support agent Ranji Prasat, who speaks English with a flawless American accent and goes by the name "Ron" at work. "While we rank below members of the reigning order, those of us responsible for helping Americans track their online purchases and change their account PINs share many privileges not enjoyed by the merchant class below us." Prasat said he expects to marry another tech-support worker.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
EPA To Drop 'E,' 'P' From Name
March 23, 2005
WASHINGTON, DC—Days after unveiling new power-plant pollution regulations that rely on an industry-favored market-trading approach to cutting mercury emissions, EPA Acting Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that the agency will remove the "E" and "P" from its name. "We're notreally 'environmental' anymore, and we certainly aren't 'protecting' anything," Johnson said. "'The Agency' is a name that reflects our current agenda and encapsulates our new function as a government-funded body devoted to handling documents, scheduling meetings, and fielding phone calls." Thechange comes on the heels of the Department of Health and Human Services' January decision to shorten its name to the Department of Services.
No, not real. Just true -- a delightfully sarcastic news brief from The Onion.
WASHINGTON, DC—Days after unveiling new power-plant pollution regulations that rely on an industry-favored market-trading approach to cutting mercury emissions, EPA Acting Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that the agency will remove the "E" and "P" from its name. "We're notreally 'environmental' anymore, and we certainly aren't 'protecting' anything," Johnson said. "'The Agency' is a name that reflects our current agenda and encapsulates our new function as a government-funded body devoted to handling documents, scheduling meetings, and fielding phone calls." Thechange comes on the heels of the Department of Health and Human Services' January decision to shorten its name to the Department of Services.
No, not real. Just true -- a delightfully sarcastic news brief from The Onion.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Another reporter on the Neocon payroll
Reporter Accused of Producing Fake News for Florida Government
The South Florida Herald Tribune has exposed yet another case of a television reporter receiving public funds to produce PR news clips touting the work of state agencies. The newspaper said that while doing freelance reporting for Florida NBC stations and CNN, Mike Vasilinda had earned more than $100,000 over the past four years from contracts with the office of Gov. Jeb Bush and top state agencies. In an interview with the newspaper, Vasilinda maintained that he had put procedures in place to assure that there was no pro-agency bias reflected in his news reports. However, journalism ethics professor Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute told the Herald Tribune: "When journalists have loyalties to a government office or government agencies, those competing loyalties can undermine journalistic independence
From IMDb*'s Movie & TV News.
(*Internet Movie Database)
The South Florida Herald Tribune has exposed yet another case of a television reporter receiving public funds to produce PR news clips touting the work of state agencies. The newspaper said that while doing freelance reporting for Florida NBC stations and CNN, Mike Vasilinda had earned more than $100,000 over the past four years from contracts with the office of Gov. Jeb Bush and top state agencies. In an interview with the newspaper, Vasilinda maintained that he had put procedures in place to assure that there was no pro-agency bias reflected in his news reports. However, journalism ethics professor Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute told the Herald Tribune: "When journalists have loyalties to a government office or government agencies, those competing loyalties can undermine journalistic independence
From IMDb*'s Movie & TV News.
(*Internet Movie Database)
Monday, March 28, 2005
Some random thoughts about the media
While participating in a heated though civilized debate about the Schiavo debacle on a bulletin board I frequent, the subject of the media came up. And, invariably, the "liberal media" charge was dropped.
Lliberal media?? That's absolutely the most hysterical thing i've ever heard. There is no such thing as the liberal media--not the liberal media as portrayed by Fox "News" and all their ilk. The media is only as liberal as the people who own it--and who owns the media? International conglomerates, corporate robber barons like Rupert Murdoch.
Puh-leeze.
The Neocon Death Cult took over the government, they're wrecking the Consitution and eliminating the separation between church and state, and they won't stop whining and saying that they're victims.
Nope, the only "liberal" media--as in, the only media that tells the truth--can't be found in one place. Reuters is usually pretty good; The Guardian in the UK as well; and many many editorial and op-ed columnists in major papers--since news reporters apparently aren't allowed to cover things like Tom DeLay's criminal activities, or list the blatant hypocrisies and lies of this administration.
And when any stories like that manage to leak out, OMG, it's the LIBERAL media again! Hello??? Since when does the TRUTH have an agenda?? The TRUTH is neither liberal NOR fascist--excuse me, Neocon.
As for calling Fox anchors "commentators," that's certainly not how they present themselves. They present themselves as "Fair and Balanced." Yeah, right. If they called themselves the "Fox Opinion Channel" I'd have no problem with them.
So please, don't believe that liberal media crap. Ask yourself, instead, what the news outlet is actually reporting ON that makes them a target of that label. Ted Koppel wanting to read the names of the dead soldiers in Iraq as a tribute? Oh, horrible liberal media! Stories about people who have been kicked out of Bushie's Social Security dog-and-pony show across the country because they were wearing Democratic or anti-Bush paraphernalia--btw, not a campaign stop but meetings held with taxpayer's money that are supposed to be open to the public? What's that--haven't heard any of that? With all our liberal media? And what about all the war protests going on over the weekend--wait a minute, wasn't there something else that coincidentally happened this weekend?
We don't hear about HALF of the creepy stuff the administration is doing because editors/publishers avoid the stories. If we had a liberal media, Bush wouldn't be in the White House. He'd be in a big house, all right, but not the White House. And Al Gore would still be president.
Then someone said they never heard hate talk about Clinton the way they do about Bush.
Hate talk about Clinton is ongoing even now, into Bush's second term. Fox news and their ilk blame everything on Clinton. If they could find a way to blame Bush choking on a pretzel on Clinton they would have.
You don't think people hate Clinton the way they do Bush?? They accuse him of byzantine murder plots. They spent, oh, like $6 billion dollars of taxpayer money looking into something he allegedly did while governor of Arkansas--not while president--couldn't prove anything, all the while ruining people's lives with a McCarthy-like witch hunt, even driving one person to suicide?
That's a lot like hate.
Think about it--if Jeff Guckert/James Gannon had been given a press pass during Clinton's terms, honestly, what do you think the Neocon Death Cult would have done? Considering the viciousness with which they hounded him over something they couldn't prove that allegedly happened before he was president, I daresay drawing and quartering might have come up.
Yet where is the Ken Starr Gestapo to investigate this actual, proven breach of national security? And when anyone brought up what Bush allegedly did before he was president, they're jumped on.
One of the things that scares me the most is that this administration pays absolutely NO attention to what is going on outside their little boys' club. They want to do what they want to do, and facts don't matter.
That is truly dangerous.
And for the record, these people are not Conservatives. They're not even true Republicans. They are obsessed with power and money and greed, and it scares me that I don't know what they won't do to get it. I don't think they would stop at anything. Anything. Absolutely anything.
Lliberal media?? That's absolutely the most hysterical thing i've ever heard. There is no such thing as the liberal media--not the liberal media as portrayed by Fox "News" and all their ilk. The media is only as liberal as the people who own it--and who owns the media? International conglomerates, corporate robber barons like Rupert Murdoch.
Puh-leeze.
The Neocon Death Cult took over the government, they're wrecking the Consitution and eliminating the separation between church and state, and they won't stop whining and saying that they're victims.
Nope, the only "liberal" media--as in, the only media that tells the truth--can't be found in one place. Reuters is usually pretty good; The Guardian in the UK as well; and many many editorial and op-ed columnists in major papers--since news reporters apparently aren't allowed to cover things like Tom DeLay's criminal activities, or list the blatant hypocrisies and lies of this administration.
And when any stories like that manage to leak out, OMG, it's the LIBERAL media again! Hello??? Since when does the TRUTH have an agenda?? The TRUTH is neither liberal NOR fascist--excuse me, Neocon.
As for calling Fox anchors "commentators," that's certainly not how they present themselves. They present themselves as "Fair and Balanced." Yeah, right. If they called themselves the "Fox Opinion Channel" I'd have no problem with them.
So please, don't believe that liberal media crap. Ask yourself, instead, what the news outlet is actually reporting ON that makes them a target of that label. Ted Koppel wanting to read the names of the dead soldiers in Iraq as a tribute? Oh, horrible liberal media! Stories about people who have been kicked out of Bushie's Social Security dog-and-pony show across the country because they were wearing Democratic or anti-Bush paraphernalia--btw, not a campaign stop but meetings held with taxpayer's money that are supposed to be open to the public? What's that--haven't heard any of that? With all our liberal media? And what about all the war protests going on over the weekend--wait a minute, wasn't there something else that coincidentally happened this weekend?
We don't hear about HALF of the creepy stuff the administration is doing because editors/publishers avoid the stories. If we had a liberal media, Bush wouldn't be in the White House. He'd be in a big house, all right, but not the White House. And Al Gore would still be president.
Then someone said they never heard hate talk about Clinton the way they do about Bush.
Hate talk about Clinton is ongoing even now, into Bush's second term. Fox news and their ilk blame everything on Clinton. If they could find a way to blame Bush choking on a pretzel on Clinton they would have.
You don't think people hate Clinton the way they do Bush?? They accuse him of byzantine murder plots. They spent, oh, like $6 billion dollars of taxpayer money looking into something he allegedly did while governor of Arkansas--not while president--couldn't prove anything, all the while ruining people's lives with a McCarthy-like witch hunt, even driving one person to suicide?
That's a lot like hate.
Think about it--if Jeff Guckert/James Gannon had been given a press pass during Clinton's terms, honestly, what do you think the Neocon Death Cult would have done? Considering the viciousness with which they hounded him over something they couldn't prove that allegedly happened before he was president, I daresay drawing and quartering might have come up.
Yet where is the Ken Starr Gestapo to investigate this actual, proven breach of national security? And when anyone brought up what Bush allegedly did before he was president, they're jumped on.
One of the things that scares me the most is that this administration pays absolutely NO attention to what is going on outside their little boys' club. They want to do what they want to do, and facts don't matter.
That is truly dangerous.
And for the record, these people are not Conservatives. They're not even true Republicans. They are obsessed with power and money and greed, and it scares me that I don't know what they won't do to get it. I don't think they would stop at anything. Anything. Absolutely anything.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Words . . . not good . . . losing ability to think . . .
Can't understand. Makes no sense.
I'm finally overloaded. The Schiavo case has made me speechless with fury. The neocon death cult is the most monumentally arrogant, hypocritical, amoral, selfish, inconsiderate, repulsive, reprehensible, nausea-inducing group of so-called "people" that has probably ever existed. And how do they get away with it? Because they have been able to brainwash a large percentage of the population--the undereducated, the gullible, the self-righteous wackos, the greedy would-be robber barons and their brain-dead trust fund brats, the naively loyal. A vote for Bush was a vote for the death of democracy.
To use this tragic situation for political purposes--wait a sec, that's old hat for them. Just when their ability to use 9/11 as a political device might be getting a bit long in the tooth, here comes poor Terri Schiavo. And Bushit, the most-killingest-governor in the history of the U.S., has to hightail it back to the White House to sign a bill to not save a life, but prolong the misery of the family of a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, whose brain is literally melting and is beyond medical care.
In one of the billions of cases of cynical hypocrisy that riddle Bushit's administration like prions through a Mad Cow-diseased brain, Dubya, while governor of Texas--killing mentally retarded people and prisoners whose lawyers fell asleep during trials--signed into law in 1999 the Texas Futile Care Act, which states that if a patient has not made a previous directive about life-prolonging care, the patient's spouse makes the call. And that was considered non-controversial.
Tom DeLay talking about ethics . . . Bill Frist making a medical decision based on a few minutes of a videotape (y'all remember him trying to say that AIDS can be transmitted through sweat? Yeah, he'd be my first choice of a doctor . . . ).
When are good old-fashioned Republicans going to grow some SPINES??? Doesn't this further example of government interference in not only a family's private tragedy, but the attempt to coopt the judicial branch--which has ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband, Michael, for many, many years--insult their supposed belief in non-invasive government?
My stomach hurts. The administration has been making me sicker and sicker since 2000. Anybody else feel that?
I'm finally overloaded. The Schiavo case has made me speechless with fury. The neocon death cult is the most monumentally arrogant, hypocritical, amoral, selfish, inconsiderate, repulsive, reprehensible, nausea-inducing group of so-called "people" that has probably ever existed. And how do they get away with it? Because they have been able to brainwash a large percentage of the population--the undereducated, the gullible, the self-righteous wackos, the greedy would-be robber barons and their brain-dead trust fund brats, the naively loyal. A vote for Bush was a vote for the death of democracy.
To use this tragic situation for political purposes--wait a sec, that's old hat for them. Just when their ability to use 9/11 as a political device might be getting a bit long in the tooth, here comes poor Terri Schiavo. And Bushit, the most-killingest-governor in the history of the U.S., has to hightail it back to the White House to sign a bill to not save a life, but prolong the misery of the family of a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, whose brain is literally melting and is beyond medical care.
In one of the billions of cases of cynical hypocrisy that riddle Bushit's administration like prions through a Mad Cow-diseased brain, Dubya, while governor of Texas--killing mentally retarded people and prisoners whose lawyers fell asleep during trials--signed into law in 1999 the Texas Futile Care Act, which states that if a patient has not made a previous directive about life-prolonging care, the patient's spouse makes the call. And that was considered non-controversial.
Tom DeLay talking about ethics . . . Bill Frist making a medical decision based on a few minutes of a videotape (y'all remember him trying to say that AIDS can be transmitted through sweat? Yeah, he'd be my first choice of a doctor . . . ).
When are good old-fashioned Republicans going to grow some SPINES??? Doesn't this further example of government interference in not only a family's private tragedy, but the attempt to coopt the judicial branch--which has ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband, Michael, for many, many years--insult their supposed belief in non-invasive government?
My stomach hurts. The administration has been making me sicker and sicker since 2000. Anybody else feel that?
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Proposal to use abstinence funds in schools fails
Again, Massachusetts votes for facts, not fiction.
The Boston Globe
Proposal to use abstinence funds in schools fails
By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent | March 10, 2005
A proposal by Governor Mitt Romney that would have focused sex education programs on abstinence lessons in the schools was defeated by the Legislature yesterday, dealing the governor a setback on an issue dear to social conservatives.
The House voted 104-44 to continue the state's current policy of spending federal abstinence funds on television commercials and ads on subways and buses. The Senate also rejected his approach on a voice vote.
Romney and his allies in the abstinence education movement had hoped to send the money directly to classrooms, where they argued it would have been more effective in reaching teenagers.
The debate over how to spend a relatively minor grant of $740,000 from the federal government drew passionate lobbying from advocates on both sides of the issue and highlighted a simmering feud over how best to reach teenagers in a culture saturated with sex. Romney lost the battle, but succeeded in bringing the issue to the front of public debate.
''The governor believes the most effective abstinence education is done in the classroom, in a more personalized setting with young people," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said yesterday. ''It's really a question of how you can most effectively spend these limited dollars."
If Romney's measure had passed and the federal money had gone to schools, opponents say, it would have increased the focus on abstinence to the exclusion of other forms of sex education. It would have meant, for example, that educators receiving the funds could discuss only the failure rates of popular forms of contraception, without discussing their effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, opponents said.
''We don't think those programs are effective, and in fact they can be harmful because they're misleading, they're incomplete," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''For young people who are already sexually active, they're not going to get the information they need to best take care of themselves or protect themselves."
Romney drew support from some Democrats, as well as the lobbying arm of the Catholic Church and the Massachusetts Family Institute. Opponents included the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and other abortion rights groups, who argued the plan would limit what educators who receive the funds can discuss in the classroom.
Planned Parenthood was among the interest groups urging lawmakers to defeat Romney's proposal yesterday. Their advocates argued that condom use should be taught in the classroom and that abstinence funds are best spent on reaching a broader audience outside the schools.
''The big troubling question about these programs, is: are they actually causing disease transmission to go up because they discourage condom use," said Erin Rowland, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman. ''That's really at the heart of this debate. It's the concern that they're putting teens at risk by spreading misleading information."
Since 1998, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has spent its abstinence funds on radio and television ads for students ages 9 to 12 and 15 to 17 and to produce brochures and films in Spanish and English. The votes yesterday amounted to an endorsement of that policy and drew praise from abortion rights groups.
Abstinence education supporters expressed disappointment after the vote. They said that even if the measure had passed, schools would have been able to teach about contraception in other classes.
''The only foolproof way to prevent teen pregnancy is abstinence," said Maria C. Parker, associated director for public policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the church's policy arm. ''All the rest of them have a failure rate; someone has to get real about what's happening here."
The vote actually represented an about-face for the Legislature, which voted last year to spend the money on classroom lessons. Some lawmakers said they did not remember voting for the plan, and lawmakers repealed the measure several weeks ago. The back-and-forth spurred Romney, a Republican, to reintroduce the measure restricting the funds.
Representative Viriato Manuel deMacedo, a Plymouth Republican, spoke in favor of Romney's proposal on the House floor. ''The people that support the abstinence education programs believe it is best spent in the classroom, as opposed to pamphlets that sit on a table that never get used," deMacedo said.
Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, a Chelsea Democrat, crossed party lines to support Romney's classroom-based approach. ''This program is specifically designed to teach young men and young women about the values of abstinence," O'Flaherty said. ''Maybe one out of 10 will hear that message, but at least that one will."
Kristian Mineau -- president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which also supported Romney's plan -- said he was worried that $740,000 would be completely ineffective if spent on a media campaign. Other supporters of abstinence education agreed.
''A television advertisement on MTV evaporates in seconds and costs millions of dollars," Mineau said. ''Births, [sexually transmitted diseases], abortion [are] linked to this, and these are all social issues that destroy the fiber of the family. So we believe abstinence is the most effective way to combat the social ills of the family."
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The Boston Globe
Proposal to use abstinence funds in schools fails
By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent | March 10, 2005
A proposal by Governor Mitt Romney that would have focused sex education programs on abstinence lessons in the schools was defeated by the Legislature yesterday, dealing the governor a setback on an issue dear to social conservatives.
The House voted 104-44 to continue the state's current policy of spending federal abstinence funds on television commercials and ads on subways and buses. The Senate also rejected his approach on a voice vote.
Romney and his allies in the abstinence education movement had hoped to send the money directly to classrooms, where they argued it would have been more effective in reaching teenagers.
The debate over how to spend a relatively minor grant of $740,000 from the federal government drew passionate lobbying from advocates on both sides of the issue and highlighted a simmering feud over how best to reach teenagers in a culture saturated with sex. Romney lost the battle, but succeeded in bringing the issue to the front of public debate.
''The governor believes the most effective abstinence education is done in the classroom, in a more personalized setting with young people," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said yesterday. ''It's really a question of how you can most effectively spend these limited dollars."
If Romney's measure had passed and the federal money had gone to schools, opponents say, it would have increased the focus on abstinence to the exclusion of other forms of sex education. It would have meant, for example, that educators receiving the funds could discuss only the failure rates of popular forms of contraception, without discussing their effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, opponents said.
''We don't think those programs are effective, and in fact they can be harmful because they're misleading, they're incomplete," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''For young people who are already sexually active, they're not going to get the information they need to best take care of themselves or protect themselves."
Romney drew support from some Democrats, as well as the lobbying arm of the Catholic Church and the Massachusetts Family Institute. Opponents included the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and other abortion rights groups, who argued the plan would limit what educators who receive the funds can discuss in the classroom.
Planned Parenthood was among the interest groups urging lawmakers to defeat Romney's proposal yesterday. Their advocates argued that condom use should be taught in the classroom and that abstinence funds are best spent on reaching a broader audience outside the schools.
''The big troubling question about these programs, is: are they actually causing disease transmission to go up because they discourage condom use," said Erin Rowland, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman. ''That's really at the heart of this debate. It's the concern that they're putting teens at risk by spreading misleading information."
Since 1998, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has spent its abstinence funds on radio and television ads for students ages 9 to 12 and 15 to 17 and to produce brochures and films in Spanish and English. The votes yesterday amounted to an endorsement of that policy and drew praise from abortion rights groups.
Abstinence education supporters expressed disappointment after the vote. They said that even if the measure had passed, schools would have been able to teach about contraception in other classes.
''The only foolproof way to prevent teen pregnancy is abstinence," said Maria C. Parker, associated director for public policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the church's policy arm. ''All the rest of them have a failure rate; someone has to get real about what's happening here."
The vote actually represented an about-face for the Legislature, which voted last year to spend the money on classroom lessons. Some lawmakers said they did not remember voting for the plan, and lawmakers repealed the measure several weeks ago. The back-and-forth spurred Romney, a Republican, to reintroduce the measure restricting the funds.
Representative Viriato Manuel deMacedo, a Plymouth Republican, spoke in favor of Romney's proposal on the House floor. ''The people that support the abstinence education programs believe it is best spent in the classroom, as opposed to pamphlets that sit on a table that never get used," deMacedo said.
Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, a Chelsea Democrat, crossed party lines to support Romney's classroom-based approach. ''This program is specifically designed to teach young men and young women about the values of abstinence," O'Flaherty said. ''Maybe one out of 10 will hear that message, but at least that one will."
Kristian Mineau -- president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which also supported Romney's plan -- said he was worried that $740,000 would be completely ineffective if spent on a media campaign. Other supporters of abstinence education agreed.
''A television advertisement on MTV evaporates in seconds and costs millions of dollars," Mineau said. ''Births, [sexually transmitted diseases], abortion [are] linked to this, and these are all social issues that destroy the fiber of the family. So we believe abstinence is the most effective way to combat the social ills of the family."
© Copyright
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
'Morning Sedition' rules, Laurence Britt's "Fascism, Anyone?", Paul Krugman's sobering column
In case any of you out there are not listening to Air America's brilliant morning show, "Morning Sedition," I say this: WAKE UP, sheeple! You're drinking the Koolaid!
The hosts, Marc Maron and Mark Riley, have also been reading from Laurence Britt's article called "Fascism, Anyone?" (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm). If you're not bone-chillingly frightened by this you're probably either dead or part of the neocon death cult.
Also today, Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times on "Debt-Peonage Society," the feudal/futile system of rule by the rich that the crypto-fascist zombies of the neocon death cult (brilliant Morning Sedition terms) are trying to push through (free registration required):
Friday, March 04, 2005
'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud
From Truthout.org
'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud
By Edward Wasserman
The Miami Herald
Wednesday 23 February 2005
The news media got an unusual bashing during last year's bitter electoral campaigns. They got slapped around from all sides, and everybody argued about how the media tried either to undermine Bush or discredit Kerry or both.
Still, it's never clear why some media wrongs are made into a big deal while others slip by. Take the CBS "60 Minutes" report on Bush's military nonservice: The story itself was old, the dubious evidence was of dubious importance, and the broadcast had no discernible effect. It became a major scandal anyway.
On the other end of the scale is an instance of clear-cut media wrongdoing that involved unquestionably fraudulent evidence and had dramatic consequences. This one, however, has gone largely unremarked. It is the famous incident involving Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean that is known as The Dean Scream.
And with Dean's recent appointment as Democratic Party chairman it's being hauled out as constituting the ceiling on whatever political ambitions he might still have, proof that he's shaky, unstable, unfit to serve - Howard Dean's Chappaquiddick.
You've seen the clip. After Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl, it's the most famous news video of 2004. Dean is addressing campaign supporters after he lost the Iowa party caucuses in January. He's screaming for no apparent reason, practically shrieking, ticking off the states where he's vowing to continue the race. His face is red, his voice breaking. He looks deranged. It's a portrait of a man out of control. It's documentary evidence that Dean lacks the temperament for high office.
In fact the Dean Scream was a fraud, probably the clearest instance of media assassination in recent U.S. political history.
Last year, a young cable news producer attended one of our twice-yearly Ethics Institutes at Washington and Lee University, in which students and journalists gather to discuss newsroom wrongdoing. He brought two clips.
The first was the familiar pool footage of Dean in Iowa. The candidate filled the screen, no supporters were visible. Crowd noise was silenced by the microphone he held, which deadened ambient sounds. You saw only him and heard only his inexplicable screaming.
The second clip was the same speech taped by a supporter on the floor of the hall. The difference was stunning. The place was packed. The noise was deafening. Dean was on the podium, but you couldn't hear him. The roar from his supporters was drowning him out.
Dean was no longer scary, unhinged, volcanic, over the top. He was like the coach of a would-be championship NCAA football team at a pre-game rally, trying to be heard over a gym full of determined, wildly enthusiastic fans. I saw energy, not lunacy.
The difference was context. As psychiatrist R.D. Laing once wrote: We see a woman on her knees, eyes closed, muttering to someone who isn't there. Of course, she's praying. But if we deny her that context, we naturally conclude she's insane.
The Dean Scream footage that was repeatedly aired rests on a similar falsehood. It takes a man who in context was acting reasonably, and by stripping away that context transforms him into a lunatic.
But that clip was aired an estimated 700 times on various cable and broadcast channels in the week after the Iowa caucus. The people who showed that clip are far more technically sophisticated than I and had to understand how tight visual framing and noise-suppression hardware can distort reality.
True, some network news executives commented afterward that perhaps the footage was overplayed and offered the bureaucrat's favorite bromide, that hindsight is 20/20. But the media establishment has never acknowledged this as a burning matter of ethical harm.
That's because the Dean Scream incriminates the entire professional mission of television news, which is built around the primacy of the picture. TV producers don't profess to offer meaning and context; they get you the visuals, unless they're gory or obscene. The notion that great footage would be not shown just because it's profoundly misleading - that's a possibility few TV news executives would entertain.
That's why they're not eager to see the Dean Scream enter the canon of journalistic sin. And if that leaves Howard Dean's political future hobbled by a lie, so be it.
'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud
By Edward Wasserman
The Miami Herald
Wednesday 23 February 2005
The news media got an unusual bashing during last year's bitter electoral campaigns. They got slapped around from all sides, and everybody argued about how the media tried either to undermine Bush or discredit Kerry or both.
Still, it's never clear why some media wrongs are made into a big deal while others slip by. Take the CBS "60 Minutes" report on Bush's military nonservice: The story itself was old, the dubious evidence was of dubious importance, and the broadcast had no discernible effect. It became a major scandal anyway.
On the other end of the scale is an instance of clear-cut media wrongdoing that involved unquestionably fraudulent evidence and had dramatic consequences. This one, however, has gone largely unremarked. It is the famous incident involving Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean that is known as The Dean Scream.
And with Dean's recent appointment as Democratic Party chairman it's being hauled out as constituting the ceiling on whatever political ambitions he might still have, proof that he's shaky, unstable, unfit to serve - Howard Dean's Chappaquiddick.
You've seen the clip. After Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl, it's the most famous news video of 2004. Dean is addressing campaign supporters after he lost the Iowa party caucuses in January. He's screaming for no apparent reason, practically shrieking, ticking off the states where he's vowing to continue the race. His face is red, his voice breaking. He looks deranged. It's a portrait of a man out of control. It's documentary evidence that Dean lacks the temperament for high office.
In fact the Dean Scream was a fraud, probably the clearest instance of media assassination in recent U.S. political history.
Last year, a young cable news producer attended one of our twice-yearly Ethics Institutes at Washington and Lee University, in which students and journalists gather to discuss newsroom wrongdoing. He brought two clips.
The first was the familiar pool footage of Dean in Iowa. The candidate filled the screen, no supporters were visible. Crowd noise was silenced by the microphone he held, which deadened ambient sounds. You saw only him and heard only his inexplicable screaming.
The second clip was the same speech taped by a supporter on the floor of the hall. The difference was stunning. The place was packed. The noise was deafening. Dean was on the podium, but you couldn't hear him. The roar from his supporters was drowning him out.
Dean was no longer scary, unhinged, volcanic, over the top. He was like the coach of a would-be championship NCAA football team at a pre-game rally, trying to be heard over a gym full of determined, wildly enthusiastic fans. I saw energy, not lunacy.
The difference was context. As psychiatrist R.D. Laing once wrote: We see a woman on her knees, eyes closed, muttering to someone who isn't there. Of course, she's praying. But if we deny her that context, we naturally conclude she's insane.
The Dean Scream footage that was repeatedly aired rests on a similar falsehood. It takes a man who in context was acting reasonably, and by stripping away that context transforms him into a lunatic.
But that clip was aired an estimated 700 times on various cable and broadcast channels in the week after the Iowa caucus. The people who showed that clip are far more technically sophisticated than I and had to understand how tight visual framing and noise-suppression hardware can distort reality.
True, some network news executives commented afterward that perhaps the footage was overplayed and offered the bureaucrat's favorite bromide, that hindsight is 20/20. But the media establishment has never acknowledged this as a burning matter of ethical harm.
That's because the Dean Scream incriminates the entire professional mission of television news, which is built around the primacy of the picture. TV producers don't profess to offer meaning and context; they get you the visuals, unless they're gory or obscene. The notion that great footage would be not shown just because it's profoundly misleading - that's a possibility few TV news executives would entertain.
That's why they're not eager to see the Dean Scream enter the canon of journalistic sin. And if that leaves Howard Dean's political future hobbled by a lie, so be it.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"
Again, proof of how stressful times lead to co-dependence on religious voodoo.
U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"
U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Cheers for Citizens for Legitimate Government
One of my favorite activist sites is Citizens for Legitimate Government, which, from the beginning of this awful period in American history, has made me feel less alone in some of my more radical and, some would say, conspiratorial thinking.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Seattle Times: Kerry for President
The Seattle Times: Kerry for President
The Seattle Times
Friday, August 27, 2004, 01:16 P.M. Pacific
Kerry for President
Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.
The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.
The first issue is the war. When the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. When war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. The troops deserved it. In hindsight, their commander in chief did not.
The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq. This will be no easy task, but Kerry is more likely to do it — and with some understanding of Middle Eastern realities — than is Bush.
The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon. It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam.
A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States. A political change should allow Americans to examine the powers they have given the federal government under the Patriot Act, and the powers the president has claimed by executive order.
This page had high hopes for President Bush regarding taxing and spending. We endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. In the end, there was no discipline in it. In control of the Senate, the House and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the Republicans have had a celebration of spending.
Kerry has made many promises, and might spend as much as Bush if given a Congress under the control of Democrats. He is more likely to get a divided government, which may be a good thing.
Bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. In some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada.
In our own industry, the Bush appointees on the Federal Communications Commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. In an industry that is the steward of the public's right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself — and Kerry has stood up against it.
Bush talked like the candidate of free trade, a policy the Pacific Northwest relies upon. He turned protectionist on steel and Canadian lumber. Admittedly, Kerry's campaign rhetoric is even worse on trade. But for the previous 20 years, Kerry had a strong record in support of trade, and we have learned that the best guide to what politicians do is what they have done in the past, not what they say.
On some matters, we always had to hold our noses to endorse Bush. We noted four years ago that he was too willing to toss aside wild nature, and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We still disagree. On clean air, forests and fish, we generally side with Kerry.
We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts.
Four years ago, we stated our profound disagreement with Bush on abortion, and then in one of his first acts as president, he moved to reinstate a ban on federal money for organizations that provide information about abortions overseas. We disagree also with Bush's ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells.
There is in these positions a presidential blending of politics and religion that is wrong for the government of a diverse republic.
Our largest doubt about Kerry is his idea that the federal debt may be stabilized, and dozens of new programs added, merely by raising taxes on the top 2 percent of Americans. Class warfare is a false promise, and we hope he forgets it.
Certainly, the man now in office forgot some of the things he said so fetchingly four years ago.
The Seattle Times
Friday, August 27, 2004, 01:16 P.M. Pacific
Kerry for President
Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.
The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.
The first issue is the war. When the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. When war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. The troops deserved it. In hindsight, their commander in chief did not.
The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq. This will be no easy task, but Kerry is more likely to do it — and with some understanding of Middle Eastern realities — than is Bush.
The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon. It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam.
A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States. A political change should allow Americans to examine the powers they have given the federal government under the Patriot Act, and the powers the president has claimed by executive order.
This page had high hopes for President Bush regarding taxing and spending. We endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. In the end, there was no discipline in it. In control of the Senate, the House and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the Republicans have had a celebration of spending.
Kerry has made many promises, and might spend as much as Bush if given a Congress under the control of Democrats. He is more likely to get a divided government, which may be a good thing.
Bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. In some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada.
In our own industry, the Bush appointees on the Federal Communications Commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. In an industry that is the steward of the public's right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself — and Kerry has stood up against it.
Bush talked like the candidate of free trade, a policy the Pacific Northwest relies upon. He turned protectionist on steel and Canadian lumber. Admittedly, Kerry's campaign rhetoric is even worse on trade. But for the previous 20 years, Kerry had a strong record in support of trade, and we have learned that the best guide to what politicians do is what they have done in the past, not what they say.
On some matters, we always had to hold our noses to endorse Bush. We noted four years ago that he was too willing to toss aside wild nature, and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We still disagree. On clean air, forests and fish, we generally side with Kerry.
We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts.
Four years ago, we stated our profound disagreement with Bush on abortion, and then in one of his first acts as president, he moved to reinstate a ban on federal money for organizations that provide information about abortions overseas. We disagree also with Bush's ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells.
There is in these positions a presidential blending of politics and religion that is wrong for the government of a diverse republic.
Our largest doubt about Kerry is his idea that the federal debt may be stabilized, and dozens of new programs added, merely by raising taxes on the top 2 percent of Americans. Class warfare is a false promise, and we hope he forgets it.
Certainly, the man now in office forgot some of the things he said so fetchingly four years ago.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Democracy, That's the Ticket
This is probably already on my friend Dick Mac's blog, but I couldn't help including this. I find this kind of behavior really reprehensible, not to mention unAmerican. This example is from northern Michigan, but it has been happening throughout the country at Bush's Youth--er, rallies (if anyone doesn't understand that reference, e-mail me).
http://www.record-eagle.com/2004/aug/17mead.htm
Traverse City Record-Eagle
August 17, 2004
Ticket ripped because of sticker
Teacher, 55, wanted to see a president
BY IAN C. STOREY
Record-Eagle staff writer
TRAVERSE CITY - Kathryn Mead wanted to see her first sitting president when George W. Bush visited the city.
Instead, Bush campaign staffers tore up the 55-year-old social studies teacher's ticket and refused her admission because she sported a small sticker on her blouse that touted the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards.
"I had my ticket and photo identification, but they would not let me in because of this sticker," said Mead, a teacher at Traverse City West Senior High, who said she has seen Queen Elizabeth and Pope John Paul in person.
"I have never found this kind of screening anywhere in my travels around the world. I can't imagine being denied access to hearing the president of the United States speak.""How can anyone in the United States deny someone entry? Isn't this a democracy?"
Several people outside the campaign event tried to console Mead, who was visibly upset.
"It really is comedic," said a man holding a Kerry/Edwards sign. "What absolute nonsense."
Kate Stephan, chair of the Grand Traverse Republican Party, could not be reached for comment after the rally.
But Ralph Soffredine, a Traverse City commissioner, school board member and former police chief who worked security at the front gate, said it is part of the Bush campaign policy.
"We were told that anyone with stickers or shirts would not be let in if they would not take them off," he said. "(Mead) came to me after her ticket was torn up, but I told her there was nothing I could do.
"I know her and it was really too bad, but I would say that we had very few instances of that. I thought it went very well."
Lynn Larson, chair of the Grand Traverse Democratic Party, said the move is typical of other Bush rallies that only allow Republican supporters to see the president.
"The very reason that we are here protesting is to protect our First Amendment rights," she said. "When the Secret Service rips somebody's sticker off and takes their ticket away, it makes me even more determined to march to protect our rights."
Mead, who has taught for two decades, instead stood on the sidewalks with other John Kerry supporters, listening to Bush from behind a fence.
"I really, truly wanted to have the experience of having seen the president and hear him speak, which is very important to me as a social studies teacher," she said. "How can anyone in the United States deny someone entry? Isn't this a democracy?"
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Time to Get Out the Bush
Time To Get Out The Bush
How do you know it's time for a major change in American leadership? Let us count the signs
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
You know it's time for a serious change when the president of the United States actually mutters the infantile, instantly infamous line, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," just after finishing phonetically spelling out his name, in his favoritest red crayon, on yet another budget-reaming $417 billion defense-spending bill.
And you know it's time for a change when not a single one of the rigid and spiritually curdled military yes men standing around the ceremonial signing table, those sad automatons with their wooden smiles and stiff spines and bone-dry souls, not one broke into a hysterical bout of sad, suicidal laughter, followed by uncontrolled wailing and the rending of flesh and the muttering of oh my freaking God what the hell is this man doing as leader of the free world.
You know it's time for a change when you hear that Kerry and Edwards both wrote their own riveting, galvanizing acceptance speeches at the Democratic National Convention, heartfelt and effective rhetoric that gives you hope not for the quality of polished oratory but for genuine, refreshing political intellect, and verbal acumen, as you offer deep thanks that at least some politicians can still speak coherently and cogently without mangling the goddamn language at every adjectival clause.
Whereas you just know Dubya isn't capable of writing a single word of his own speeches, and will employ entire squadrons of lackeys to do it for him at the RNC, and will regardless still insist on mispronouncing "nukuler" and "'Murka" and "terrist" and "gin bender at Yale," and will doubtlessly say something like, "We must stamp out evil in all its forms because evil wants to do evil things to us and evil don't know the depths of its own, uh, evilnesses. Praise Jesus."
There are signs and indicators. There are feelings and intuitions. There is that undeniable tang in the air, that clenching of the cultural colon, that cringe in the collective soul. Something has got to give. A national shakeup is more than imminent—it is desperately, urgently needed. And Bush is just about finished.
Don't you feel it? The sensation that the country cannot continue to careen down this ultraviolent, antihumanitarian path much longer without implosion and desperation and a massive increase in sedative prescriptions for anyone with an even slightly intuitive sense of justice and future and long hot sighs of hope? You're not alone.
You know it's time for a dramatic change when American bookstores and movie theaters are filled with unprecedented numbers of extraordinarily damning BushCo exposés and embarrassing tell-all tomes and brutal whistle-blower digests from all corners of the culture, produced by everyone from disheartened CIA insiders to ex-generals to respected reporters to former U.S. allies.
From Clarke's Against All Enemies, Woodward's Plan of Attack, Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, Phillips' American Dynasty, Dean's Worse Than Watergate, Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud and Imperial Hubris, by Anonymous, to Fahrenheit 9/11 and Outfoxed and The Hunting of the President. Go ahead, Google any one (or all) of those titles. The list is endless and stunning in its depth and in the heat of its unanimous BushCo condemnation.
Hell, it's getting so you can't turn a corner or have a nuanced, humane thought without confronting another hunk of undeniable proof that what these media documents say is true: The Bush administration is quite possibly the most economically destructive, environmentally devastating, ethically corrupt, internationally loathed, deliberately tyrannical, worst-dressed administration in American history.
What, too harsh? Hardly.
When the professors and other intellectuals and the artists and the social workers and the mystics and the truly spiritual among us are appalled and mournful, and the homophobes and the rednecks and the religious zealots are cheering and shooting their guns in the sky, this is how you know.
When America has become a global punch line, a petulant and screeching child in an oversize Texas cowboy hat throwing oily little tantrums on a WMD whim, and the global community can only sit there, stunned and enraged, as every ally withdraws all offers of support and overtures of concern for our well-being, this is how you know.
The activists know it. Angry groups are popping up by the hundreds across the nation, all working diligently to toss a nice emetic into the Republican gorge-fest. Some are even going so far as to offer up the ultimate sacrifice: They will have sex with any Republicans willing to withhold their Bush vote this election.
It's true. It's funny. It's called fthevote.com. What, too extreme? Hey, extreme times call for extreme lubrication.
The watchdogs know it. The usual reaction from most analysts and wonks, most intellectuals and artists, when faced with another presidential election, is this: Yawn. After all, such ultra-elitist, top-tier shifts have little effect on the massive daily political grind, the real meat and potatoes of government, right? This is the common wisdom. A change in presidents is like changing the paint on an aircraft carrier: different patina, same damn boat.
Not this time. All those who normally claim that a change in who sits in the Oval Office means nothing are now all frantically waving their arms and shouting their protests and joining the resistance. This election is different. This one matters like never before in history, considering how so many of us underestimated just how much damage a single president's gnarled, hateful administration could unleash upon the world in a single term.
This is the new rallying cry. If you care at all about the soul of this country, if you care at all about women's rights and gay rights and true spiritual freedom and the environment and our international standing, if you care at all about actually reducing the anti-U.S. hatred in the world, as opposed to amplifying it a thousandfold, then oh my god yes, this election matters.
This, then, is how you know it's time for a serious change. When you can feel it in your bones, when you finally attune and really listen to the underlying messages and dig deep into your own spirit and discover that no, this isn't the way the world is supposed to work. This is not the way the country has to be.
This is not the way the world's greatest superpower is supposed to behave, this bitter metallic taste that leaps into my mouth whenever I see a picture of BushCo isn't really supposed to be there, the vice president isn't supposed to make children cry and flowers wilt and the gods recoil in disgust.
And the president isn't supposed to mangle the language and induce multiple wars and invite international derision and make so many millions of us ashamed to be Americans. It's time for a serious change. This is how you know.
How do you know it's time for a major change in American leadership? Let us count the signs
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
You know it's time for a serious change when the president of the United States actually mutters the infantile, instantly infamous line, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," just after finishing phonetically spelling out his name, in his favoritest red crayon, on yet another budget-reaming $417 billion defense-spending bill.
And you know it's time for a change when not a single one of the rigid and spiritually curdled military yes men standing around the ceremonial signing table, those sad automatons with their wooden smiles and stiff spines and bone-dry souls, not one broke into a hysterical bout of sad, suicidal laughter, followed by uncontrolled wailing and the rending of flesh and the muttering of oh my freaking God what the hell is this man doing as leader of the free world.
You know it's time for a change when you hear that Kerry and Edwards both wrote their own riveting, galvanizing acceptance speeches at the Democratic National Convention, heartfelt and effective rhetoric that gives you hope not for the quality of polished oratory but for genuine, refreshing political intellect, and verbal acumen, as you offer deep thanks that at least some politicians can still speak coherently and cogently without mangling the goddamn language at every adjectival clause.
Whereas you just know Dubya isn't capable of writing a single word of his own speeches, and will employ entire squadrons of lackeys to do it for him at the RNC, and will regardless still insist on mispronouncing "nukuler" and "'Murka" and "terrist" and "gin bender at Yale," and will doubtlessly say something like, "We must stamp out evil in all its forms because evil wants to do evil things to us and evil don't know the depths of its own, uh, evilnesses. Praise Jesus."
There are signs and indicators. There are feelings and intuitions. There is that undeniable tang in the air, that clenching of the cultural colon, that cringe in the collective soul. Something has got to give. A national shakeup is more than imminent—it is desperately, urgently needed. And Bush is just about finished.
Don't you feel it? The sensation that the country cannot continue to careen down this ultraviolent, antihumanitarian path much longer without implosion and desperation and a massive increase in sedative prescriptions for anyone with an even slightly intuitive sense of justice and future and long hot sighs of hope? You're not alone.
You know it's time for a dramatic change when American bookstores and movie theaters are filled with unprecedented numbers of extraordinarily damning BushCo exposés and embarrassing tell-all tomes and brutal whistle-blower digests from all corners of the culture, produced by everyone from disheartened CIA insiders to ex-generals to respected reporters to former U.S. allies.
From Clarke's Against All Enemies, Woodward's Plan of Attack, Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, Phillips' American Dynasty, Dean's Worse Than Watergate, Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud and Imperial Hubris, by Anonymous, to Fahrenheit 9/11 and Outfoxed and The Hunting of the President. Go ahead, Google any one (or all) of those titles. The list is endless and stunning in its depth and in the heat of its unanimous BushCo condemnation.
Hell, it's getting so you can't turn a corner or have a nuanced, humane thought without confronting another hunk of undeniable proof that what these media documents say is true: The Bush administration is quite possibly the most economically destructive, environmentally devastating, ethically corrupt, internationally loathed, deliberately tyrannical, worst-dressed administration in American history.
What, too harsh? Hardly.
When the professors and other intellectuals and the artists and the social workers and the mystics and the truly spiritual among us are appalled and mournful, and the homophobes and the rednecks and the religious zealots are cheering and shooting their guns in the sky, this is how you know.
When America has become a global punch line, a petulant and screeching child in an oversize Texas cowboy hat throwing oily little tantrums on a WMD whim, and the global community can only sit there, stunned and enraged, as every ally withdraws all offers of support and overtures of concern for our well-being, this is how you know.
The activists know it. Angry groups are popping up by the hundreds across the nation, all working diligently to toss a nice emetic into the Republican gorge-fest. Some are even going so far as to offer up the ultimate sacrifice: They will have sex with any Republicans willing to withhold their Bush vote this election.
It's true. It's funny. It's called fthevote.com. What, too extreme? Hey, extreme times call for extreme lubrication.
The watchdogs know it. The usual reaction from most analysts and wonks, most intellectuals and artists, when faced with another presidential election, is this: Yawn. After all, such ultra-elitist, top-tier shifts have little effect on the massive daily political grind, the real meat and potatoes of government, right? This is the common wisdom. A change in presidents is like changing the paint on an aircraft carrier: different patina, same damn boat.
Not this time. All those who normally claim that a change in who sits in the Oval Office means nothing are now all frantically waving their arms and shouting their protests and joining the resistance. This election is different. This one matters like never before in history, considering how so many of us underestimated just how much damage a single president's gnarled, hateful administration could unleash upon the world in a single term.
This is the new rallying cry. If you care at all about the soul of this country, if you care at all about women's rights and gay rights and true spiritual freedom and the environment and our international standing, if you care at all about actually reducing the anti-U.S. hatred in the world, as opposed to amplifying it a thousandfold, then oh my god yes, this election matters.
This, then, is how you know it's time for a serious change. When you can feel it in your bones, when you finally attune and really listen to the underlying messages and dig deep into your own spirit and discover that no, this isn't the way the world is supposed to work. This is not the way the country has to be.
This is not the way the world's greatest superpower is supposed to behave, this bitter metallic taste that leaps into my mouth whenever I see a picture of BushCo isn't really supposed to be there, the vice president isn't supposed to make children cry and flowers wilt and the gods recoil in disgust.
And the president isn't supposed to mangle the language and induce multiple wars and invite international derision and make so many millions of us ashamed to be Americans. It's time for a serious change. This is how you know.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Bush "seeks new ways to harm US"
From my brother, web surfer extraordinaire (and master of Fingertips).
Bush 'seeks new ways to harm US'
From correspondents in Washington
06aug04
US President George W. Bush offered up a new entry for his catalogue of "Bushisms" today, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people".
Mr Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $US417 billion ($593 billion) defence spending bill.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Mr Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
No-one in Mr Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)