Michael (Injun) Steele Calls For Harry (Negro) Reid To Resign

Posted by on January 10, 2010 at 2:41 pm. 4 Comments :

The press is going bonkers over the latest pseudo-scandal it is attempting to whip up. The headlines are popping up everywhere and with ever greater sensationalism. The chairman of the Republican Party wants the leader of the Democrats in the Senate to resign for using inappropriate language.

  • Steele calls on Reid to resign, Washington Post
  • GOP Chairman Pressures Reid on Obama Remarks, New York Times
  • Republican Steele Says Reid Should Step Down From Leader Post, BusinessWeek
  • Senate leader must go following ‘Negro’ remark: Republicans, AFP
  • GOP chair: Reid should step down following race remark, CNN
  • Steele tells Reid to step down, Politico
  • Steele: Reid should resign Senate post, UPI
  • Republicans call on Senator Reid to quit post, Reuters
  • Steele: Reid Should Quit Leadership Post, Wall Street Journal
  • Michael Steele Shocks the World by Calling for Harry Reid to Step Down, New York Magazine

And on it goes. Personally, I wouldn’t mind in the least if Reid surrendered the Majority Leader post. I’ve been advocating a change in leadership for almost two years. This may not be the way I would have chosen for him to go, but I believe the Democratic Party would be better served by a more aggressive and tactically savvy leader. Reid is responsible for some of the most infuriating capitulations in recent memory. From FISA to Iraq/Afghanistan to health care, he seems determined to begin every negotiation from a disadvantaged position.

That said, it is utterly absurd for Michael Steele to be taking the lead in calling for Reid to step down due to Reid’s use of the word “negro.” While Reid’s comment was certainly inappropriate, the word in itself is not pejorative, it was said in private, and in context it was complimentary to Obama. However, just a few days ago Steele publicly used an unambiguously insulting term for Native Americans: “Injun.” Yet Steele defends his criticism of Reid and dismisses his own intolerance. When asked if he should resign himself, Steele told Chris Wallace…

Steele: No, absolutely not. Why should I Chris? I’m pushing the ball. I’m raising the money. I’m winning elections. I have got the base fired up. […] I wasn’t intending to say a racial slur at all. The reality is that’s not the same as what we were talking about before.

Of course it’s not the same if it refers to himself. And since he didn’t intend to say a racial slur we should all just drop the subject – except Reid should still resign. This couldn’t be more hypocritical if Steele had insisted that “That cracker should resign for saying negro.”

Republicans might want to see if they can find another spokesperson on this issue. Steele doesn’t exactly hold the moral high ground. What’s more, his pompous self-glorification regarding his fundraising and electoral prowess is mightily overblown considering that Republicans have lost more races than not during his tenure (especially the NY-23 embarrassment), and he is bankrupting the party while stuffing his own pockets. The only people he is firing up are tea party activists who are after his hide, and deep-pocketed donors whom he has motivated to cease all contributions as long as he is chairman.

The substance of these events are decidedly negative for Steele and his party, yet somehow the media is still spinning it as a problem for Reid and the Democrats. Can someone please remind why we are supposed to believe that the media is liberal?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Ashamed And Sickened By Roger Ailes

Posted by on January 10, 2010 at 9:16 am. 3 Comments :

Roger Ailes

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has become a bit of a crimp in the Murdoch family’s harmony. The New York Times is reporting that Matthew Freud, the husband of Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth, is not particularly fond of his in-laws.

Freud: I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes’s horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalistic standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to.

Uh oh. That’s gotta make for some awkward holiday gatherings. Freud’s complaint isn’t a trivial personal incompatibility. He is aiming straight at the heart of a news enterprise’s most cherished asset: its journalistic standards. The charge of “horrendous and sustained disregard” is hardly an incidental difference of opinion. And the fact that there are others who share his shame doesn’t smooth things out for Ailes.

Freud is married to Elisabeth Murdoch, who left the family business to run her own UK-based enterprise, Shine Limited. Shine also has interests in the U.S., including Reveille, the company that produces “The Office” and “Ugly Betty.” Elisabeth was an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama and held a fundraiser for him in London. That contrasts significantly with the views of Ailes, whom the Times says threatened to quit if Murdoch permitted his New York Post to endorse Obama for president.

The Times notes that Ailes also played a part in Lachlan Murdoch’s decision to leave his father’s company in 2004 and return to Australia. Up until then Lachlan was considered Rupert’s heir apparent. The article goes on to hype Ailes’ mythic reputation as a political strategist and media guru. But what it doesn’t say is that while being successful at lining the pockets of the principles, Fox News was also killing the Republican Party.

It’s good to know that there are some reasonable members of the Murdoch clan who aren’t afraid to voice their opinions. It makes for some interesting speculation about the future of News Corp. when the Murdoch progeny assume control. While son James is still a high-ranking executive running Papa’s European satellite operations, siblings Elisabeth and Lachlan will inherit equal voting shares from their father’s estate.

Should any of this make Ailes nervous? Well, would you want to keep a division head that made you “ashamed and sickened” if you inherited a multinational media empire? Would you allow your news network to continue to have a “horrendous and sustained disregard” for journalistic standards? Would Ailes even want to remain at Fox with Obama supporters as his new bosses? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

[Update] News Corp responds: “Matthew Freud’s opinions are his own and in no way reflect the views of Rupert Murdoch, who is proud of Roger Ailes and Fox News.”

Rupert Murdoch’s pride in Ailes irrevocably ties him to the insults, lies, and journalistic disrepute that is the hallmark of Ailes and his stars like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. Murdoch again chooses to align himself with the dregs of the television idiocracy. That will be his legacy.


Thank God For RNC Chair Michael Steele – Seriously!

Posted by on January 9, 2010 at 7:27 pm. 2 Comments :

He does indeed work in mysterious ways. I’m talking about the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Mystery surrounds him like the Shroud of Turin. That’s why we have to be grateful for the gift that Steele represents and not question it. No one could do what he is doing – for the Democratic Party. And he couldn’t have come at a better time. So say a prayer for Chairman Steele who recognizes the divine role he has been sent to play:

Steele: God, I really believe, has placed me here for a reason because who else and why else would you do this unless there’s something inside of you that says right now you need to be here to do this?

Such poignant questions. Who else and why else? There must be a reason that Steele is here sabotaging the interests of his party. That reason is becoming clearer with every passing day: God is a Democrat.

Why else would He send a GOP leader who praises ACORN?
Why send a leader who concedes the elections of 2010 ten months in advance?
Why send a chairman who tells the critics in his own party to “shut up?”
Well, to be fair, they want him to shut up too.
And what did Democrats do to deserve a Republican leader who is bankrupting his party and alienating donors?

God’s messenger, Michael Steele claims to be a real Tea Bagger. In fact he promised to bring “change in a tea bag.” That was last year when he also asked a college audience to wear his “hat of an idea,” and announced that “the era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over,” and bragged that he was “going beyond cutting edge.”

Steele’s recent public comments on his party’s prospects this year extend beyond his opinion that they don’t look too good. He actually passes a sort of judgment on them questioning whether they are even ready to assume power. He says it’s something that he is “assessing and evaluating now.” Where he got the impression that that is the role of a party chairman, I don’t know (from God?). Mere mortal party chiefs generally understand their duties as raising money and getting more members elected, not shaping policy and anointing candidates. But Steele rises above such restrictions, freely criticizing his flock and lecturing them on political matters.

If you think this is just too good to be true, reflect for a moment on what Steel told us last March that confirms the mystery in his ways:

Steele: If I do something, there’s a reason for it. Even, it may look like a mistake, a gaffe. There is a rationale, there’s a logic behind it.

That settles it. Do not dare to question God’s servant. He is playing on level that far exceeds your ability to comprehend. He even has the gift of clairvoyance. Just yesterday, after taking heat from his party comrades for exploiting his position for personal gain and promoting his book instead of tending to party business, Steele shot back that he had written the book before he had become party chairman. But miraculously, he must have known in advance a multitude of events in 2009 that occurred after he had become chairman but were still included in the book he now says was written before. If that isn’t evidence of sainthood, what is?

So say a another prayer for Michael Steele. He is a treasure for which we must all be grateful. And be thankful that Democrats everywhere have him working on their behalf in the name of God. Amen.


What You’re Missing On Breitbart’s BigJournalism.com

Posted by on January 9, 2010 at 1:31 pm. 1 Comments :

For those of you lacking the hardy constitution to stomach Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism, I have compiled the current list of stories featured on the uber-rightist web site that launched last week. This is what you’re missing by not visiting the site that aspires to fix everything that’s worng with the media:

A Fox News intern complaining that people responded negatively when they heard she worked at Fox.
That’s actually pretty good news. Obviously people know about Fox and are responding appropriately. The sad thing is that after her internship she still thinks that “Fox actually does investigative journalism.”

A criticism of public officials who have relationships reporters – particularly if they are Democrats and are nerdy looking.
This story seeks to expose the bias of reporters who are in bed with partisan political operatives. Somehow they left out Howard Kurtz and Sheri Annis; Campbell Brown and Dan Senor; and Elaine Chao and Sen. Mitch McConnell. But I can’t argue with the author’s (Ben Shapiro) credentials on nerdiness.

A defensive screed by Breitbart who didn’t like the interview with him published on another web site.
This one is a pathetic attempt by Breitbart to puff himself up. He is quite obviously too thin-skinned for this business.

A polemic on why we shouldn’t worry about Global Warming because thirty years ago we worried about nuclear war and that hasn’t happened – yet.
The case being made here is that the arms race was once looked on as a potentially catastrophic endeavor, but has waned in urgency over the years. The problem with the author’s logic is that the reason nuclear annihilation is no longer viewed as an imminent threat is that we did worry about it back then and took steps to alleviate the danger. But this author opposes such common sense actions today.

An attack on Media Matters for correctly criticizing shoddy journalism at the New York Times.
If you want to read a substanceless diatribe that mocks George Soros and trivializes responsible media analysis, this is the article for you. But don’t expect any meaningful revelations or maturity.

An argument in favor of respecting the opinions of bloggers over scientists with regard to Climate Change.
This may be my favorite. The author, Patrick Courrielche (who helped Breitbart and Glenn Beck attack the National Endowment for the Arts), actually celebrates what he calls…

“…the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer review process, and the maturing of a new movement – that of peer-to-peer review.”

By this he means that biased blogs disseminating stolen emails (that proved nothing with regard to Global Warming) are more trustworthy than climatologists whose work has been validated through rigorous research and testing. He’s advocating peer-to-peer (i.e. partisan bloggers) over academically sound and objective scientific modeling. In other words, he’s advocating ignorance over knowledge. I can only suppose that it’s because he has more personal experience with the former.

A lament that the media has given short shrift to the bogus ClimateGate story.
BigJ is going after the environment in a big way. This is the third story on the subject and they still fail to grasp the reason that some in the media haven’t covered it: There is no story. The deceptively edited clippings from the stolen emails were mischaracterized and out of context. And none of it disputes the voluminous findings compiled by thousands of researchers over dozens of years.

A critique of the Los Angeles Times (owned by the notoriously right-wing Tribune Company) as being too liberal.
When the Times endorsed Barack Obama last year, it was the first time it had EVER endorsed a Democrat for president. This is their idea of a liberal paper?

Another defensive screed by Breitbart.
He just can’t stop thinking about himself.

A review of the allegedly friendly treatment of Obama by the media
This is one I still can’t figure out. After a campaign that obsessed over Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, flag lapel pins, and birth certificates, Obama took office facing criticism for being a socialist indoctrinator of children who bowed too much. If the media has been friendly over the past year, I’d hate to see them turn nasty.

So now you’re caught up on what BigJournalism thinks is news and you can go enjoy your Saturday. Rest assured that BigJ will continue to misinform their readers and contribute to the general decline in intellectual discourse in America. But don’t expect me to continue bringing you these reports. I think I can find more productive uses for my time. Well, that’s a pretty low bar that would include separating M&Ms by color or counting the hairs on my forearm.


Glenn Beck: God Is The Grantor Of Rights

Posted by on January 8, 2010 at 9:35 pm. 13 Comments :

Pope BeckYesterday’s sermon from the Reverend Glenn Beck was a revelation into the source of the rights enjoyed by the American people. His examination of these holy endowments was undertaken with his customary superficiality.

The sermon began with Beck chastising Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) for his determination to treat health care as a right. That blasphemy was too much for Beck to endure.

Beck: Harkin is declaring Congress as God, because we all know where the rights come from. If you read the Declaration of Independence there’s a phrase from the Declaration of Independence on where those rights come from. You may have heard it before. It goes something like this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. […] God is the grantor of rights. No one else.

This is going to come as a surprise to Constitutional scholars and legal experts. According to Beck, it was God who established freedom of speech. And the bearing of arms is also a gift from the Most High. And apparently God didn’t take kindly to the quartering of troops, but He did insist on jury trials and reasonable bail. These rights are just a few that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights whose preamble begins with…

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States…

Apparently these lawmakers think that they are the grantors of rights. And they continued to believe that as they persisted in drafting additional amendments to the Constitution and passing thousands of other laws. Amongst these are rights like being permitted to vote if you’re a woman or not having to be a slave. God must have overlooked those rights when the Constitution was originally ratified. Or maybe He didn’t consider them unalienable. At any rate, it’s a good thing that legislators got around to cleaning up God’s mess.

The only difference between health care being a right and it being a profit center for greedy, compassionless corporations is the passage of a bill and the signature of a president. It doesn’t require God’s endorsement. That’s a political framework more aligned with the Taliban than with democracy. Maybe that’s why Beck doesn’t understand it. After all, “democracy” has many of the same letters as “Democrat.” Hmm? Coincidence?

The Declaration of Independence gave specific examples of what the framers considered to be unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). They were all general principles that the framers regarded as foundational to a free society. However, the actual rights were established by legislators and citizens who were decidedly mortal, contrary to Beck’s assertion that no one else but God can grant rights. Beck’s inability to comprehend the role of law is boundless. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard his interpretation of law.

For instance, lately Beck has escalated his rhetorical ravings to maligning progressives as … I’ll give you one guess … that’s right, fascists (what else?). In a hilarious fit of befuddlement he has taken to charging that progressives were responsible for Prohibition. Never mind that it was largely church-based temperance groups who campaigned for the 18th Amendment, and the enacting legislation, the Volstead Act, was proposed by Andrew Volstead, a Minnesota Republican. That bill was subsequently vetoed by Woodrow Wilson, whom Beck regards as the father of modern progressivism and whom Beck has called “One evil SOB.”

So contrary to Beck’s claim, it was religious fundamentalists and Republicans who gave us Prohibition, in spite of Wilson’s veto, which was over-ridden by Congress. And the kicker is that, when the nation realized its mistake, it was Heber J. Grant, an apostle in the Church of Latter-day Saints (Beck’s Mormon Church), and the LDS who led the fight against repealing the 18th Amendment. Once again, reality is diametrically opposed to Beck’s perverse perception of it. But he is devoted to his dementia. The more absurd, the tighter he grips. Until he he ends up spewing nonsense like this:

Beck: More and more Americans are finding themselves where I am. In a place where you don’t want to believe the stuff that you now do. Even the stuff that you would have thought a year ago was crazy town. But you do believe it because you’re honest with yourself. You promised yourself, as I have, to seek the truth no matter how many times you think about it. No matter how many times you think, “Oh my gosh, what does this mean to my future or the future to my children.” If it makes me a pariah, so be it. It is the truth, not stuff I want to believe. But everything is in jeopardy. Our children’s future is at stake.

Yes, Glenn is stuck believing things from crazy town that he doesn’t want to believe. He seeks the truth no matter how many times he has to think about it. And he manages somehow to carry on though everything is in jeopardy. On the plus side, it’s fortunate that he is comfortable being a pariah.


Dick Cheney’s Campaign Of Treason Is Unraveling

Posted by on January 6, 2010 at 3:57 pm. 8 Comments :

Since at least last May, I have been unveiling the efforts of extremist right-wing politicians and pundits to signal our enemies in Al Qaeda that now is the time to strike (See: The Republican Advance Team For Terrorism). They have been waving their arms excitedly and shouting to anyone who will listen that America is less safe and, therefore, vulnerable. They have been partnering with their pals in the press to make sure that the message gets out. And they know full well that the enemy is paying attention.

Dick Cheney is the de facto leader of this forward brigade. He outlined the theme over five years ago when he said:

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”

And ever since Barack Obama took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Cheney and his comrades have endeavored to produce the very perception of weakness about which he pretended to warn. The question is, how does announcing to the terrorists that our nation is weaker make us safer? Are they just pasting a big bulls eye on America and hoping for an “I told you so” moment? I desperately hope that that’s not the case, but there aren’t many other plausible explanations.

Finally, some in the media are beginning to recognize the danger into which Cheney et al are leading us:

Keith Olbermann: “We are at war,” Dick Cheney came down from Mt. Megalomaina to announce, “and when President Obama pretends we are not it makes us less safe.” If Mr. Cheney believes we are at war, then he, as the most recent former occupant of the vice-presidency is under the strictest obligations to put aside his case of terminal partisanship and rally to the support of his president at a time of war. Instead his remarks not only give encouragement to the enemies of this country, they give them an exact measure as to how successful they have been in damaging our freedoms.

Jonathan Alter: The problem I think we have now is sort of crystallized by former Vice-President Cheney’s role in this debate. I think that he has actually gotten to a place where he is actually emboldening the terrorists.

It’s about time that these traitors are called to account for their actions. If they believe that our country is at risk, they should consult privately with the administration and/or national security officials to alleviate that risk. They could work behind the scenes to close any security gaps and contribute to enhancing our safety without alerting the enemy to our alleged shortcomings. They certainly should not be coaching the opposing team from the sidelines.

It is bad enough that Americans have had to surrender so many basic freedoms in the face of terrorist threats. And every new attempt results in another knee-jerk response to prohibit an otherwise ordinary activity. This continually tightening noose of restrictions that we are forced to endure can only be celebrated by our enemies. They know they can alter our way of life and each time they do they gain encouragement to proceed. As I wrote in my 2006 ode to the Pre-9/11 Mindset:

They’ve seen the passage of the Patriot Act that limits long-held freedoms. They’ve seen our government listening in on our phone calls and monitoring our financial transactions. They see us lining up at airport terminals shoeless and forced to surrender our shampoo and Evian water. They see us mourning the loss of our sons and daughters who are not even engaged in battle with the 9/11 perpetrators. They see us as fearful and submissive. Is this not emboldening the terrorists for whom this perception of weakness will be seen as yet another invitation to attack?

We need to find a way to defend ourselves that protects both our lives and our way of life. We cannot allow terrorists to take control of our daily affairs. When they observe the effect of their attacks, even those that don’t succeed, they regard it as a victory. They cheer as we establish ever more restrictive and intrusive policies that cost us billions of dollars. They see themselves as winning tactically and at the same time draining our financial resources, which is a prime objective of theirs.

This is unacceptable. And the irresponsible, unpatriotic actions of Dick Cheney and company play right into the hands of the enemy. It is good to see Olbermann and Alter honestly discuss the vile and reckless behavior of these rightist thugs. It would be even better if more of the media were equally as candid. But this is a start and it should be encouraged. Because if the Cheneys of the world have their way it will be a dark world indeed.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Hannity And Morris Campaign For Waterboarding

Posted by on January 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm. 6 Comments :

Sean Hannity and his guest Dick Morris spent some quality time advocating for waterboarding yesterday. They fell all over each other to see who could be the most vigorous proponent of torture for the would-be crotch-bomber.

HANNITY: We can’t talk to this guy. We ought to be waterboarding this guy.
MORRIS: Absolutely. This is an exact example of something where his insistence on treating everybody as a civil liberties issue gets in the way of the intelligence. By the way, the information we get after we waterboard him should not be admissible this criminal trial.
HANNITY: But you agree with me. We should waterboard him.
MORRIS: Yes.
HANNITY: And by the way, you and I are going to be hammered tomorrow.

Let the hammering begin. However, I would like to direct my hammering at the breakout idiocy of Morris. After drooling over the prospect of a lovely torture, Morris swerved to another topic so that he could peddle his disdain for the Constitution:

MORRIS: But, Mr. Blogs, I don’t think the evidence that we get from waterboarding him should be admissible in his criminal trial. The Fifth Amendment still exists. But it should be actionable for intelligence to break up other Al Qaeda plots.

Mr. Blogs? I’ll assume that he’s talking to me and answer thusly: Mr. Prostitute Toe Sucker, you can’t simply dismiss the Fifth Amendment on a whim. What’s more, your whole argument against placing a terrorist in the criminal justice makes no sense. You say that providing an attorney will result in the defendant clamming up. But that would not be the case when the defendant was captured in the act at the scene of the crime. Under those circumstances, an attorney would not be advising a not guilty plea and seeking an acquittal. He would most likely advise a guilty plea and seek to trade information for leniency. Consequently, there would be a greater likelihood of extracting intelligence through the criminal justice system than through torture, which has been proven to provide unreliable data.

But Morris doesn’t stop spewing stupidity there:

MORRIS: …the other point here is the reason 9/11 happened is that Bill Clinton treated the ’93 bombing of the Trade Center as a crime, not as an act of war.

Actually, unlike 9/11, we caught the perpetrators of that incident and put them in prison. In addition to that, we bombed their foreign facilities and “retired” some of their operatives. If anything, our success may have spurred the terrorists to seek revenge.

MORRIS: I think that if we don’t take our country back in 2010, it’s not going to be there for us to take back.

Where is it going to be, Dick? Is it going to spontaneously combust? Will it join Atlantis at the bottom of the sea? Will there be an asteroid collision with the planet? Are you really suggesting that there will be no more America after the 2010 if Republicans fail to assume power? I think you and Glenn Beck had better sit down and coordinate your stories on the Marxist, socialist, progressive utopia in our future.

MORRIS: There are Democrats and there are Republicans. Now I used to be one of them. I used to be a conservative Democrat. I’m not any more because it doesn’t exist. […] If you’re a Democrat, you’re a Democrat, you’re a Democrat, and that’s all you can be.

So despite the fact that it has been Democrats who have battled to form working majorities, and it’s the Republicans who have voted in lockstep throughout this session of Congress, it is still the Democrats who Morris regards as philosophical purists. Even though Republicans have actual “purity tests” that their members are pressured to abide by, while Democrats are plagued by Blue Dogs who vote more like Republicans.

It’s always interesting to observe this sort of cognitive breakdown. It’s just that it’s becoming a bit too predictable for people like Morris and his Fox News enablers. It would be nice if every now and then they refrained from saying things so monumentally stupid it makes you pity them. Just for variety they should try to make sense once in a while – if they are able to.


Glenn Beck Tells His Biggest Lie Yet

Posted by on January 5, 2010 at 9:21 am. 8 Comments :

This is going to be a fun week. 2009’s Misinformer of the Year, Glenn Beck, has promised us a week during which he will end the debate on some of his most ludicrous, paranoid delusions. That will be a relief. I can’t be the only one who is sick to death of hearing him repeat endlessly his lies about Van Jones or ACORN or Saul Alinsky. But no more. This week is it. Next week…who knows? Unless, of course, he’s lying.

“A week from today this program is going to change. I’m no longer going to be debating the things we already know are true.”

And how does he know which things are true? Easy. They are whatever things he said last year that the White House hasn’t refuted by calling his in-studio chat line. And we all know that by not returning Beck’s phone calls it is as good as an admission of guilt. That is, in fact, how I know that Glenn Beck idolizes Adolf Hitler. Despite my many invitations to him to call and deny it, he has not done so, and therefore it is safe to conclude that it’s true.

Starting off his landmark week of television, Beck is going straight to the root of the problem. He is attacking head on the question of truth and lies. In the process he has delivered what may be regarded as his biggest lie yet.

“If I were lying I’d be off the air.”

Huh? Beck may have taken lying to a whole new dimension. This is a lie that lies about the context of his lying. It’s a lie that doubles back on itself as its own exculpation. Since he is not off the air, his dementia contends, he must not be lying. Were his statement to be true, much of the broadcast spectrum would go dark overnight. And that’s just the part of the spectrum controlled by Fox News. We can even look at this from a non-partisan viewpoint. If his statement were true, then how would Beck explain the continuing on-air presence of Keith Olbermann and his comrades at MSNBC? Surely Beck believes they are lying, yet they are still on the air. How can that be so without making him a liar? Perhaps he only meant that market forces would drive him off the dial as disillusioned viewers tuned out someone they considered to be dishonest. Nope, that aint it:

“Lies that are broadcast nightly to an entire nation are easily stopped. They are called laws. Or here’s an idea, standards.”

Beck truly seems to believe that there are laws that could be invoked to bar him from broadcasting due to his infatuation with falsehoods. The First Amendment notwithstanding, this is something he has predicted would occur ever since a Kenyan socialist moved into the White House. But this is the first time he has asserted that such laws have already been enacted. He doesn’t say which laws they are, but he’s certain they are there. And since these imaginary censorship dictates have not been exercised, Beck takes that to mean that the officials at the Department of Truth have certified his babble. One person who knows he is certifiable is his boss Rupert Murdoch, whom Beck believes hired him as a truthteller.

“Even if you think I’m wildly irresponsible, you have to know that News Corp. is not stupid. It’s a company worth billions of dollars. You really think that this corporation would risk everything on an irresponsible crazy guy?”

With this Gordian logic, Beck concludes that because Murdoch hired him, he must not be crazy. He may be jumping to an unsupportable conclusion. Murdoch made his reputation by exploiting the fringes of journalism. His tabloid papers featured outlandish gossip, sensationalistic headlines, and topless models. He is the carnival barker of media barons. Murdoch probably doesn’t think he is risking much by providing a platform for this schizoid sideshow freak. That is the keystone of his business philosophy and the engine of his wealth. As far as Murdoch is concerned, the crazier the better. And he hit the mother lode with Beck (although advertisers disagree).

Beck spent much of today’s program lying about not having lied on his previous programs. For example, he declared that he had only ever called one person in the Obama administration a communist. Not only is that not true, but on this same show he insinuated that many people in the White House preferred Karl Marx to James Madison, including President Obama. Maybe Beck would argue that that isn’t the same as calling them communists, but that would only be true in his warped brain. Media Matters has many more examples.

Beck’s defense of his veracity only sinks him deeper into duplicity. But with today’s pinnacle of prevarication, Beck has raised the bar on bullshit. To assert that he would be off the air if he were lying is a truly brilliant deceit. And his ability to render it with a straight face deserves some credit as well. Bravo Mr. Beck. You have more than earned your place in the Liars Hall of Sham.

ADDENDUM: Lest anyone absolve Fox News from complicity with Beck’s mania, here is a year-end compilation of the biggest stories missed by the mainstream media per Fox News. All but one were stories either originated or heavily promoted by Beck (i.e. Van Jones, ACORN, ClimateGate, Tea Baggers, etc). Fox cannot dismiss the evidence that Beck is their prime source for news.


Andrew Breitbart’s BigHypocrite.com

Posted by on January 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm. NO Comments :

Today on Fox Nation they are featuring a story on whether President Obama’s advisor, David Axelrod, is losing control of the President’s image. The headline is accompanied by a photo collage of what the Fox Nationalists must think are silly pictures, but which most people would regard as human pictures.

What’s truly silly about this is that the item links to an article at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment web site that expounds at length on what a terrible job of image building the White House is doing. The author, Kristinn Taylor, is appalled by what he regards as inadequate visual communications:

“Richard Nixon had advertising executive H.R. Haldeman; Ronald Reagan had image master Mike Deaver; Barack Obama has public relations guru David Axelrod.

“All three men understood the power of visuals in communicating the strengths of the presidents they served on the campaign trail and in the office of the presidency.

“I don’t know where David Axelrod has been since President Obama began his ten-day Christmas vacation in Hawaii, but it is safe to say he is goofing off as much as his boss.”

Taylor goes on to lament that the Obama team has…

“…failed in their most basic duty of reassuring the American public that the president is on the job.”

First of all, it is rather revealing that right-wingers like Taylor, and his boss Breitbart, so openly revere the manipulative art of public relations. The fact that they regard the most basic duty of presidential staff as providing pictorial reassurances that the President is on the job, as opposed to helping the President to actually get the job done, says a great deal about the Breitbart philosophy.

These are a breed of propagandists whose heroes are masters of deception like Haldeman, Deaver, and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. And they are not in the least embarrassed to admit their preference for style and appearances over substance. That is the cornerstone of conservative leadership for decades. Reagan’s tough-guy, movie hero persona was thoroughly manufactured by PR professionals, as was Bush, Jr.’s cowboy everyman. Taylor’s article reinforces this superficial approach to public service and criticizes the Obama administration for not being sufficiently shallow.

It is also interesting to note that the complaint made by Taylor and company contradicts previous conservative complaints that this White House has been preoccupied with image. They never seem to tire of lame jokes about the President’s use of TelePrompters, or his photo-ops with the troops. On those occasions the President was being disingenuous for exploiting imagery. His aides were cynically attempting to manipulate the public, and were considered dishonorable for doing so. But now they are accused of failing in that “most basic duty” by not performing it.

I suppose it might be too much to expect Breitbart’s crew to refrain from hypocrisy. Taylor complained that it took four days for the White House to post a picture of the President on the phone. Oh my stars, someone get the smelling salts. In fact that wasn’t even true. There were many pictures of the President working, just not the ones Taylor cared to notice. He was too busy whimpering about presidential tiewear or the price of his hotel room.

In the end, as with most matters concerning this president, Obama cannot win. He is damned if he uses PR effectively, and he is damned if he doesn’t use it all. As Hillary Clinton once said, if he were to walk on water his critics would gripe that he can’t swim. But even more disturbing to me is the lust these people have for phoniness. They celebrate it and curse those who fail to worship it as they do. There is a place for reasonable image-making. But clearly the right has taken it way too far.


Welcome To The New Fox News Ministries With Brit Hume

Posted by on January 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm. 12 Comments :

Pray for Fox NewsBrothers and sisters, on this, the first Sunday of a new year, a new decade in the sight of our Lord, it is a blessing that we may now profit from the teachings of a new holy messenger of the Word of God. Salvation can now be achieved directly from the Most High – Definition, that is. Our Cable path to redemption is clear and the signals are strong. For we now are relieved of the weekly burden of attending a cold, dank church with uncomfortable pews. Now we can get salvation from the convenience of our sofas. We can worship at the alter of Television and absorb the Good News in the comfort of our homes thanks to the advent of the New Fox News Ministries.

Today’s sermon is one that effects every believer and non-believer alike. It concerns the fate of all who have sinned and, of course, that means everyone. Except for those sinners who have already placed their faith in the Savior and have repented and been saved. They can do whatever the Hell they please. But not so fallen stars like Tiger Woods, whose moral indiscretions require urgent redress. And thank the good Lord that we have the Reverend Brit Hume of the Fox News Ministries to counsel unto the golfer lost in the woods.

Rev. Brit Hume: The Tiger Woods that emerges, once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, rests on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Hallelujah and amen! Repent Brother Woods. It is obvious that those heathen Buddhists have nothing whatsoever to offer a poor sinner. They cannot redeem your cursed soul with the blood of a 2,000 year old martyr, can they? They rely merely on ancient wisdom that holds people accountable for their actions, not by judgment, but by the observance of respect for all creation. They reject the sort of forgiveness and redemption that absolves one of guilt or the suffering of consequences for their behavior. Well, unless you regard karma as a model for a virtuous life and a guide for honorable conduct.

Brother Woods, you must ask yourself if you want to embark on a challenging journey of self-examination and knowledge, or if you wouldn’t rather join the likes of Mark Sanford, David Vitter, John Ensign, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, etc., as adulterous sinners who have been pardoned by the grace of a merciful God. You too can be a great example to the world, just as these bags of scum who have preceded you.

Heed the words of the Rev. Hume, all ye sinners. And follow these teachings as ye have those of Rev. Huckabee and Rev. Beck (see The Gospel according to Beck). Get down on your knees and beseech the Lord Fox for forgiveness. Kneel in the sacred blue glow of the Fox light and submit yourself to its flickering divinity. Because by worshiping at the alter of Fox all sins are forgiven. You are free to start wars; to kill innocents; to torture; to befoul the Earth; to pass judgment on others; to revel in wealth and greed; to deny the less fortunate access to food, housing, or health care; to lie, cheat, steal, and even to live as an infidel with impunity.

Sounds like Heaven, doesn’t it? And what does Buddhism have to offer but a life of peace, awareness, enlightenment, and harmony with all the world? Sounds like Hell, huh? As the Prophet Murdoch said:

“Let there be lie: and there was lie. And Murdoch saw the lie, that it was profitable: and Murdoch divided the lie from the psychotic. And Murdoch called the lie Day, and the psychotic he called Primetime.”

Bless you Brother Brit. And may the Fox be with you.