Donald Trump’s Presidential Apprentice Primer

Donald Trump

Pretend billionaire and megalomaniac, Donald Trump is making the media rounds to prop up his Apprentice spin-off program: The Republican Presidential Primary Debate, or Presidential Apprentice. The announcement last week of this momentous event has been met with near universal yawns. Already two candidates (Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul) have declined the invitation. The only candidate who has accepted to date is Newt Gingrich.

True to his character, Trump attacked Huntsman (who is in third place in New Hampshire polling) and Paul (who is in third place in Iowa polling) as joke candidates. If they were truly joke candidates, however, they would be headlining Trump’s circus. As it stands, only Gingrich is set to appear. That is most likely because the new front-runner is broke, has no staff, and desperately needs the free media that any public appearance provides.

Republican elders are dismissing Trump’s affair. George Will said that the candidates should be presidential and say that “we’re not going to be hijacked and participate in this.” Karl Rove said that it’s absurd for any candidate to participate in a debate moderated by someone who is planning to make an endorsement and has hinted at running as an Independent. He further noted that “It’s gonna be a giant ego trip.”

Should anyone else decide to join Trump and Gingrich, they should be prepared for what they might encounter in a Trump-moderated debate. So I have compiled some of the subjects that Trump has championed in order that the candidates can familiarize themselves with his platform. Studying these areas of interest will give the debaters a leg up on their campaign for Trump’s affection:

1) Obama’s Citizenship: This is without a doubt the cornerstone of Trump’s political agenda. He talks about it at every appearance – including this morning on MSNBC, where he told Chuck Todd that he is still interested in this even if others are not. He has yet to reveal the findings of the security team he sent to Hawaii to investigate the matter.

2) Obama’s Religion: Despite the fact that the President has repeatedly affirmed his devout Christianity, Trump suspects that he is secretly a Muslim and the proof may be on his birth certificate. Never mind that any religious designation on a birth certificate would be irrelevant. Obviously the baby Barack did not select his faith, but the adult has been clear and consistent.

3) Obama’s Authorship: Trump has embraced the WorldNetDaily crackpots who believe that Bill Ayers was the ghostwriter of Obama’s autobiography “Dreams From My Father.” The evidence of this fraud is the observation that both used certain phrases like going “against the current.” Well, that settles that. Trump also believes that Obama was born Barry Soetoro and later changed his name, despite the fact that his step-father Lolo Soetoro didn’t marry Obama’s mother until he was four years old.

4) Obama’s Academics: Trump is fond of questioning Obama’s academic credentials, insisting that he was too stupid to get into Harvard. He says he is investigating this (are they the same investigators he sent to Hawaii?). Of course it is documented that Obama had graduated from Columbia before getting a scholarship to Harvard where he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude.

5) Foreign Policy: Trump has advocated declaring a trade war with China. He also proposed addressing the deficit by stealing the oil from Libya and Iraq. This is the sort of bravado that Trump likes to display with his own business enterprises, which have resulted in four bankruptcies. In addition he has expressed support for an actual shooting war with both Iran and North Korea. However, with international relations between sovereign nations with standing armies, he may produce even worse outcomes than he has with his failing hotels and casinos.

6) Economic Policy: While he doesn’t have a 999 plan, Trump has proposed a tax increase that might inflame the sensitivities of Grover Norquist and the Tea Party:

“I would impose a one-time, 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million. For individuals, net worth would be calculated minus the value of their principal residence. That would raise $5.7 trillion in new revenue, which we would use to pay off the entire national debt. […] Some will say that my plan is unfair to the extremely wealthy. I say it is only reasonable to shift the burden to those most able to pay. The wealthy actually would not suffer severe repercussions.”

That actually sounds pretty good. Too bad he has disavowed that plan that appeared in his book, and now thinks he can appropriate billions of dollars from other countries to pay down our debt (he doesn’t say how).

This primer for the Trump debate should prepare the candidates to deal with the peculiar lunacy of the Trump vision for America. It would certainly be enlightening for voters to get a clearer perspective on these important matters.

However, there is a significant obstacle that might prevent this illuminating discourse from proceeding. It is highly probable that no one will show up but Gingrich. There really doesn’t seem to be much incentive to participate in a debate between Christmas and New Year’s Day that is hosted by charlatan whom polls show would harm the candidacies of anyone that he endorsed. With only three weeks to confirm, we’ll know pretty soon if there are others in the race who are as desperate as Newt. In a pinch Trump could always call Meatloaf or LaToya Jackson and see if they would be willing to sign on again.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Frank Luntz, The Fox News Word Doctor, Is Scared To Death Of #Occupy Wall Street

Frank Luntz has been helping to distort the language of Republicans for decades. His specialty is developing dishonest phrases to replace accurate descriptions of social and political issues when the accurate descriptions produce negative impressions of conservatives and their unpopular agenda. And now…..

Frank Luntz Is Scared

Luntz created the term “death tax” as a substitute for “estate tax,” reasoning that it would be easier to steer low-information voters away from a tax on dying than a tax on people who own estates. He also supplied the term “government-run” to replace “public option” during the health care debate after determining that focus groups responded less favorably to the label that implied falsely that government would get between you and your doctor.

It is common to observe Luntz’s fabrications getting adopted by conservative politicians and media. He is a frequent presence on Fox News and has been cited as their main source for right-leaning rhetoric. He serves the same purpose for political clients, and in that role he just spoke at the Republican Governors Association to deliver an ominous warning:

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death. They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

Luntz is right to be afraid. The Occupy movement has taken hold of the American Dream and reminded citizens that they have a right to be heard on important issues that impact their lives. It has revealed that the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of the goals of the Occupiers. It has reasserted the Constitutional and patriotic practice of free speech and the redress of grievances. These are principles that Luntz and his rightist patrons simply cannot abide.

Consequently, Luntz went to work to shape a new batch of linguistic contortions with which to befuddle naive FoxPods. The fruit of his fear is striking evidence of the success of the Occupy movement. Below are the specific suggestions Luntz gave to the GOP governors for what to say, and not to say, when talking about the Occupy movement. Pay attention, because these words and arguments are what will soon be cascading from the mouths of pundits and politicians on Fox News and other ring-wing media:

Out: Capitalism / In: Economic Freedom or Free Market
Luntz has concluded that, while Americans still prefer capitalism to socialism, any mention of it will stir thoughts of the misdeeds of Wall Street and bankers. Indeed, capitalism has suffered a PR setback in recent years and even ranks below progressivism in national polls. In a nod to the effectiveness of the Occupiers, Luntz now believes that to be seen as defending Wall Street is “a problem.” So the GOP can’t even admit that it favors capitalism for fear of losing support.

Out: Tax the Rich / In: Take from the Rich
Every poll shows that the country is in favor of making the wealthy pay their fair share. Even polls of millionaires reveal that they think their own taxes should be higher. So Luntz proposes a tweak in the hopes of producing language that sounds more sympathetic. Remove the “sym” and you have something more like the truth.

Out: Middle-Class / In: Hardworking Taxpayers
The right has obviously lost any appeal to all but the most fortunate in society. Luntz recognizes that there is little to gain by courting the middle-class so he has invented a new term that he believes people can relate to without actually defining it. The problem is that taxpayers that actually do work hard won’t be fooled by this rouse into thinking they are members of the One-Percent whose lives of leisure are supported by GOP policies.

Out: Jobs / In: Careers
This may be the most brazen deceit on the list. Luntz asked his audience of Republican governors whether they wanted a job or a career. After few hands were raised for the former, and many for the latter, Luntz summed up asking, “So why are we talking about jobs?” He should try asking his questions in the parking lot of a Target Store rather than to sitting governors and their staff. He might get a different response and may even learn why so many Americans are talking about jobs.

Out: Government Spending / In: Waste
This is a transparent effort to associate anything having to do with government as wasteful and unnecessary. I assume he means to disparage government spending on things like Social Security, interstate highways, veteran’s benefits, law enforcement, public schools, child services, water, air, and food safety, and national security, which is, by far, the largest chunk of the federal budget. By all means, let’s stop wasting money.

Out: Compromise / In: Cooperate
In today’s Republican party compromise is seen as weakness. Luntz asserts that it amounts to “selling out [your] principles.” He also admits that cooperation means the same thing, but doesn’t have the sting of compromise. The GOP may not have been using Luntz’s phrasing, but they have definitely been acting on the concept. This session of Congress has had more filibusters than any in history as Republicans refuse to compromise. The fact that they are more committed to the failure of this administration than they are to the success of the nation has been apparent to the public, which is why Luntz and the GOP have to resort to this sort of word play.

Out: Umm… / In: I get It
Here Luntz is just offering his version of a patronizing statement to mollify an angry electorate. Luntz told his audience of governors, “Here are three words for you all: ‘I get it.’ I get that you’re angry. I get that you’ve seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system.” Unfortunately for Luntz & Co. the electorate knows that’s a lie. They know that Republicans don’t really get it and neither do they have any solutions.

Out: Entrepreneur / In: Job Creator
I think this must have something to do with sounding too French. Republicans have a long record of pretending to support entrepreneurship, but Luntz must have detected a derogatory connotation that wasn’t there previously. He must also have detected a problem with the word “innovator” because he also advises against its use. However, the GOP has already been using “job creator” as a substitute for “rich,” so they will be forced to find a new label for the one-percent. How about “the One-Percent?”

Out: Sacrifice / In: In This Together
The logic behind this twist is that is that the word “sacrifice” allegedly evokes a negative feeling that is shared by all. The problem with that logic is that the rich have not yet been asked to sacrifice anything. So, in reality, Luntz just wants to excise the word because it only applies to the subset of Americans who are already suffering and to whom the GOP are least likely to appeal. Raising the specter of sacrifice only dredges up harsh feeling amongst the middle-class…I mean hard working Americans…when juxtaposed with the rich…I mean job creators.

Shared Sacrifice

Out: Wall Street / In: Washington
This capsulizes the whole problem for Luntz and the right. He knows that Wall Street is correctly seen as the perpetrator of much of the country’s current ills. He knows that associating with Big Finance will sink the prospects of any politician. And he knows that success for the Upper-Crusters he represents depends on fingering another villain. Ironically, the villains he suggests are the very people and institutions that he represents in DC. If he is going to mount a “blame Washington” campaign it has to include the Republican denizens of the capital who, more than anyone else, handed over control of the economy to the Wall Street hoodlums who promptly shattered it.

With the collapse of the Tea Party, the financial elite are girding for a fight. A recently disclosed memo revealed a scheme to launch a propaganda campaign against the Occupy movement to be funded by $850,000 from the American Bankers Association. The lobbyists behind this effort include former staff members of House Speaker John Boehner. The ties between the Banksters and political power brokers are as strong as ever.

The inescapable truth that emerges from Luntz’s presentation is that the Occupy movement has been a phenomenal success. In a little over two months it has captured the imagination of a weary populace who now see a path to redemption. It has flipped the national conversation from one of a phony debt crisis to one focused squarely on economic inequities and the abuse of corporate power in the political arena. And now it has resulted in one of the most satisfying accomplishments of all: It has Fox News’ Word Doctor, and likely all of his clients and colleagues, scared to death. Hopefully they will be just scared enough to start doing the right thing for the 99% of Americans who have had to wait too long for the restoration of fairness and justice.

[Here is an infographic version of the content of this article suitable for sharing on Facebook, Twitter, etc.]


Newt Gingrich Slams Poor Children – Again

Last week Newt Gingrich floated a ludicrous plan to fire union janitors at schools (putting them on the unemployment rolls and devastating their families) and replacing them with school children. The brilliance of this plan is that, while impoverishing the families of the once gainfully employed janitors, it would simultaneously burden kids with responsibilities that would distract them from their studies. And of course the children of folks in Gingrich’s class would have no such impediments to their education.

Not content with declaring child labor laws “truly stupid,” this week Gingrich compounded his absurdity and insensitivity by insulting the children that he hopes to put to work scrubbing toilets.

“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich claimed.

“They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it is illegal,” he added.

This is the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for president saying that the children of the working poor have only lazy or criminal influences in their lives. Their parents are either bums or crooks.

Obviously Gingrich has never set foot in a poor neighborhood. Had he done so he would have met people who not only show up for work, they do it at multiple jobs. Gingrich has no concept of what it means to struggle to provide for his family. He makes $60,000 to give a half hour speech, yet he maligns poor people as having “no habit of staying all day.” And he spent decades in Congress where they almost never show up on Monday (or Friday either) and take several weeks off every year.

To insinuate that poor families who earn money do so only through illegal activities is not only wrong, it belies a measure of hypocrisy that is monumental. Remember, it was Gingrich who was cast out of Congress in disgrace after having been reprimanded for misusing tax-exempt funds and being fined $300,000. Someone as ethically challenged as Gingrich has no business maligning the integrity of others. Particularly those about whom he has absolutely no knowledge.


New Yorkers Paying $500,000 A Year To Protect Fox News

In another example of the 1% bilking the general public out of money that ought to be used for the public’s benefit, the Daily Beast is reporting that Fox News gets special protection from the New York Police Department courtesy of New York taxpayers.

“[D]own at Rupert’s News Corp. headquarters on Sixth Ave.–which has never been a terrorist or protest target of any significance–the media empire is guarded by a 24-hour-a-day New York Police Department security detail seven days a week, a patrol that one security expert estimated costs the city at least half a million dollars a year. No other news network gets comparable NYPD protection.”

The article goes on to attribute the all-consuming paranoia of Fox CEO Roger Ailes as a possible explanation for the extraordinary security. But the optics of an enterprise owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch billing a cash-strapped metropolis for security they ought to be paying for themselves is an embarrassment and an outrage. At a time when the NYPD is staffed at near record lows, somebody at the department, or in city government, has decided to redeploy officers from serving and protecting the people of New York to babysitting a wealthy corporation that can afford to take care of itself.

Is this really a wise use of scarce law enforcement resources? Does Fox News deserve protection that no other network receives? Is there an unhealthy relationship between Murdoch, the NYPD, and Michael Bloomberg? These are just a few of the questions that need to be asked at the next city council meeting. And while they are at it, somebody ought to ask why Fox News goes berserk over the cost of policing legal protests by Occupy Wall Street while they are draining public funds for no good reason.


Newt Gingrich Admits That Fox News Analysts Don’t Know What They’re Talking About

If there is one thing that Newt Gingrich knows about, it is what Fox News analysts know. He was, after all, a Fox News analyst himself. So it is with direct personal experience that Gingrich reveals that…

“One of the real changes that comes when you start running for president – as opposed to being an analyst on Fox – is I have to actually know what I’m talking about.”

With that succinct comment Gingrich acknowledges that he didn’t know what he was talking about during his many appearances on Fox, and that there was no requirement for such knowledge to be an analyst on Fox. That explains why so much of the analysis on Fox is so wrong so often and why there are so many notably unknowledgeable people on the network.

However, in keeping with his history of ignorance, Gingrich clearly does not know what he is talking about when he says that presidential candidates have to know what they are talking about. Anyone who has seen any of the GOP primary debates know that that isn’t true.


Paranoia Runs Deep: Fox News Fears Sinister White House Renovations

In a never ending effort to scare the bejesus out of their glassy-eyed congregation, Fox New is now speculating that President Obama is building something nefarious under the White House lawn:

Fox Nation

Oh my. What ever could it be? The suggestion that it might be a bunker is obviously a rouse because the White House already has an underground bunker (Dick Cheney famously hid out there after 9/11). Maybe it’s a lab where they are attempting to reanimate Karl Marx. Perhaps they are moving the classified artifacts from Area 51 to Washington. Could it be a secret prison to hold Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann? Just think of the unholy experiments they could conduct on them.

Whatever it is, we should be dreadfully frightened. Obama is, after all, the Anti-Christ plotting to launch an Apocalyptic holocaust. We must ignore the facts that have already been revealed about this mysterious project. We can’t trust facts. As Stephen Colbert has advised us, facts have a well-known liberal bias. It is our patriotic duty to presume that the most outlandish conspiracies are behind everything that emerges from the Obama White House. What else can we do when we have a Muslim from Kenya steering the nation toward communism? Take heed, America.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Nation vs. Reality: On McDonald’s Un-Happy Meals

Last year the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law that would require restaurants serving children’s meals to meet specific nutritional standards if they also contain free toys. The law is an attempt to promote healthier options for kids who are increasingly suffering from obesity and diabetes due to poor diets, often provided by fast food chains like McDonald’s.

The law is set to take effect Thursday, December 1. However, the McDonald’s franchise operators in the city have decided to skirt the law rather than comply with it. That news was met with glee by Fox Nation.

Fox Nation

The first problem with the Fox Nation headline, “McDonald’s Outsmarts San Francisco on Happy Meal Ban,” is that there never was a Happy Meal ban. The Fox Nationalists typically engaged in dishonest hyperbole. All restaurants are permitted under the law to serve the very same children’s fare they have served all along. They merely could not use free toys as enticements to impressionable kids. Studies have proven the harmful effect of advertising and promotional giveaways on children. The Stanford University School of Medicine conducted research that found that “advertising literally brainwashes young children into a baseless preference for certain food products.”

In order to comply with the new law’s criteria, restaurants were asked to reduce the fat, salt and sugar in children’s meals and offer more fruits and vegetables. But rather than do the responsible thing by modifying the content of their so-called Happy Meals, the McDonald’s proprietors chose to make customers pay an extra 10 cents for the toy, thus adhering to the stipulation that the toys not be included for free. That is a demonstration of their commitment to profit over the health and well-being of their customers. They say that the extra ten cents will be used to help build a new Ronald McDonald House to temporarily house families with sick children. And, conveniently, their practices will insure a steady supply of sick children to populate the new facility.

Despite the intransigence of the local SF franchises, the national office of McDonald’s has already announced plans to reduce the portion size of French fries and add apple slices to its children’s meals. This news might cause Fox to withhold their support for McDonald’s. That would be more in line with their past. A couple of years ago McDonald’s launched a web site to serve the African American community. The onslaught of vile, racist comments that ensued from the Fox Nationalists was repulsive in the extreme.

Once again, Fox is on the wrong side of reality, decency, and common sense. They unabashedly lie to their audience while championing corporate disrespect for the public. It is just this sort of ill behavior that has caused me to ask: What’s the difference between Fox News and McDonald’s? One sells cheap crap with lots of filler & seasoning to masses with no taste. The other is a fast food restaurant.


Chris Christie Rebuts His Hallucination Of Obama

A new video soundbite has been making the rounds of conservative media, particularly Fox News. The video presents the GOP’s favorite non-candidate, Chris Christie, in a pitched ideological battle with his own imagination.

In this video Christie says…

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for? It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

Where did Christie get the idea that President Obama knew the Super Committee was “doomed for failure?” It isn’t something the President said. In fact, when he signed the legislation Congress sent him on deficit reduction Obama said…

“Congress has now approved a compromise to reduce the deficit and avert a default that would have devastated our economy. It was a long and contentious debate. And I want to thank the American people for keeping up the pressure on their elected officials to put politics aside and work together for the good of the country. This compromise guarantees more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction. It’s an important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our means.”

That is not exactly a statement of doom. What’s more, before the committee even convened the White House produced a plan that cut more than $3 trillion from the deficit – twice the goal of the Super Committee. And the President made crystal clear his budgetary priorities:

“I’ve said it before; I will say it again: We can’t balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the biggest brunt of this recession. We can’t make it tougher for young people to go to college, or ask seniors to pay more for health care, or ask scientists to give up on promising medical research because we couldn’t close a tax shelter for the most fortunate among us. Everyone is going to have to chip in. It’s only fair.”

So Christie, were he honest, could hardly fault the President for not being engaged. The arrogant inquiry as to “what the hell are we paying you for?” illustrates the blind hostility to anything Obama attempts. The President was doing precisely what he is paid to do. And that involves much more than just deficit reduction. It also includes national security, job and economic growth, and the management of a dangerous world that includes hotspots like Afghanistan, Libya, China, and Iran.

For Christie to criticize Obama over the deficit debate reveals just how out of touch Christie is. In addition to being unaware of the steps the President has already taken, Christie is also ignorant of the fact that Obama has to tread carefully when dealing with matters that involve Congress. The bitter partisanship of the GOP has already resulted in their opposing their own initiatives if the President endorsed them. So any guidance by Obama could cause Republicans to kick in a knee-jerk denial. It is, therefore, smart for the President to let Congress do their job without interference in the hopes of getting them to produce a workable compromise that he can sign. Unfortunately, Congress was not even able to do that.

It is pathetic that the right-wing GOP has only shady characters like Christie to look up to. The anger Christie is expressing here is misplaced due to both his ignorance of the subject matter and his naivete with regard to political statesmanship. That’s why he has to resort to inventing phantom positions, assigning them to Obama, and then rebutting them as if they were real. And the fact that Fox News promotes this ineptitude as something to be admired compounds the patheticness of it all.


Idiot Watch: Fox News Contends That Obama Wants Economic Slide

Fox News Sunday hosted Liz Cheney to discuss the economy and Barack Obama’s role in deliberately sabotaging it. The conversation descended into a surprisingly moronic set of conspiracy theories that would make Glenn Beck’s doughy chest heave with pride. And of course, it was a discourse that utterly abandoned known facts.

Wallace asked Cheney whether it was a problem for Republicans that they are portrayed as “fighting for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy but willing to let the payroll tax cuts for the middle class disappear.” Cheney evaded that question entirely in order to serve up an inane conjecture that defies coherent logic:

Cheney: The President basically seems to have made the calculation that he’s gonna let the next thirteen months of the American economy slide for the sake of his own political benefits.

The reason Cheney evaded the question is because she knows that overwhelming majorities of the American people support letting Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy expire, and they also support the extension of the payroll tax cut. So she was forced to resort to inventing a distraction to defend the GOP’s indefensible agenda.

However, with her back up against the wall, Cheney latched onto an absurd assertion that President Obama wants the economy to suffer in order to enhance his reelection prospects. She apparently subscribes to the theory that poor economies are the best way to boost political campaigns. That’s a theory that only makes sense to a party that takes candidates like Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich seriously. It exposes a level of ignorance that is mind boggling.

In addition to the delusional nature of Cheney’s political analysis, she is also factually miles from reality. The pretext for her comment was her assertion that Obama has done nothing to address problems associated with unemployment and the deficit. She alleged that Obama had not engaged the Super Committee to assist in shaping a compromise. However, there was a White House proposal before the Super Committee had even convened its first meeting. That proposal offered a four trillion dollar reduction in debt achieved through both new revenues and entitlement cuts.

As for employment, Obama has already implemented initiatives to spur hiring of new employees in the form of credits for hiring the long-term unemployed and veterans. He has proposed restoring the nation’s infrastructure which would not only improve the environment for commerce, but would employ thousands. Republicans opposed those initiatives, as well as every other plan to help American families recover from the GOP-made catastrophe.

All sane observers know that delaying economic recovery would be the worst thing that could happen for Obama’s reelection campaign. In fact, the only beneficiary of a bad economy is the Republican Party and they have been openly hostile to any method of healing the country’s economic woes. Representative of their point of view is this image of an anti-recovery conservative who would rather hurt his neighbors and his country than to see Obama get credit for improving the economy. A real patriot would be hiring now in order to get the nation back on solid footing. But that is not how Republicans think.

Almost from inauguration day, the GOP has sought to kneecap the administration by opposing its policies and personnel. They have engaged in a record number of filibusters and created a degree of partisanship that is unprecedented. They have even opposed their own proposals after they were endorsed by Obama. It is an intentional tactic aimed at producing a national crisis, both economically and politically, to alienate voters and drive a wedge between different factions of the American people. It is a cynical and destructive crusade of division that has been exacerbated by a media that feasts on controversy and discord. Ted Koppel put it well in a recent article in Broadcasting & Cable:

Ted Koppel

“One day, most Americans will point at us in the news media and say, ‘Why didn’t you tell us? Why did you encourage all that partisan bile and venom? Why did you feed us all that trivial crap, when so many terrible things were converging?’ And no one will be happy with the answer. Least of all those of us who offer it. ‘What we gave you,’ we will say, ‘is what you wanted.'”

Sad, but true. And while Koppel gets some credit for saying it now, you have to wonder where he was when Bill Clinton was being impeached over a sex scandal; when Fox News launched as “fair and balanced”; when George W. Bush invaded Iraq and portrayed his opponents as traitors; when candidate Obama was accused of “pallin’ around with terrorists”; and when the Koch brothers financed the deliberately divisive Tea Party.

The media’s exploitation of melodrama and the Republican’s embrace of willful ignorance have united to create one of the most unstable eras of American history. It’s going to take a concerted effort to undo the damage, but it is not too late if conscientious citizens demand more of both the media and Washington.


Fox News Cooks Up A Toxic Menu Of Pepper Sprayed Lies

The latest travesty of justice celebrated by Fox News is the horrific use of excessive force on a group of peaceful protesters at UC Davis. Lt. John Pike of the Campus Police casually and callously sprayed students with an abrasive substance that has been known to cause permanent harm and even death.

Fox News typically sided with the perpetrators of torture. Just as they cheer the use of waterboarding and drool over the prospect of nuking everything from Iran to Tijuana (and even San Francisco), Fox News embraces the police state oppression of citizens who oppose the economic rape of our nation by wealthy corporations and their benefactors in Washington.

Recently Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly told her colleague Bill O’Reilly that pepper spray was just “a food product, essentially.” O’Reilly agreed with Kelly that the police did nothing wrong and he went further to make the absurd claim that “I don’t think we have the right to Monday morning quarterback the police.”

We don’t? Does Bill O’Reilly believe that we live in a society where law enforcement authorities are indisputable? Isn’t that the sort of tyranny that he constantly (and falsely) accuses President Obama of attempting to enact?

The notion that pepper spray is merely a food product, or that waterboarding is just a bath, or that mustard gas is simply a condiment, is evidence of the brutal ignorance that has infected so much of modern conservatism. But it is also evidence of their obsession with diets that are harmful to your health. In the past few months Fox has published numerous articles castigating any effort to educate the American people about the benefits of good eating habits. Fox is similarly dismissive of any effort to protect children from harmful foods. Here is a brief compilation of some of the headlines from their gastronomic propaganda:

  • This Thanksgiving, Media Still Stuffed with Food Police Message
  • NYC Food Police Reach New Low
  • Even Obama’s School Potato Bill Fails
  • Liberals Going After Hot Dogs
  • SF Food Police Urge Meat-Free Mondays
  • Minneapolis Schools Ban Chocolate Milk
  • Food Police Try to Retire Ronald McDonald
  • Obama Identifies the Enemy: Tony the Tiger
  • Food Police Kill Cap’n Crunch
  • Obama Administration Getting Ready to Ditch Food Pyramid
  • Nanny Staters Crack Down on School Chocolate Milk
  • The Food Police Are Back! Coke and Pepsi Banned in S.F.!
  • Obama Food Police Messes With Your Chips
  • Food Police Attack Chocolate Milk
  • SF Hold First Public Hearing to Ban Happy Meals
  • Tater Nots: Gov’t Eyes School Lunch Potato Ban
  • Ronald McDonald Under Attack

With their abundant expertise in the culinary arts, it was only a matter of time until Fox launched their own show dedicated to diet and cooking. And now, with Lt. John Pike of the UC Davis Campus Police, they even have a star talent to helm the program. So stayed tuned to Fox News for the spring premiere of Pike’s Palate.

Pike's Palate