First Do No Harm: Jane Hamsher On Fox And Friends

Posted by on December 22, 2009 at 12:07 pm. 26 Comments :

Color me disappointed. Jane Hamsher is a first-rate blogger/analyst and an admirable advocate for progressive causes. Her web site, FireDogLake, is a must read. That is why what took place this morning on Fox News is all the more disturbing.

Steve DoocyIn a segment titled “First Do No Harm,” Jane engaged in an interview on her opposition to the Senate health care bill. It’s bad enough that Jane would appear on any program on Fox, but her decision to submit herself to Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends is just baffling. Doocy is the poster child for ignorant disinformers of the world. He makes Sean Hannity look like a Rhodes Scholar. For Jane to be subject to an interview by this evolutionary throwback to cave-dwellers is unconscionable.

For the record, I happen to think this bill should pass. Mainly because I am pessimistic that we can get anything better on this go-round. I think there are too many people in Congress who are compromised by their association with Big Pharma and that the process is dreadfully dysfunctional. The best political approach appears to me to be an incremental one. That said, I completely agree with Jane’s criticisms of the bill, and I respect her opinion.

Hamsher: People on the right, people on the left are looking at the Senate and they’re saying, “Nobody’s there representing us.” Nobody’s representing the people. It’s just a matter of who’s in power and who’s taking Pharma’s money.

Exactly. Jane and I have the same goals for health care reform. We just differ on whether to scrap this bill and start over, or pass it and push for more later. But she ought not to have sunk this low. Is she really this desperate for a platform? It doesn’t help her cause in the least to fraternize with the goons at Fox. They have just one agenda: Destroy Democrats and progressive reform. And there was a time when Jane recognized that (h/t pontificator):

Hamsher: Fox is not a news outlet, it’s an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this.

Exactly. What happened Jane? The only purpose served by appearing on Fox is to validate them as a legitimate news enterprise. It permits them to persist in their dishonest claim to being “fair and balanced.” It lends credibility to a network that has not earned any on its own. And there is no benefit to promoting a progressive point of view on Fox, even if well stated, because their audience is not just unreceptive to it, they are overtly hostile.

What’s more, Fox will aggressively exploit your appearance to their advantage. They will either make you look stupid or portray you as supporting their agenda. In this case, Fox is using Jane to bash the health care bill. They are positioning her as another reason to defeat the evil, socialist Democrats in Congress. Fox looks upon this as, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Fox is opposed to the health care bill. Since Jane is also opposed to the bill, in its current form, let’s have her on to beat up the people on her own side. It’s a win/win for Fox. Bash the bill and Democrats in general too. And Fox will replay slanted excerpts of this interview over and over for the rest of the week. Jane ought not to empower that sort of cynical exploitation.

Doocy began the segment by shamelessly exploiting Jane’s past experience as a breast cancer survivor. This is a typical ploy by Fox to tug at heart strings and to imply that this gives her opinion more weight. Jane’s contribution to the debate lies in her analytical ability and insight, not her medical history. But Fox doesn’t care about Jane, her health, or her position of the issues. They only care about disparaging their perceived enemies. At the close of the segment Doocy announced that…

Doocy: If you would like to sign her petition to try to kill the Senate bill, go to our web site at FoxandFriends.com

So Jane didn’t even get the benefit of a plug for her site (although it did appear on screen). Fox used the whole piece to promote themselves and drive traffic to their own site. Any Fox viewer who happens to click through to Jane’s petition will see a list of reasons to oppose the bill with which Fox viewers will fiercely disagree.
Starve the BeastFox conservatives oppose the bill for completely different reasons than Jane and other progressives do. Consequently, they would never sign her petition. Once again, Jane has achieved nothing of benefit by appearing on Fox.

There is some irony in the title of Jane’s segment on Fox: First Do No Harm. She should take that advice and stay the HELL off of Fox News! Such appearances only do harm to Democrats and progressive reform.

For a complete analysis of why it is pointless, and even harmful, to appear on Fox News, see my Starve The Beast series.

Update: Jane responded to criticism of her Fox gig on her own web site addressing the content of her remarks, saying…

“I stand by that message, and I think it’s important for both people on the left and people on the right to hear.”

The thing is, I have no problem with her message. My problem is with the platform she chose to dispense it. I still admire Jane and her commitment to changing this country for the better, but appearing on Fox does not serve that end. And for the record, I have also criticized others who appeared on Fox, including Obama:

Obama Capitulates To Fox News Barack Obama Falls Into Fox News Sunday Trap
Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Dick Cheney: Human Events’ Conservative Of The Year.

Posted by on December 21, 2009 at 7:20 pm. 2 Comments :

Award season is in full swing, and the latest recipient of a year-end tribute is former Vice-President Dick Cheney. Human Events magazine has named Cheney “Conservative of the Year.”

Dick Cheney - The End Is Near

To be sure, this commendation lacks stature. After all, last year’s winner was Sarah Palin. Chosen to pen Palin’s accolades was the professional conservative controversialist, Ann Coulter. In her attempt to praise Palin, Coulter wrote such back-handed compliments as…

[1] Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? [2] Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. [3] Perhaps Palin’s year is 2012, but I would recommend that she take a little more time to become older and wiser.

Pretty much the only positive thing Coulter could find to say about Palin was that she was a “genius at annoying all the right people.” While annoying people is a subject that Coulter has some familiarity with, it still begs the question, with friends like Coulter, who needs enemas?

Cheney fared little better with regard to the selection of his advocate. The honor of fluffing Cheney fell to former United Nations Ambassador, John Bolton. Bolton begins his plaudits by enumerating a list of things Cheney is NOT doing:

He is not running for President or any other office. He has not formed a PAC or a D.C. lobbying firm. He is not dishing on former colleagues, not spreading gossip, not settling scores.

Those, however, all sound like things that last year’s honoree, Palin, IS doing, and about which Bolton apparently disapproves. It’s rather telling that Human Events had to settle for someone they admit is so completely out of the political limelight. It speaks to the absence of credible leaders warming up in the conservative bullpen. The rest of the article makes a case very similar to the one Coulter made for Palin. It is basically an argument that Cheney was an effective thorn in the new administration’s side. To conservatives, that is what constitutes qualification for a prestigious award. Not setting policy, or advancing ideas, or accumulating support, but by being a nuisance. Bolton does end on a positive note by summing up Cheney’s attributes as a loyal public servant, saying he is…

“…a very experienced, very dedicated patriot, giving his fellow citizens his best analysis on how to keep them and their country safe.”

I’m not so sure that having Cheney’s “best analysis” is particularly comforting. I mean, this is the guy under who’s watch the nation suffered its worst act of terrorism ever. It’s the guy who led America into an unnecessary war justified by lies. And it’s the guy who has consistently been the herald of doom and worse, a virtual advance man for Al Qaeda. By repeatedly proclaiming his view that our country is less safe under President Obama, and therefore more vulnerable, Cheney and his cohorts are effectively inviting another terrorist attack. How does announcing to our enemies that he believes our nation is becoming weaker make us safer? Does he even care? Or is he just pasting a big bull’s eye on America and hoping for an “I told you so” moment?

In any case, I give you Richard Bruce Cheney – Human Events’ Conservative of the Year. I suppose it’s the best they could do.


Glenn Beck: 2009 Misinformer Of The Year

Posted by on December 21, 2009 at 1:19 pm. 4 Comments :

On the heels of the announcement that Sarah Palin had edged out Glenn Beck for “Lie of the Year,” Beck has bounced back to nab the Media Matters honor of 2009 Misinformer of the Year.

This award caps a year of distinguished prevarication by an acknowledged master of the art. Beck has broken records for dishonesty with creative use of insinuation, hyperbole, conspiracy, insults, exaggeration, and paranoia induced hallucination.

Congratulations Glenn. You earned it.


Sarah Palin Wins ‘Lie Of The Year’ Award

Posted by on December 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm. 5 Comments :

Congratulations are in order for Sarah Palin. PolitiFact has bestowed upon her the great honor of being the author of the “Lie Of The Year.” Granted, she was competing vigorously for the award by submitting the most entries for consideration. It was inevitable that one of her numerous and extravagant deceits would capture this venerated commendation.

The falsehood specifically singled out for this acclaim was Palin’s classic confounding of an otherwise non-controversial component of the health care bill that permitted reimbursement for end-of-life counseling. These were simply discussions with your doctor on what measures you would want taken in the event you were gravely ill and unable articulate your desires. But Palin turned these prudent consultations into “Death Panels.”

Palin: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Yes indeed. That would be downright evil – if it existed. And for inventing this dastardly conspiracy out of thin air, Palin has earned the distinction of having spewed the year’s biggest whopper. She had to beat some formidable competition including Glenn Beck and the inimitable Orly Taitz. But Sarah came through.

For sheer volume, however, I still think Glenn Beck is the unparalleled champion. PolitiFact doesn’t seem to have this as a category, but if they did Beck would have to be the odds on favorite. Here is just a sampling of his fibbery:

  • Obama is creating a Nazi-like civilian force.
  • Van Jones is a convicted felon.
  • ACORN is receiving billions of dollars.
  • Eco-terrorists bombed radio tower in Washington.
  • 1.7 million Tea Baggers at 9/12 rally.
  • UAW workers earn average $154.00 per hour.
  • Carbon dioxide not a dangerous pollutant.
  • Anita Dunn worships Mao.
  • Obama threatened to close Nebraska military base.

Perhaps PolitiFact will create a Lifetime Liars Achievement Award. They could call it the Becky.


The Tea Party Delusion

Posted by on December 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm. 2 Comments :

Much has been made this past week about a poll (pdf) by NBC and the Wall Street Journal. It seems that virtually every newsroom in America saw fit to report the astonishing results that showed that the Tea Party movement was viewed more favorably than either the Democrats or Republicans. The poll said that the notorious Town Howlers were viewed favorably by 41% of poll respondents, compared to 35% for Democrats and 28% for Republicans.

First of all, it needs to be noted that establishment politicians are currently about as popular as Rush Limbaugh at a nudist colony (I apologize for the mental image that may have generated). I would venture to say that a Swine Flu Party would be better received than today’s Democrats or Republicans. So Tea Baggers haven’t really got much to be proud of in this respect.

What’s more, in case the press hasn’t noticed, there is no such thing as the Tea Party. It has no candidates or policies to compare with any other party. So the pretense of the comparison is dubious at best.

But the biggest cognitive disconnect in this story is that none of the press accounts that I saw bothered to report the results of another question in the same poll:

14a. How much do you know about the Tea Party movement-do you know a great deal about this, a fair amount, just some, very little, or nothing at all?
  Know a great deal: 7
  Know a fair amount: 22
  Know just some: 23
  Know very little: 25
  Know nothing at all: 23

So 48% of respondents know very little or nothing at all about the Tea Baggers. Boy, they must really be a powerful force in America. I think it’s a lot easier to register positive poll results if half the country hasn’t even heard of you. And this fact was ignored by most of the media as they clamored to position Tea Bagging as a surging movement.

The fact that the Tea Baggers have failed to create a significant presence despite being bankrolled by some of the biggest and wealthiest AstroTurf lobbying organizations in the country (i.e. FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity), and having the promotional backing of Fox News, illustrates just how unappealing most Americans regard that brand of disruptive griping.

This is typical of how the press distorts trends. They make an observation from a narrowly defined (and usually conservative) vantage point and then extrapolate that to the broadest scope of interpretation. For instance, take a look at how Glenn Beck is viewed within the prism of the conventional media. He is profiled in the mainstream press as a phenomenon who has taken the nation by storm. He is said to command an army of followers and an explosively expanding multimedia empire.

But the truth is he has a program on Fox News that is viewed by about three million people. That’s fewer viewers than SpongeBob SquarePants and less than one percent of the population. Fox News itself is a big fish in a small media puddle with an average daily audience of about 1.3 million viewers. And more to the point as regards Beck’s popularity, or lack thereof, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (pdf) conducted in September revealed that 42% of respondents didn’t even know who he was.

There may be a level of intensity that is driving interest in the rightist agenda, but it is strictly confined to the squeakiest of wheels. That intensity corresponds to the fervor currently on display in Republican circles that now show a significantly higher intention to participate in the coming elections. While this may be a red flag for democrats, it is also a natural pattern for a party that swept into power in the past couple of years and is now experiencing a season of self-examination. There are bound to be disappointments in the interplay of politics. Still, taking all of the data into account, it is fair to conclude that the characterization of a right-wing ascension is an illusion, or more accurately, a delusion of the media. Reports that Beck or Fox News or the Tea Party are assuming greater sway over the public are not borne out by the facts.

In short, when 40 to 50 percent of the public cannot even recognize you or your movement, you are not much of a player. It would be nice if the media would report that.


Avatar: Another Hollywood Plot To Destroy America?

Posted by on December 18, 2009 at 3:04 am. 15 Comments :

Obamar: Obama as AvatarThe blockbuster, mega-million dollar, groundbreaking, techo-marvel, spectacle, Avatar is opening tonight. Thank goodness it hasn’t been over-hyped. Nevertheless, there is still a fair amount of anticipation for this cinematic tale of a person of color from another country…er…world.

With regard to the film itself, don’t expect to find me in line for an early screening. In fact, don’t look for me on February’s lines either. Suffice it to say that I don’t plan on rushing out to see this flick. There are two reasons in particular that sap any motivation for me to sit through this two and a half hour plus epic.

First, I’m terminally bored with special effects. Particularly when I am advised beforehand that they will change filmmaking, or my life or, or the rotation of the earth, forever. That’s a promise that has never been kept. I’ve seen enough special effects that I am now fully cognizant that anything that can be imagined can be committed to film. It comes as no surprise that digital artists (of which I am one) can produce wonders both realistic and fantastic. Consequently, to stoke my interest in a movie, I prefer to be moved by storytelling, character development, and the sort of drama or comedy or suspense that registers on an emotional level. To be sure, that can occur in a film that contains special effects, but the effects should compliment the storytelling, not supplant it. I really am not impressed by another realistic looking robot or alien or landscape.

Second, I hated Titanic. To be precise, it was something more than hate. I regard it as one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. The acting, the effects, the script (oh lord), the naked schmaltz – there wasn’t a single thing I can recall that was redeeming about it. And in its time it was the mega-million dollar epic that was going to change everything.

Enough already. You know you have reached a new low when a fawning analysis in the iconic Hollywood Reporter relates this overheard bit of artistic defeatism:

So obviously has the creative bar been raised that I heard one young writer-director at the premiere say to his friends, “What do we do now?”

I would suggest that that young writer-director look for work selling insurance. If watching one movie exhausts his capacity to express himself creatively, he doesn’t have a calling for creative pursuits. He can save us all a lot of money and himself a lot of heartache by quitting now.

However, there is a fun element of the hype machine churning around this marketing extravaganza. Right-wingers have latched onto the notion that the movie is a slap at America and its imperialistic ways. They are hammering director James Cameron as an America-hating leftist. I assume they would like to see this nearly half billion dollar monstrosity suffer a massive box office failure, just as they would like to see President Obama fail. And so far as Avatar is concerned, I eagerly support their desire. After all, Avatar is a production from Rupert Murdoch’s Fox studios and watching Murdoch lose money is always fun.

Here is a collection of some the rightist reviews of Avatar:

BigHollywood: Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy
…a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional characters and PC clichés that not a single plot turn – small or large – surprises. I call it the “liberal tell,” where the early and obvious politics of the film gives away the entire story before the second act begins, and “Avatar” might be the sorriest example of this yet.

Hot Air: “Avatar” reportedly super mega ultra left-wing
Given the framework of the plot and the obvious allegorical intent – military invades planet to secure valuable commodity in the soil – what other way could this flick have conceivably tilted?

Debbie Schlussel: Don’t Believe the Hype: “Avatar” Stinks (Long, Boring, Unoriginal, Uber-Left)
It’s essentially a remake of “Dances With Wolves” and every other movie where we evil Americans terrorize the indigenous natives, kill them, take their land, and are just all around imperialistically wicked and inhumane. Oh, and we’re destroying the environment, clearing precious giant trees and natural landscapes and killing rare animals and their habitats, in order to invade and harvest valuable substances under the ground. Sound familiar? Yup, just like a million diatribes from Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and every other far-left outlet about how we invaded Iraq for oil. Yes, “Avatar” is cinema for the hate America crowd.

Newsbusters: Is ‘Avatar’ A Multi-Million Dollar Ad For Global Warming?
With the imminent release of the science fiction blockbuster “Avatar,” some have characterized it as a multi-million dollar public service announcment for global warming.

Telegraph UK: Is Avatar an attack on the Iraq War?
The US public is frankly tired of the anti-war rhetoric of the Left, which has sounded increasingly hollow since the success of the surge in Iraq. James Cameron should leave the political commentary out as he promotes his new film, and acknowledge that the Iraqi people are immensely better off now than they were living under the boot of Saddam Hussein.

RedState: “Avatar” Is a Steaming Pile of Sith
In case you don’t get the analogy, we (the humans) are the Bad Guys who are going to attack the “Tower” that the Noble Savages hold dear. In other words, humans are attacking the environment with technology, and it’s analogous to 9/11. Americanism is terrorism, in other words. […] No one should be surprised that Hollywood liberals hate America and Western Civilization.

After all that I’m beginning to get more interested. I may yet decide to see Avatar if enough reviews like those keep coming out. Or if enough people I respect have good things to say about it. I haven’t seen a review of the film from Fox News. I wonder if that’s because they hated it and are hesitant to publish that, or because they loved it but don’t want to promote a treasonous piece of Marxist propaganda.

But I’m still waiting for the preeminent curator of culture to weigh in. After Glenn Beck’s revelations about the secret socialist art that is hidden in plain sight throughout Manhattan, I couldn’t really draw a conclusion on this without his insight. I’m sure he will find demonic horrors in the film that even Cameron didn’t know were there. And only Beck can decipher the coded signals to ACORN operatives and radical environmentalists that are surely cloaked in between the frames.

Sleep with one eye open, children. The lefties are now invading your thoughts in 3D.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Is Glenn Beck Guilty Of Treason?

Posted by on December 17, 2009 at 5:37 pm. 9 Comments :

Rupert Murdoch’s pet paranoidal pea-brain, Glenn Beck, has been a persistent purveyor of fear for years. He has predicted the most dire catastrophes for America, its economy, its values, and its people. The stench of doom that surrounds him is debilitating even in small doses.

On his program yesterday, Beck leveled an accusation that President Obama, or someone on his staff, had threatened Sen. Ben Nelson with the closing of a military base in Benson’s state, Nebraska. The only evidence of such a threat was a posting by a former McCain spokesman with an anonymous source on the conservative Weekly Standard web site. But Beck has blown this unreliable, unverified, rumor up into a serious allegation that crossed over into territory into which even he can’t believe he is going:

“The Obama administration is possibly – and I can’t bring myself to say these words because it is abhorrent if it is true but it sure fits the pattern. They’re playing politics with the national security of the United States.”

Despite insisting that he couldn’t say the abhorrent words, he managed to summon up the resolve to say them in the very next sentence. And with those words he came within a hair’s breadth of declaring President Obama a traitor – several times.

“There’s a story at the bottom of the hour that if it is true, and we have three sources on it now, if it is true. I mean how much closer do you get to treason?“

“But his party reportedly very angry and allegedly making threats. This one borders treason, I believe.”

“Threatening to weaken our national security defenses to fulfill your Utopian social justice agenda. To me that borders on treason.“

Beck has a lot of nerve accusing other people of treason. There are numerous examples of him making statements that are hard to interpret as anything less than treasonous. He agreed with his guest Michael Scheuer, that…

“… the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”

And he declared his own enmity of America in a discussion that speculated about civil war:

“And don’t get me wrong. I am against the government, and I think that they have just been horrible, and I do think they are betraying the principles of our founders every day they’re in office.”

During yesterday’s program, Beck dispensed his usual legal disclaimer that he may not have all the information necessary to draw a conclusion. He conceded that all parties involved, the White House and Sen. Nelson, have denied the allegation, which they did emphatically. Yet, just as he did with his floating of the FEMA prison camp nonsense, Beck went just far enough to introduce the heinous charges, then allowed them to simmer while his conspiracy-addled audience sucked in the fumes of malicious hearsay. But even that wasn’t enough as Beck explicitly characterized these rumors as fact:

“It doesn’t matter if it’s credible or not that they could do it. The fact that they threatened it – it is our national security.”

The truth is that the whole scenario is not credible and they couldn’t do it. The procedure for base closings takes years and was designed specifically to disallow political influence. Both the White House and Sen. Nelson would be aware of this. Therefore, the only purpose for advancing a vile and improbable lie like this one is to slander the President. Beck is deliberately seeking to cast the nation’s leader as a traitor, which could lead to removing him from office and imprisoning or even executing him. And since these charges are wholly unsupported, Beck’s intentions would be tantamount to assassination. This, if true, would make Beck a traitor. Is Glenn Beck guilty of treason? Well, to paraphrase him…

“No one wants to believe that the president of the United States host of a TV program or any of his advisors would stoop to these kinds of tactics. But what are we supposed to believe here?”

Exactly! What are we supposed to believe? I’m not accusing Beck of anything. I’m just asking questions. Beck knows that he can reach me here at this web site to respond to or correct any misinformation. To date he has not done so. That leads me to conclude that all of this is true. Why else wouldn’t he contact me?


Wall Street Journal: Newsrooms Don’t Need More Conservatives

Posted by on December 16, 2009 at 1:53 pm. 4 Comments :

A few weeks ago the Washington Post’s ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, published a notably misguided article in response to criticism that the Post had missed the ACORN story and other right-wing claptrap. In a fit of hysterical myopia, Alexander caved into the carping saying that…

“…traditional news outlets like The Post simply don’t pay sufficient attention to conservative media or viewpoints. “

Never mind that the ACORN story was manufactured by partisan activists engaged in political combat. And forget that the substance of the story was unverified at the time, and more recently thoroughly debunked (pdf). And set aside that even if it were true it was a trivial side issue that affected only a few maladroit volunteers and in no way reflected the views of ACORN’s management or 400,000 members. Nevertheless, Alexander concurred with critics that there was a story there that the paper had missed and that deserved equal billing to real news events like war, health care, and the economy.

All of this makes it all the more remarkable that the voice of reason on this matter has just appeared in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Thomas Frank’s column today begins with a title that pretty much says it all: “Newsrooms Don’t Need More Conservatives.” The exceedingly reasonable premise is that newsrooms are advantaged by more objectivity, not more partiality. Frank says…

“Craziest of all, though, is the prospect of the Post ditching its decades-long pursuit of the grail of objectivity . . . because it got scooped on the Acorn story. If that is all it takes to reduce the Washington Post’s vaunted editorial philosophy to ashes, what is the newspaper industry planning to do to atone for its far more consequential failures?

“Remember, this disastrous decade saw two of them: First, the news media’s failure to look critically at the Bush administration’s rationale for the Iraq War; and then, the business press’s failure to understand the depth of the subprime mortgage problem and to anticipate its massive consequences.”

Frank correctly points out that having more Republicans on the Post’s payroll would not have produced better reporting for either of the stories he cited. In fact, it would have made things demonstrably worse. Does anyone seriously believe that more conservative journalists would have challenged either President Bush or the Wall Street establishment in a way that would have enhanced the reporting or better informed readers of the impending disasters? Only the most diehard, rightist zealot could answer that in the affirmative. Frank’s answer is condensed in a profound and troubling closing paragraph:

“What the Post seems to be after is [a] form of journalism that offends nobody, that comes crawling to the powerful, that mirrors the partisan breakdown of the population as a whole. If that’s the future of journalism, we can be certain that ever more catastrophic failures await.”

Well said. And he could have added that following Alexander’s advice to pay more attention to conservative media would only result in diverting scarce resources from more pressing priorities and missing even more stories of true significance. Now we just need to get the Post to heed these words. And Mr. Frank may also want to send a copy to his employers at the Journal and his corporate cousins at Fox News.


Rupert Murdoch Sends Holiday Greeting, Doesn’t Mention Christmas

Posted by on December 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm. 2 Comments :

Last week a featured Fox Nation story was posted with the following image that made the point that the Obama’s failed to mention Christmas on their holiday cards (just as the Bush’s failed to do).

I wonder if the Fox Nationalists will now post a headline story about their boss, Rupert Murdoch. Here is how he addressed his “holiday” message that went out this morning:

Subject: A note to all staff: Mr. Murdoch’s Holiday Greetings 2009

The entirety of the message made no reference to Christmas whatsoever. Isn’t this an affront to God fearing Christian Americans who demand that all greetings of the season explicitly reference their savior with no other recognition of the pagan non-believers? Isn’t this more evidence of the suppression of the Christian values that our country was based on?

I can’t wait to see how Bill O’Reilly will cover this insult to “the folks.” And I’m certain that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck will also speak up for the oppressed faithful. Right-wing blogs are sure to go wild over yet another example of political correctness from an elitist media baron. Ya think? How can Murdoch so cavalierly abandon the values of traditional Americans? While he may have chosen to excise Christmas from his message, he did say this:

“Together we informed and entertained, but more importantly, enriched the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the globe. We continued to pursue our goal of being the world’s best producer of media content, spreading the message of freedom we all believe in. Across all our businesses we advanced our digital initiatives, while holding true to our values and commitment to change for the better, including our support for clean energy and the environment.“

Where does Murdoch get off talking about a message that “we all believe in,” or claiming to be “holding true to our values,” when he has blatantly betrayed those beliefs and values? And what is this business of support for the environment? Sure, there is a web page on the News Corp. site that professes to be concerned about the state of the environment, but virtually every one of his writers and television presenters relentlessly disparage efforts to protect the environment, even calling them hoaxes, harmful, and socialistic.

All of this makes Murdoch’s holiday greeting a farce that shows nothing but contempt for the Christian supremacy that Fox News and America stand for. And now is the time to let him know that his offense will not be tolerated. All good Christians are now called upon to boycott Murdoch’s media empire, starting with Fox News. Good luck brothers. We can stop this sacrilege and restore America to the theocratic utopia it was intended to be.


Glenn Beck Has Gone Full Blown Televangelist

Posted by on December 15, 2009 at 3:38 am. NO Comments :

Glenn Beck - Obama-pocalypseOn today’s program, Glenn Beck pulled aside the veil to reveal his true face. It is a face whose features were familiar from a long beheld visible silhouette. But now it was nakedly transparent. He has finally assumed his place as the broadcast bishop, the cable cleric, the television vicar. Rev. Glenn’s sermon today commenced with a scripture from the holy Fathers of the Founding:

“The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”
– Thomas Jefferson

This verse laid the foundation for a series of lessons that placed a new focus on the American theocracy. And the first lesson was a reaffirmation of the importance of God to real Americans, and God’s insignificance to those evil progressives.

Beck: Progressives had to get rid of God […] Who is the government to tell us what to do? It’s our power. Wrong again! It is not our power. It is God. Our founders knew it comes from God to us and we give it to the government […] The earth is bigger than you. And the government is just protecting the earth. It all comes down to this: The climate cult is teaching your children that the earth is God.

To illustrate the transformational power of the presence of the Lord in a modern world dominated by the worship of science, Rev. Glenn recited the parable of Galileo, a renaissance astronomer who paid a dear price for his commitment to knowledge.

Beck: Galileo – The man who fought against the power structure of his own time to enlighten mankind that the earth wasn’t flat and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system. It was those who held power that tried to shut him down. Just as those who are in power now try to shut up all who disagree now. Galileo is in the tower again.

Some may find irony in Rev. Beck referencing Galileo to analogize what is occurring today with regard to climate change. After all, it was not just any power structure that oppressed Galileo, it was the church. It was an ecumenical establishment that feared the impact of Galileo’s findings, which just happened to be contrary to church doctrine. So the church harassed and imprisoned this seeker of truth unto his death.

Now Rev. Beck is making an argument that is ostensibly in support of science, even though his position on climate change is diametrically opposed to the vast majority of scientists. And he is simultaneously advocating returning authority over our nation to God – you know, the supreme master of the power structure that oppressed Galileo. Beck asserts that it is the minority of faith-based and industry-aligned researchers who are the Galileos of today, and that by accepting their unsupported conclusions and submitting to the will of God we are somehow honoring the memory of Galileo.

But Galileo was a lone advocate of an unpopular and dangerous opinion. He was a man of science fighting a powerful theocratic establishment that wanted to suppress any knowledge that interfered with doctrinal teachings. Rev. Beck, on the other hand, is a science denier who would squelch men like Galileo and wants to impose the same sort of theocracy that persecuted him.

It’s takes real courage to advance a position that is so brazenly contradictory and lacking in logical reasoning. But we are talking about the great Rev. Beck. How many other alleged scholars can castigate adherents to global warming theory as “climate cultists” while the logo for their network is spinning in the corner with a new green hue commemorating the Climate Conference in Copenhagen?

Does Rev. Beck know that Pope Rupert has directed his corporate empire to pursue green policies and is “committed to addressing its impact on climate change?” Murdoch has even expressed his view that News Corp has an obligation to educate and engage their readers and viewers on the matter:

Murdoch: Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just 5 percent. That would be like turning the State of California off for almost a year.”

Does Pope Rupert know that his cardinals are undermining his directives? Does he know that, contrary to educating the public, they are willfully misinforming them? Does he know that in addition to Rev. Beck, that Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, the cast of Fox & Friends, and others in his broadcast and publishing world, are all subverting the message he has laid down as company policy? It seems unlikely that he wouldn’t know what is being promulgated on his network and in his papers. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the policy is just phony window dressing designed to mislead the public and is meant to be ignored. It is not unlike much of the scripture that is ignored by wealthy, free market, money changers who pretend to be pious, but who are only interested in their own comfort and self-aggrandizement.

And it is for that reason that Rev. Beck exists – to satisfy the spiritual lust of greedy, egomaniacs and the pathetic disciples they deceive. He is their path to salvation and their justification for living lives devoted to materialism and selfishness. Can I get an amen?