On reflection, I'm doing the same.
I have been guilty of mudslinging here but I think we all have that propensity at times.
I think I'm going to come up with a new RvL type blog with some ground rules on civility and accountability. I don't want to lose friends over a stupid blog.
Hey guys,
I know I've been MIA for months and months -- much of it has been being busy, but there is a bigger underlying issue. I just can't stomach or be associated with the personal attacks here any longer.
I'm pulling my account from the blog and killing the listserv.
I appreciate your insights and contributions -- I'll certainly miss some of what goes on here. It's good to hear what the right is being programmed to think as digested by an articulate person -- but not at the sacrifice of civil discourse.
I hope you guys are doing well -- keep up the good fight in whatever way you find worth your energy.
Finally: Impeachment = Accountability -- and if we have to start with Pelosi for obstructing the Impeachment process, so be it.
-dta
Suzie, this may be the source for what you were talking about with Olbermann:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/q3_cable_yeartoyear_growth_at_msnbc_68198.asp
Here we go, media bias. The headline:
‘A nightmare with no end in sight’
Ex-commander of coalition forces in Iraq lambastes ‘failure of leadership’
Partial truth. General Sanchez is (rightfully) pissed off at everyone.
First - cable TV
Keith Olbermann's Ratings on the Rise; Fox News Drops Out of the Top Ten Most Watched Cable Channels
---------
And then some info on the radio stations:
Columbus
Station Group Owner Format Fa'06 Wi'07 Sp'07 Su'07 P1 Su'07 P2
WYTS-AM Clear Channel Talk
0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6
WYTS-AM - Was WTPG-AM until January
Cincinnati
Station Group Owner Format Fa'06 Wi'07 Sp'07 Su'07 P1 Su'07 P2
WCKY-AM Clear Channel Sports 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0
On July 7, 2006, WCKY and WSAI switched programming
On December 11, 2006, WSAI's progressive talk format ended.
It relaunched that day as "1360thesource.com," still carrying a talk format but heavily programmed with advice and consumer awareness-driven shows such as Clark Howard and Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
That format lasted just six months, as WSAI went back to a sports format in July of 2007.
Today, it carries the entire ESPN Radio lineup on a 24/7 basis as an all-network sister station to WCKY.
It has not shown ANY ratings since 2006
Akron
WARF changed formats on March 30, 2007 from liberal talk to sports, using Sporting News Radio. It no longer shows up in the ratings.
--------------
Wonder why? I think they're afraid to let us see that progressive ratings did better than either the right-wing stuff or sports. And in some of these places the sports stations was, like, the 4th one in the area.. Really needed that, right?
You cannot be so blind as to understand that in such a divided country left vs right that there isn't a business case for progressive radio.
Ed Schultz mentions a web site of a product he liked and the hits crashes the website. It's happened every time!
The true political crazies....check 'em out:
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.
HA NOI — Nong Duc Manh, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Viet Nam, welcomed the leader of the US Communist Party in Ha Noi yesterday, discussing ways for the Vietnamese and American parties to promote bilateral relations.
09.10.2007 WASHINGTON, DC -- Greens will use their presence in various antiwar demonstrations and other events throughout September and October to press the Green Party's demand for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
The following data on the population of Massachusetts in the 1647 will surprise a few anti-Southern hypocrites! Lets see if those who were so obsessed with stealing Our True Georgia Flag demand that Massachusetts change theirs now! Perhaps Gloucester, Massachusetts with a non-freeman percentage of 74% should be thrown out of the Union! Look at Springfield, non-freemen percentage of 84%.
For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society's product, in accordance with individual needs.
I think the reason we're getting so heated over this is that conservatives believe in individual responsibility and think that it's lacking here; liberals believe in things flowing from the government and see a poster case here to defend.
Nuff said.
This is what I have been trying to say:
Yes, the Frost children are victims, but not of conservatives. They look more like victims of a couple of mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves when it came to the bottom line on that. There are poor people in America who need help, particularly as regards Health care. The point is, the family above shouldn't be and simply aren't among them. Call Dad next time you want some bucks FH. And kindly leave the rest of America's collective wallet the hell alone.
Or, hey, get a second job with benefits. I've done that more than once in my life when I needed the cash. And do it before you let Graeme tell the media how much you struggle to take care of him, because there are enough people in America who really do struggle with these issues. And when they take a look at your lot in life they are left far from impressed and unmoved to cough up one thin dime so you can enjoy afternoons playing with your lathe, or whatever the hell else it is you do in your factory.
I don't see someone who needs my help in F Halsey Frost. I see a simpleton and a loser who had more kids than he could afford and doesn't appear to have given up very much in life to deal with that situation. Who knows, maybe Dad figured it out, too and cut him off. What the hell, there's always welfare, right?
In my earlier post, I think I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Frost family doesn't have health insurance for their family because of personal choices and priorities.
The Democratic Party could have, to protest Bush's veto, found an honest-to-God needy family to deliver their message. Instead, they chose a family who is - apparently - politically active and more than capable of buying health insurance.
I call on my progressive friends on this blog to show some principles. Where is your outrage? Doesn't coverage for the truly needy, not just needy by choice, deserve more than a cheap political trick?
Don't you realize that an honest assessment of what the truly poor need is subverted by shit like this?
Update:
More here to really frost your ass if you truly care.
Where is your outrage????
Leak severs link to al-Qaeda’s secrets
Firm says Bush administration’s handling of video ruined its spying efforts
Bush gives the film to Fox News before the FBI even gets it. Imagine if Clinton had done this.
These guys make me sick.
Garrett, I'm seeing some evidence that this kid's lack of healthcare may be due to some poor judgement and misprioritization of his family. I'll update this post when I have something substantial...you know, proof, something the Left isn't really big on.
If what I'm starting to find is true, Garrett, you should be just as outraged as I will be.
Otherwise I'll update this post and say "never mind".
Update 1:
This might be easier than I thought. Here's what a Freeper found. In the interest of fair disclosure I might add that elsewhere it was stated that their private school tuition might be partially or completely subsidized.
Update 2:
The "poor" family has a home worth a lot of money. The husband owns his own business so, technically, the media was right about not getting insurance through his employer (hahaha). He also owns an industrial rental property.
Oh, and they could get medical insurance for about $650 a month
Something else to consider: If the wife works a mid-level position at a publications firm, don't they offer insurance? And if the reported household income is $45,000 it would seem the lion's share is her income? If her husband is a woodworker, how much unreported income are they bringing in (my best man at my wedding is a woodworker and has TONS of unreported income)?
FINAL UPDATE:
Researching is not "stalking". If you had done a modicum of research yourself with an open mind, Garrett, you wouldn't have fallen for this obvious Democratic mendacity. There's a word for people like you, buddy: SHEEP
Apparently, even twelve-year-olds who speak out against the president are Fair Game.
The CoS would be proud. :-(
From Ann Coulter (sometimes she isn't ranting):
Pretend to Be All That You Can Be
by Ann Coulter
Posted 10/03/2007
Not content to wait for my book to come out, Senate Democrats are demanding a censure resolution against Rush Limbaugh. Ah, the memories ...
In my experience, having prominent Democrats censure you on the Senate floor is the equivalent of 50 book signings. Or being put on the cover of The New York Times magazine 20 years ago when people still read The New York Times magazine. They should rename Senate censure resolutions "Harry Reid's Book Club."
Liberals are hopping mad because Rush Limbaugh referred to phony soldiers as "phony soldiers." They claim he was accusing all Democrats in the military of being "phony."
True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats.
If we are to believe the self-descriptions of callers to talk radio and the typical soldier interviewed on MSNBC, the military is fairly bristling with Moveon.org types.
The reality is quite the opposite. While liberals have managed to worm themselves into every important institution in America, from the public schools to the CIA to charitable foundations, they are shamefully absent from the military.
As noted in that great book that came out this week, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans":
"According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."
So there aren't a lot of anti-war military types for the media to turn into this month's "It Girl." (If conservatives ran the media, there would be a constant stream of government employees admitting to sloth and incompetence, welfare recipients admitting to being welfare cheats and public schoolteachers who support school vouchers.) Sometimes liberals get desperate and have to concoct Tawana Brawley veterans.
In addition to famous fake soldiers promoted by the anti-war crowd, like Jesse MacBeth and "Winter Soldier" Al Hubbard, even liberals with actual military experience are constantly being caught in the middle of some liberal hoax.
Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later," he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months. Although to his credit, Gore did not put in for a Purple Heart for the carpal tunnel syndrome he got from all that typing.
Speaking of which, John Kerry claimed to be a valiant, Purple Heart-deserving Vietnam veteran, who spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia -- until he ran for president and more than 280 Swift Boat Veterans called him a liar. We've been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his "Meet the Press" pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.
Then there was Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the phony National Guard documents; Scott Thomas Beauchamp, The New Republic's fantasist anti-war "Baghdad Diarist"; and Max Cleland, whose injuries were repeatedly and falsely described as a result of enemy fire.
Liberals will even turn a war hero like Pat Tillman into an anti-war cause celebre posthumously -- so he can't disagree. Tillman died in a friendly fire incident that occurred -- unlike Max Cleland's accident -- during actual combat with the enemy.
Because they are screaming, hysterical women, liberals treat friendly fire like a drunk driving accident. But friendly fire has been a part of war from time immemorial.
Liberals have an insane, litigious view of the military: There's been an accident in warfare, let's sue! It's as mad as the line from "Dr. Strangelove": "Gentlemen! No fighting in the War Room!" Golly jeepers, accidents can't happen in a war!
Contrary to the insinuations of his family, we don't know what Pat Tillman would say about the war he volunteered for, but we do know that he was a patriot until death. And we know what other patriots have said about friendly fire during a war.
In his book Faith of My Fathers, John McCain describes how demoralized American prisoners of war in Vietnam were when they didn't hear any bombing for years. Finally, after a long bombing halt, Nixon renewed aerial bombing of North Vietnam in December 1972.
Our bombers couldn't know with precision where the enemy was holding (and torturing) our troops. McCain and the rest of those POWs could easily have been hit and killed by an American bomb.
But the POWs weren't denouncing the U.S. military for risking their lives with "friendly fire." They weren't crying Mommy, investigate this! Get me a trial lawyer! If their camp had been hit by American bombs, it would have been as the POWs were shouting: "God bless President Nixon!"
That's from their own mouths; that's what's in their hearts. Friendly fire -- to a nation that hasn't lost its wits -- is part of waging war.
If Democrats don't want to hear about "phony soldiers," maybe they should stop trying to edify us with these bathos-laden hoaxes.
From IMAO:
You've probably heard of the phony controversy of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment in which he was talking about people falsely pretending to be soldiers to speak against the war, i.e., not real soldiers but phony ones. Some reason, anti-war vets like Jon Soltz (last seen shouting down a man in uniform speaking in favor of his mission) assumed Rush was talking about him, which is somewhat psychologically revealing. It's like how no one actually questions John Kerry's patriotism but he kept assuming everyone was.
Anyway, I find it interesting that with there being millions of men and women in both active and reserves, liberals still feel the need to use made up soldiers like Jesse Macbeth to find enough vets to speak out against the Iraq war. I think that's because most real Americans don't want to have anything to do with the Kwazy Kos Krowd. Also, with all their blatant disdain for the troops, it seems you'd have to be a bit self-loathing to be both in the military and associated with those freaks.
From the Wall Street Journal. The emphasis at the bottom is mine:
In recent weeks we've seen how the MoveOn.org Democrats have aped the tactics of Joe McCarthy, including character assassination of military officials and childish wordplay on people's names ("Senator Half Bright"; "General Betray Us"). Fox News reports on the latest effort to imitate old Tailgunner Joe:
The owner of the company that airs Rush Limbaugh's show has come to his defense, telling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that while he isn't certain to whom Limbaugh was referring when he used the term "phony soldiers," the radio talk show host has a long history of supporting U.S. troops.
Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent company of Limbaugh's broadcast, on Tuesday responded to a letter signed by 41 Democrats that called on the network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Limbaugh "that call into question" the service and sacrifice of troops who oppose the war in Iraq.
As National Review's Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about "phony soldiers," he was referring to phony soldiers--that is, to men like Jesse Macbeth, an "antiwar" activist who claimed to have served in Iraq, received a Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when in fact the Army discharged him before he even completed basic training.
If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to do so. But when they try to interfere with Limbaugh's livelihood, that amounts to an effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.
The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter, which means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe Lieberman). Will they speak out against their colleagues' intimidation efforts? And where are the Republicans in all this? With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall to hate groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs politicians of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.
OK, riddle me this: Why is Hillary Clinton the leading Democratic candidate? As far as I can tell, few people come out in support of her. The progressives dislike her, conservative Democrats dislike her.
Here's a rather scathing article in The Nation. The Nation is way liberal.
Informative, funny as hell, and explains politics, Rush, and trashmen....
http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=2417
Isn't it disturbing that Congress actually enters resolutions into the record condemning MoveOn and Limbaugh?
Forget the content of what either said, isn't Congress condemning free speech?
Food for thought....
I believed this was bullshit about his supposedly demeaning the military. It appears likely I was right.
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/09/rush-limbaugh-phony-soldiers-flap-abc.html
Here's an excerpt from another post on the same blog:
Limbaugh's best point is this (Bill O'Reilly, take note): critics of conservative talk radio, especially in the mainstream media, never actually listen to these shows. They simply accept the Media Matters spin as gospel without actually tuning in. O'Reilly and Limbaugh cannot emphasize this point enough.Limbaugh was actually talking about the story of Jesse MacBeth, a fake "soldier" who never made it out of boot camp, yet was utilized by the anti- war left as a "veteran" who agreed with Iraq opponents.
Now, there are accusations all around that both sides have selectively edited audio and transcripts.
Considering MacBeth's conviction had just occurred and MacBeth was a loud, anti-war voice, I think if more likely it referred to him and the other handful of ex-military who have lied about their experiences in the Gulf to anti-war crowds and interviews.
Update:
Here's the transcript from MediaMatters:
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
Now, c'mon, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to surmise he was referring to, if not MacBeth, then any number of supposed Iraq war vets who have turned out to be phonies.
Yeah, the MM piece is a hit piece. Slimeballs.
Update 2:
So these guys are whom Rush was referring to. Yup, phony soldiers. Be fun to cross-reference this list with the speakers at antiwar demonstrations.
Man, is this good. Ken Burns deserves an Emmy. Michael Moore could learn a few things from this guy.
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/?campaign=war_blog_blogads
